Very soon, you will not be able to tell if an image was generated by AI. Either people will accept the images at face value or become skeptical about all imagery unless they make it themselves or witness it being made.AI images can struggle all they want. In fact I will not even pretend to care if they drown.
Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.The market will dictate the value of Ai. If people prefer to watch Ai generated art of dead performers or artists instead of something new then it will succeed.
You won't need a camera, and I believe you can create an AI image in the style of either of those photographers right now as there is so much of their work online.There will be a HCB or a AA app soon, you can take a photo and the app will instantly make it look like one of the dead photographers took and you can claim it as your own cause you used a camera in the process.
…To be photographic art, you need a camera that records an image of an instant in time.
Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.
The biggest issue with AI that I harp on all the time is the ability to create believable images of events or situations that never occurred with people who do exist. Like maybe you beheading your neighbor.
This is spot on.
Anybody using Lightroom today is, to some point, using AI. Adobe sent a newsletter this morning regarding their new AI features:
New in Creative Cloud.
Create faster with new AI features in Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and Lightroom, powered by Adobe Sensei. Collaborate with your team with Share for Review in Photoshop and Illustrator. And make standout content quickly with Adobe Express.
See full link here.
The question will be at which point an artistic creation using AI actually becomes a product of AI. It won't be an easy one to answer.
The question is when will AI make photography superfluous?
Not necessarily. Photograms do not require a camera and time lapse photos capture more than an instant.
The idea is that the image comes from a real-life experience, not something created in a computer like AI.
Never. There will always be people who prefer to use whatever photographic technique or technology for image-making purposes. Just like photography not having made painting superfluous. It's funny the same question keeps being asked over and over again, as if the answer is ever going to change.
A computer is real, too. What happens inside a computer, is also real. How we related to out through our minds, is very real - or at least it does feel that way. It's no less real than any other human experience. What you're doing here is drawing an arbitrary line, while implying it's not arbitrary. It's one of those funny things that keeps happening in discussions like these, and then it splits the responders into one group who understands this, and another who feels the first bunch are just plain crazy/stupid
Interestingly, it may be the average non photographer who will use cameras traditionally.
Will AI spoil their enthusiasm to go out to shoot real stuff and compete with AI's eventual superior results?
AI may be real in the same way that a painting of oil on canvas is real. But neither is recording real life as it happened. Both come from someone's mind.
To an extent, but there's no doubt in my mind that there will just as well be artists who continue to use photography. After all, we still have artist painters today. And amateur enthusiast painters. And yes, also kindergarten children who paint!
Partly yes, but partly, no. As you know, merely the act of going out, observing, being immersed in an environment and then picking something to photograph is (or can be) a very pleasant experience. Some people will prefer their comfy chair and box of Pringles close at hand, but not everybody.
Yes, to an extent, and in different ways - as everything is different if you observe it closely. But the fact that the human mind somehow interacts with the imaging technology is for me sufficient to realize that all of these technologies can and will be exploited (and sometimes, successfully) for artistic purposes. That's why I'm so adamant that I believe it doesn't make sense to exclude AI from the realm of art a priori. It just doesn't make sense. It's like standing on the beach at low tide, arguing that this time, there's not going to be a high tide anymore. That tends to work quite well until your shoes get really wet.
Yes, I think it'll be something like that, indeed. Although personally I'm more optimistic about how well photography will stand the test of AI. I think there's going to be the experienced need/desire to photograph in particular social settings. AI is a poor substitute for this, especially if the consumers of the imagery are part of the social settings that were documented (photographed) or simulated (AI).
Very soon, you will not be able to tell if an image was generated by AI. Either people will accept the images at face value or become skeptical about all imagery unless they make it themselves or witness it being made.
Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.
The biggest issue with AI that I harp on all the time is the ability to create believable images of events or situations that never occurred with people who do exist. Like maybe you beheading your neighbor.
I had a relative who did not like to take a camera along while traveling. I don't think she even owned one or cared to use one. She would buy postcards of the places the visited and put them in an album and was quite content that way--the photos were better than she would ever take anyway. Today, people use AI to eliminate unwanted background objects or other people from their photos and find them more pleasing and how they would like to remember and share the experience. So, straight-out-of the camera, personal photos are not necessarily what everyone wants.
So far the only dead musician who continues to release new albums is Jimmi Hendrix, bless him. When was the last time Janis Joplin released a new album? Elvis Presley? The Big Bopper? Nothing from the rest of them.
Most people associate photography with cameras. In any case a photogram is using photographic materials even if a camera is not being used. The idea is that the image comes from a real-life experience, not something created in a computer like AI. Even time lapse photos are shooting real life, just a series of captures.
The question is when will AI make photography superfluous?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?