Midjourney?

Do we consider the person that commissioned the artwork, whatever medium it may be, as an artist as well?

That is the crux of the matter. Because prompts are basically instructions for an AI.

dutchsteammachine said:

Do we consider the person that commissioned the artwork, whatever medium it may be, as an artist as well?

That is the crux of the matter. Because prompts are basically instructions for an AI.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of Sol Lewitt this morning, who did exactly that (create prompts for others) and was considered an artist.

In a way, that's what a film director does too...

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography. I've heard lots of 2-penny explanations and a lot of defensive harrumph and tut-tutting, often accompanied by half-informed (or less) technical jargon or even less-baked philosophical arguments about Truth etc.

It's astonishing and more than a little sad to hear people in a panic, decrying the sudden realization that their work is without value. Is it really so feeble as that?

bjorke said:

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography. I've heard lots of 2-penny explanations and a lot of defensive harrumph and tut-tutting, often accompanied by half-informed (or less) technical jargon or even less-baked philosophical arguments about Truth etc.

It's astonishing and more than a little sad to hear people in a panic, decrying the sudden realization that their work is without value. Is it really so feeble as that?

Click to expand...

The problem with AI photo art work is, that it keeps winning in photo contests. Not sure, whether winning the Colorado state fair would count as "useful critique". If that's not good enough, how about winning the "Sony World Photography Awards" handed out by the "World Photography Organization" ?

BTW I did like the "Théâtre D’opéra Spatial" image, whereas I am not yet sure, what art critics saw in "The Electrician".

bjorke said:

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography. ...

Click to expand...

Meh, why bother to write one? Just massage your statement above into a ChatGPT prompt and iterate until satisfied.

bjorke said:

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography.

Click to expand...

So, FWIW, the part that troubles me is that it creates simulacra of people in the world, but viewers seem incapable of distinguishing the images for what they are, even when told that the images are not photographs of real people. For example, this is a post on IG:


The poster explains that it is an AI-generated image but that he credits himself because he retouched the AI product to make it look real. Viewers went nuts for it, and a lot of people were complimenting him for a great portrait. But it's not a portrait. There is no person in it. Only a computer-generated facsimile of a person.

It's a bit like Magritte: Ceçi n'est pas une pipe. The image is fine for what it is. But I find it troubling that viewers seem incapable of seeing it for what it is, and confusing it with a portrait of a person.

O brave new world, that has such people in it.

bjorke said:

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography.

Click to expand...

Have you written one? I'm ready to read it fwiw.

I find midjourny useless and got big hopes for Adobe Firefly

Speaking of Instagram, here's more, and it's disturbing.

Amnesty International is now using fake imagery to draw attention to real problems. They have about a million followers. The response to their post was unanimously negative with lots of all caps and WTFs, but three days later the post is still there.

BradS said:

Meh, why bother to write one? Just massage your statement above into a ChatGPT prompt and iterate until satisfied.

Click to expand...

So, thinking this was an interesting idea, here's what chatGPT has to say. My prompt:
write a 3-paragraph critique of AI-generated imagery as it relates to creative photography

What I got without any adjustment or "massaging":

____________AI-generated reply_____________
AI-generated imagery has certainly made its mark in the realm of creative photography. While some photographers and artists have found innovative ways to incorporate AI-generated elements into their work, there is a growing concern that the use of AI in photography may be reducing the creative process to a set of algorithms and templates. In some cases, it may even be replacing the photographer's unique perspective and vision with a machine-generated approximation.
One of the most significant criticisms of AI-generated imagery in photography is that it can lead to homogenization of creative expression. With AI-assisted tools readily available, it becomes easier to create images that conform to established conventions and trends, rather than pushing the boundaries of what is possible. While this may lead to aesthetically pleasing images, it can also stifle individuality and limit the potential for artistic exploration.
Another issue is the question of authorship. With AI-generated imagery, it may be challenging to determine who is ultimately responsible for the final product. While some may argue that the use of AI tools is simply an extension of the photographer's creative process, others maintain that the algorithmic nature of AI-generated imagery raises questions about artistic authenticity and originality.
In conclusion, while AI-generated imagery has certainly opened up new possibilities in creative photography, it is important to be aware of its potential drawbacks. As with any tool or technology, it is essential to use AI-generated imagery thoughtfully and purposefully, with a clear understanding of its impact on the creative process and the final product. Ultimately, the decision to incorporate AI into creative photography should be a conscious and deliberate one, made with an eye towards preserving the uniqueness and individuality of the artistic vision.
______________AI text ends____________

AI used to make "photographs" is here to stay. Each of us can choose how to deal with it.

bjorke said:

I haven't yet heard a useful critique of AI-assisted imagery as it relates to photography. I've heard lots of 2-penny explanations and a lot of defensive harrumph and tut-tutting, often accompanied by half-informed (or less) technical jargon or even less-baked philosophical arguments about Truth etc.

