How will AI affect "making" versus "taking" photo's?

Tōrō

H
Tōrō

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Signs & fragments

A
Signs & fragments

  • 4
  • 0
  • 53
Summer corn, summer storm

D
Summer corn, summer storm

  • 2
  • 2
  • 54
Horizon, summer rain

D
Horizon, summer rain

  • 0
  • 0
  • 51

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,820
Messages
2,781,333
Members
99,716
Latest member
Thomas_2104
Recent bookmarks
0

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,424
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
In other words, I am stating that we have a promising explanation for ALL human behavior, which will reshape (started already) all branches of science.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Potatoes can be creative and artful too :smile:

AI is a tool. Artists often employ tools.

Sometimes artists employ potatoes as tools. Ruth Asawa did so brilliantly. 😉

 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Perhaps not yet, but eventually it very well might be. I’m not aware of any evidence the brain is more than a computational device (although there are plenty of conjectures). It’s exceedingly complex, but still a machine.

Also, Jackson Pollock could draw very well.

What distinguishes us is morality and knowing right from wrong. Would you want a soul-less machine deciding whether to go to war or execute another human based on some formula in its program? That's why machines can't be creative. They're formulaic. There is no room for heart.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
730
Location
Canada
Format
4x5 Format
I understand where you’re coming from but there is no evidence to suggest the brain is anything more than an extremely complex, nevertheless soul-less machine. Neuroscience is still in relative infancy when it comes to the brain at a macro level, so it will probably be a while, but the things you’re calling distinguishing characteristics are in all likelihood just a matter of complexity.
What distinguishes us is morality and knowing right from wrong. Would you want a soul-less machine deciding whether to go to war or execute another human based on some formula in its program? That's why machines can't be creative. They're formulaic. There is no room for heart.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I understand where you’re coming from but there is no evidence to suggest the brain is anything more than an extremely complex, nevertheless soul-less machine. Neuroscience is still in relative infancy when it comes to the brain at a macro level, so it will probably be a while, but the things you’re calling distinguishing characteristics are in all likelihood just a matter of complexity.

Even if you're right, and I disagree, machines can't have that kind of complexity. They're really Mr Potato Head.
 
OP
OP

Ron789

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Haarlem, The
Format
Multi Format
I find it interesting to see that the discussion triggered by my initial post has evolved towards the role of AI in "art" (photographic or other).
I consider many (if not most) professional photographers to be craftsmen rather than artists: product photography, fashion, food, etc. images, all for advertising, marketing and sales purposes.... Though some may bring such photography to a level that one might call "art", most produce fairly traditional images, responding to the demand and preferences of their clients. They often do that with great craftsmanship but the artistic content is typically very thin, if any at all. I think those photographers will face hard times since AI can respond to the demand and preferences of those customers faster, more flexibly and cost effectively than a human photographer can.... "making" photos.
I do see a future for family, portraiture, journalism, sports and documentary etc. photography, since this requires the photographer to be present and interact with the subject.... "taking" photos.
So, my opinion regarding my own question: many of those who "make" photos may be facing hard times; this who "take" photos will be less affected by AI.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
I find it interesting to see that the discussion triggered by my initial post has evolved towards the role of AI in "art" (photographic or other).
I consider many (if not most) professional photographers to be craftsmen rather than artists: product photography, fashion, food, etc. images, all for advertising, marketing and sales purposes.... Though some may bring such photography to a level that one might call "art", most produce fairly traditional images, responding to the demand and preferences of their clients. They often do that with great craftsmanship but the artistic content is typically very thin, if any at all. I think those photographers will face hard times since AI can respond to the demand and preferences of those customers faster, more flexibly and cost effectively than a human photographer can.... "making" photos.
I do see a future for family, portraiture, journalism, sports and documentary etc. photography, since this requires the photographer to be present and interact with the subject.... "taking" photos.
So, my opinion regarding my own question: many of those who "make" photos may be facing hard times; this who "take" photos will be less affected by AI.

I think photographers that offer headshots are already feeling pressure from AI.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,927
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think photographers that offer headshots are already feeling pressure from AI.

The photographers that work in advertising are the most vulnerable.
 

Sean

Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Messages
13,124
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
AI has been helpful in my overcoming the learning curve phase of many apps, which definitely includes "Capture One" image editor. It can be a real slog getting through the learning curve on these vast image editing applications. Every time I get stuck I ask chatgpt something like, "In Capture One what are a few ways to get rid of a blue shift in my image", and it will quickly spit out a 'more than one way to skin a cat' style answer with step by step. I pick the one that makes the most sense to me and that I'm more likely to remember. I'm starting to ask it less and less. So in the context of AI helping me photographically, this is a slight yes.
 

TomR55

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
192
Location
Southwest Florida
Format
35mm RF
In other words, I am stating that we have a promising explanation for ALL human behavior, which will reshape (started already) all branches of science.

Now, by a promising explanation of “ALL human behavior” I assume you mean a “scientific explanation.” Assume that this is true. Then “reshaping science” follows, and is a good thing because it fits within the modus operandi of science. I don’t know that the scientific method, which is reductionist at its core, or its products satisfies the “human” need for a meaningful existence. Perhaps this doubt underlies a lot of the discussion on this thread.

Scientism has been in and out of vogue for some time (over a century). In the early twentieth century, some believed that a meta-mathematics was just around the corner. Godel proved this impossible within the definitions, axioms and theorems of formal logic, which is one of the foundations of mathematics and, by extension, science. A core group of technocrats today believe that the application of science to social and political problems is the only way out of our current situation.

I am unconvinced … and lately concerned.

Again, I am not saying you’re wrong about a possible future for science. Rather I am suggesting that scientific explanations of all phenomena might not satisfy the human need for “something more.” Maybe a “purpose or mystery" (the teleological) pursuit of these intangibles (even if proven to be products of some algorithm) are essential to human happiness—as fleeting as that might be.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,856
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I don’t know that the scientific method, which is reductionist at its core, or its products satisfies the “human” need for a meaningful existence.
Nor this supposed unraveling of the richness and mystery of the human experience through scientific methods something that I've seen many (or, come to think of it, any) person working within the scientific arena seriously purports or even believes. It seems to be mostly a phenomenon attribute to science by some, rather than an ambition that is noticeably existent within the scientific arena.

On a related note, I sometimes like to think that we may be capable of modeling fairly complex systems (biological, social, ecological etc.), but that the truly representative model will turn out to be of equal complexity to the reality we've tried to model, resulting in the net gain of our actual understanding being more or less zero. Replication without understanding - the intellectual parallel to the cycle of life that has been around or 3.5 billion years on this planet. We're gaining on you, God/Spaghetti Monster/whomever!
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
730
Location
Canada
Format
4x5 Format
Even if you're right, and I disagree, machines can't have that kind of complexity. They're really Mr Potato Head.

That's a view. Some/many/most (?) humans seem to have some desire to think they are beyond Mr. Potato Head at some "fundamental" level etc. Whatever works.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom