Photography AI as art

[AERO]

How is that any different from manipulation photos by analog means? Intention is more important than whether an image has been manipulatedM

As I mentioned in an earlier posr...
."..its my opinion..you have yours what ever it is......"

 

[koraks]

As I mentioned in an earlier posr...
."..its my opinion..you have yours what ever it is......"

It's clear that you're expressing an opinion. @Pieter12's question seems legitimate to me as a means to explore whatever rationales there are underlying this opinion. Assuming there's any kind of reasoning behind it, of course. Maybe it's just axiomatic/dogmatic. That's fine, but that would result in the inevitable conclusion that there's nothing to discuss beyond stating your opinion (which you have done) and then leaving it at that.

 

[AERO]

I had every intention of leaving it as it was....but..................

 

[koraks]

but..................

but what?

 

[AERO]

Use your imagination

 

[koraks]

Assume I have none and explain what you mean.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

How about video?

I have no problem accepting this as a psychedelic art, representing challenging altered states of consciousness very well:

 

[AERO]

Assume I have none and explain what you mean.

Are you using youmoderstors hat to start an argument.?...... Sorry...thats my last word on here. Im off where people dont start arguments because others dont agree with them....

Out.........................

 

[koraks]

I'm trying to find out if you're willing to discuss your reasoning behind the 'fakery' comment you posited earlier. None of your subsequent posts have given any insight into this, even though it's entirely fair for people to be interested in how you see your seemingly dogmatic position in relation to other techniques of image-making or -manipulation that are generally well-accepted even by those with rather conservative views on this matter. If you're not willing to discuss this, of course, feel free to set the matter aside, in which case it indeed doesn't make much sense to continue to participate in the discussion.

 

[Sean]

When it comes to AI, what you see now is the worst it will ever be. This will not stop until it's limitless in capability. Pretty much everything will be affected and we have little way to determine what such an outcome means for us. Maybe an AI can advise.

 

[koraks]

How about video?

Absolutely brilliant! And great illustration of how this technology opens up new avenues for human expression.

 

[Sean]

Absolutely brilliant! And great illustration of how this technology opens up new avenues for human expression.

check these out: https://sora.com/explore/featured

 

[koraks]

check these out: https://sora.com/explore/featured

It's apparently not yet available where I live, but the sora.com homepage shows many examples of apparently AI-generated moving images ranging from pixelated artwork, to (lots of) quasi-realistic scenes and even an animated spin on Wood's 1930 American Gothic!

What's interesting IMO in the examples shown is not so much the technical prowess (how far this technology has come in such a short time!), but more so what people are using this for. And, frankly, the lack of true originality and imagination. The vast majority of the results appear to be variations on themes that have been around for a long time in established fields of cinematography and animation. What I like in particular in the examples posted by @Ivo Stunga, especially the jarring sequence in the first version, is the way it deviates from the any (often enjoyable or effective) clichés and explores as Ivo puts it 'altered states of consciousness' that were hitherto virtually impossible (or at least exceedingly laborious) to communicate from one individual to another.

Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, I think the examples Ivo posted demonstrate how AI enables new avenues of true originality - something which AI in popular parlance currently is very much not associated with. I think there's plenty of reason to break through the surface of whatever primary responses we may have and explore what's really going on, and what it means. Mind you, I understand the sentiment of 'fakery' and I also have concerns (although vaguely formulated so far) about how the training of AI models involves existing man-made and copyrighted material. At the same time, I realize that the knee-jerk reaction of dismissing it out of hand just because we haven't been confronted with sufficiently convincing examples yet, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to mention that such examples are pouring in at a pace that literally cannot be kept up with, so perhaps that aspect is only a temporary issue after all.

 

[Sean]

I tried it out, this video link will expire in 2days.



The prompt I used: "An albino peacock with feathers made out of firework sparklers"

I could see this thing in a few years generating entire films and TV series. I can't say I like where this is going but it seems well out of our hands. gnight!

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Exactly - used as an entity/tool on its own to bring about wild worlds and nightmares to tell another layer of the human story - I have absolutely zero problems with that.

Closer to the topic of photography:

 

[TJones]

Are you using youmoderstors hat to start an argument.?...... Sorry...thats my last word on here. Im off where people dont start arguments because others dont agree with them....

Out.........................

It’s a discussion forum, not a rest stop for seagulls. Even people who might agree with you would probably be curious about your reasoning (if there is any, which appears less likely with every reply).

 

[Chuck_P]

It's quite simple to me

...................but should photographic images produced by AI be considered in the same way? I don't think they should.

I'll chime in with an emphatic....NO! I could elaborate further but it would simply invite more unnecessary frog-hair splitting type nuance......I'm not any good at that anyway.

 

[bjorke]

I don't mention it much here, but most of my career has been about making pictures with computer tools, where the implicit goal has always been to create images that are essentially interchangeable with photography. This is since the early 1980's. In those days you needed millions of dollars in capital expenditure (my first "big iron": a $16M Cray), lots of PhDs with expertise in radiative light transport, paints, fabrics, etc, and a crew of modelers and art consultants. And it worked.

What seems most-often to alarm people about the newest tools is not that they are effective but that any unwashed kid can do it. It deflates the technical value of learning about lens diffraction effects or the differences between Rodinal and HC-110, of using a particular kind of brush or tripod. These difficult skills and this knowledge was necessary once, and... less so today.

But is that the knowledge that is really essential for making images with lasting depth and meaning? Or is there just desperation borne of a realization that the technology is ever-changeable, has always been changeable, and not The Real Game?

In the 19th century there were glass-plate photographers who decried George Eastman's business: just anyone could go out and make a photo. Even a girl could do it, as the Kodak ads claimed.

Today anyone with an online account can make at least one picture that looks a lot like a photograph. Instead of grousing about Those People, photographers should be looking hard at their own practices. If you see these new tools as opportunities, enjoy! If you see them as the work of the devil, and want your photographs to retain and grow in value, what are the values and ideas you want to emphasize in YOUR OWN WORK? Those new tools aren't going away. What are the elements that make a photograph different from a simulation, what are those that make YOUR photographs more, less, or different from what a computer can do? Is it in the moment, the location, in your own soul?

Or do you just want to complain and Stop Those People from Doing That Thing?

Good luck with that.

 

[Arthurwg]

Regarding the Getty, the last time I visited the antiquities collection I noted that many of the sculptures were "reproductions" rather than originals. I guess their take on "authenticity" slipped years ago.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How about video?

I have no problem accepting this as a psychedelic art, representing challenging altered states of consciousness very well:

This all reminds me of overdoing HDR or using those painting tools in Photoshop to convert a photo to a oil painting or watercolor. After you play with it awhile, it gets boring and people lose interest in it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When it comes to AI, what you see now is the worst it will ever be. This will not stop until it's limitless in capability. Pretty much everything will be affected and we have little way to determine what such an outcome means for us. Maybe an AI can advise.

Photographers will lose interest in the hobby if they can stay home in their pajamas and get landscape shots better than getting out of bed and going somewheres.

 

[koraks]

Photographers will lose interest in the hobby if they can stay home in their pajamas and get landscape shots better than getting out of bed and going somewheres.

So? They may still go out, leave the camera home and enjoy the landscape/sunset etc. as a live event. They may still do an Instagram reel on it of course.
If people enjoy shooting landscapes, they'll keep doing so - but they may become more aware of why they do so after having asked themselves the question whether it's worthwhile taking off the pajamas and going out into the mud, and realizing the answer is "yes".

 

[Arthurwg]

Thinking more about this, perhaps a good place to start would be the work of French sociologist, post-modern critic and photographer Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007). Among other things, he theorized that we have entered a world where the "distinction between the real and the simulated have become increasingly blurred," and that photography in general is "a pure simulation, detached from the real world and not a representation." Indeed, his pictures, which can be found on-line, look like a perfect precursor of AI.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Heck, Alan. A camera is just one more excuse to get outdoors. I'd head out myself today if it weren't raining so hard. So I'll default to the darkroom pretty soon instead. At least, that way, I can re-live some real outdoor experiences of past months. Living it is what counts; the picture is secondary, yet a means to communicate the essence of it. That doesn't necessarily mean just another predictable cute postcard style shot; it can imply some very deep metaphysical and perceptual connotations too, depending. The so-called "subject" is always filtered through our personal pysche. But some people are more eloquent at it than others. An Ai program feels nothing; what's the point?

 

[Pieter12]

Photographers will lose interest in the hobby if they can stay home in their pajamas and get landscape shots better than getting out of bed and going somewheres.

A painter can sit in bed in his pajamas and paint landscapes all day. No need for AI. On the same note, a photographer can create image after image with his camera without ever leaving the house. Witness Lee Friedlanders “Stems.“ So what?