It's astonishing and more than a little sad to hear people in a panic, decrying the sudden realization that their work is without value. Is it really so feeble as that?

Click to expand...

I am not as concerned about it in regards to photography as I am other areas, but I mentioned that in previous posts. I have been putting out good work for a long time, if it all crumbled tomorrow I would not go off on some depression laden tirade, just be thankful and move on.

But it is not going to crumble because I have always had a keen entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to the business and creative end of this craft. Things like AI are exactly why I built a darkroom, I pretty much saw it coming when I started using digital in 1994 and the use of photoshop became a gremlin in terms of provenance.

So you won't get a critique of AI imagery from me because I have much better things to do with my time than view that computer generated crap. I personally want no part of it and that goes for viewing it too.

AI seems to be taking hold in many areas, including photography. I don’t feel threatened by its impact on photography. Do you? If so, why?

I went to the Venice Biennale in July and one of the exhibits featured an explication of life-sized sex dolls. This included a wooden plug and a mould to cast them in silicone, as well as a video of a man preparing a used, disheveled doll for the next customer. According to the text, the dolls will soon replace live prostitutes and the roll of the madam will be reduced to doll rentals.

Arthurwg said:

…. According to the text, the dolls will soon replace live prostitutes and the roll of the madam will be reduced to doll rentals.

Click to expand...

I understand that an advantage of robots taking over service jobs is that they don’t require a tip.

VinceInMT said:

AI seems to be taking hold in many areas, including photography. I don’t feel threatened by its impact on photography. Do you? If so, why?

Click to expand...

No, but then again I’m not a professional photographer trying to capture breaking news in Columbia.

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Arthurwg said:

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Click to expand...

But do you feel fine?

“My hope is that the role of the documentarian becomes not only more necessary but more influential. That anything AI is clearly marked in the metadata as being so, and that things like the analog camera and film perhaps remain our least advanced but most trusted tools.”

Nat Geo photog and former Magnum photog Michael Christopher Brown in this otherwise disturbing article:

I used the prompt "photrio reacting to midjourney"

Ai Print said:

“My hope is that the role of the documentarian becomes not only more necessary but more influential. That anything AI is clearly marked in the metadata as being so, and that things like the analog camera and film perhaps remain our least advanced but most trusted tools.”

Nat Geo photog and former Magnum photog Michael Christopher Brown in this otherwise disturbing article:

How AI Imagery is Shaking Photojournalism — Blind Magazine

In this Op-ed, independent photography director Amber Terranova discusses one of the most controversial AI imagery projects in recent weeks.

www.blind-magazine.com

Click to expand...

The author of that article is in desperate need of an editor. That was painful to read.

As for the photographer, it’s interesting to hear him say how it was impossible for him to make images of Cubans planning and escaping in their boats, while photographers have been showing exactly that for decades and the resulting images are so much more compelling than the fantasy nonsense he’s put together in this project. What a mess.

warden said:

The author of that article is in desperate need of an editor. That was painful to read.

As for the photographer, it’s interesting to hear him say how it was impossible for him to make images of Cubans planning and escaping in their boats, while photographers have been showing exactly that for decades and the resulting images are so much more compelling than the fantasy nonsense he’s put together in this project. What a mess.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the pix are fantasy, but that's what was in the papers before reliable photogravure, and what has remained in the paper for many other illustrations: illustrations. They don't tell you anything outside the text, probably nothing you didn't already know, but that might get you to spend a penny or click a link. I'm comfortable with that.

bjorke said:

Perhaps the pix are fantasy, but that's what was in the papers before reliable photogravure, and what has remained in the paper for many other illustrations: illustrations. They don't tell you anything outside the text, probably nothing you didn't already know, but that might get you to spend a penny or click a link. I'm comfortable with that.

Click to expand...

I’m not. The thing about illustrations in the news like the one you shared is that we all know they are illustrations. The differences between illustrations and photography and finally AI are significant in their ability to deceive. The Associated Press and others already have a code of ethics for photographers for good reason, and images like those in the Cuba project would run afoul of those practices. AI should not be used by news organizations or be confused with actual photojournalism.

I’m more comfortable with AI imagery when it is art rather than pretend photojournalism. There are many AI codes of ethics being developed now but the tech is new enough that there is not yet a common standard, as far as I can tell with a little googling.

"Don't show what it looks like, show what it feels like." - Dave Harvey

The Cuba project is explicitly called out as an experiment -- I don't think you can assert that it violates AP criteria, it doesn't.

And it's not as if this sort of pearl-clutching is entirely new: consider Jonas Bendiksen's Book of Veles (proud to own an autographed copy, or what looks like one)