Will there ever be another photographic movement?

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe the next photographic movement will be one led by non-human devices. I’ve seen an ad for the Arsenal Camera Assistant that is trained by looking at thousands of great images and will not let you take a bad one.

“The smart assistant is trained on thousands of great photos. It will determine and fine tune the optimal settings for the scene you're shooting.”

Arsenal 2 – Camera Body, Meet Camera Brain.

Smarter than ever, Arsenal 2 uses AI and computational photography to help you take amazing photos in any conditions.

witharsenal.com

(No affiliation and never will be.)

Without humans it is not a movement; it is a revolution.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Without humans it is not a movement; it is a revolution.

No, it's not a REvolution, revolutions are per definition born in the harts/brains of humans and is an act 'against or in favour of'.

That Arsenal 2 thing, as manny others alike, is an Evolution (innovation?), and I leave the assessment of it to everyone personally, and then, perhaps, a revolution could arise, or a mouvement?

A mouvement can be revolutionary (innovatory) or conservative...

To my very, very, very, personal insight: a mouvement should be somewhat avant-garde.

BTW, to me (again), a defining example of a Revolution will always be 1789.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe the next photographic movement will be one led by non-human devices. I’ve seen an ad for the Arsenal Camera Assistant that is trained by looking at thousands of great images and will not let you take a bad one.

“The smart assistant is trained on thousands of great photos. It will determine and fine tune the optimal settings for the scene you're shooting.”

Arsenal 2 – Camera Body, Meet Camera Brain.

Smarter than ever, Arsenal 2 uses AI and computational photography to help you take amazing photos in any conditions.

witharsenal.com

(No affiliation and never will be.)

I think many will lose interest in photography if AI creates better pictures than we can shoot. Photography may just fall back to personal snaps of family and friends. What's the point of getting up 4 am to go shoot the sunrise if someone else in their basement at noon, still in their pajamas, can do it better from their computer?

 

[koraks]

I think many will lose interest in photography if AI creates better pictures than we can shoot. Photography may just fall back to personal snaps of family and friends. What's the point of getting up 4 am to go shoot the sunrise if someone else in their basement at noon, still in their pajamas, can do it better from their computer?

Well, the possibility of making whatever image one's mind can conceive hasn't stopped photography from emerging or blossoming, so I'm not that pessimistic about the prospects of AI.

Now, if you ask what the artistic merit is of another 4 am sunrise photo....but I'll keep my lips sealed on that one.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, the possibility of making whatever image one's mind can conceive hasn't stopped photography from emerging or blossoming, so I'm not that pessimistic about the prospects of AI.

Now, if you ask what the artistic merit is of another 4 am sunrise photo....but I'll keep my lips sealed on that one.

Photography seems to be moving to those who are more artistic and computer-literate. Photography originally gave those people without artistic skills like painting, a chance to become creative and compete in a related visual art industry. As photography becomes more affected by Photoshop tools and those who are more creative using them, we again go back to cutting out those people who aren't capable of using those tools creatively. So photography will be for the computer literate and artists.

Add AI to the mix, and what's the point at all? Pressing a button on your computer at home is not photography. Call it computer art or whatever. But it's just going to turn off a lot of photographers except for shooting off-the-cuff personal shots of family and friends to pass around or making photo albums and books. NO one;s going to bother shooting photographic studies and views.

It reminds me of all the automatic conversion of photos twenty years when PS came out. It was used to make photos look like paintings, or sketches, that are in editing programs. After you've converted a couple of them, and impressed yourself, it gets boring and you stop doing it. That will happen with AI. After all, it's not your creativity but the creativity of the original programmers who made the AI app. Soon, no one's going to think you shot and made the photo. They'll just ask, "Is it Photoshopped AI? Which finger did you use to activate it?" What will you say?

 

[koraks]

Photography seems to be moving to those who are more artistic and computer-literate.

we again go back to cutting out those people who aren't capable of using those tools creatively.

This argument is not valid in my opinion, since it relies on the implicit assumption that new technology replaces the existing technology. While some technologies have indeed disappeared (e.g. Cibachrome), the vast majority of technological process in photography has proven at least so far to be additive: new possibilities have been added to the existing ones. As such, I don't agree that AI, or any other image-making technology, will exclude people from practicing a variant of photography that they feel more at ease with, or that they are better capable of.

After all, it's not your creativity but the creativity of the original programmers who made the AI app.

This is only true where the final image is somehow embedded in the technology itself. As such, you can't equate all AI to all AI, since there'll be differences. But for the vast majority of AI image-generation tools I've seen pop up over the past three decades (e.g. Bryce3D had its original release in 1994), user input in the form of creative decisions made during run-time (as opposed when programming the algorithm) has been crucial in determining the end result.

Coincidentally, I think Bryce is a neat example in particular because especially in its early days, I've seen a vast amount of imagery made with it that seemed to be inspired by landscape photography of dramatic canyon scenes. Despite this, it doesn't seem to have stopped professional and amateur photographers alike to position their tripods and selfie sticks at Horseshoe Bend. Moreover, while the present discussion on AI implies that all this is brand new, the technology of raytracing and the art produced with it has already been with us for decades.

Your argument is similar to stating that Van Gogh wasn't the creative mind behind his paintings, but rather the manufacturers of his brushes and paints. Surely, Van Gogh's art would have been very different if he had had only access to mineral pigments and a blowpipe like the people behind the stellar paintings in Lasceaux, but I have no doubt that the star of his artistry would have shone just as brightly despite of it. Feel free to extrapolate this line of reasoning towards today's and tomorrow's technologies.

No, I'm sorry, but your argumentation doesn't work for me. There are too many flaws in it that appear to stem from a particularly depressing flavor of technological pessimism more so than from careful observation and reasoning.

 

[BrianShaw]

Photography seems to be moving to those who are more artistic and computer-literate. Photography originally gave those people without artistic skills like painting, a chance to become creative and compete in a related visual art industry. As photography becomes more affected by Photoshop tools and those who are more creative using them, we again go back to cutting out those people who aren't capable of using those tools creatively. So photography will be for the computer literate and artists.

Add AI to the mix, and what's the point at all? Pressing a button on your computer at home is not photography. Call it computer art or whatever. But it's just going to turn off a lot of photographers except for shooting off-the-cuff personal shots of family and friends to pass around or making photo albums and books. NO one;s going to bother shooting photographic studies and views.

It reminds me of all the automatic conversion of photos twenty years when PS came out. It was used to make photos look like paintings, or sketches, that are in editing programs. After you've converted a couple of them, and impressed yourself, it gets boring and you stop doing it. That will happen with AI. After all, it's not your creativity but the creativity of the original programmers who made the AI app. Soon, no one's going to think you shot and made the photo. They'll just ask, "Is it Photoshopped AI? Which finger did you use to activate it?" What will you say?

This reflects my experience. A very reasonable assessment if one doesn’t extend it to an extreme that clearly wasn’t stated or implied.

Add to that the increases in film/processing cost and availability… even more folks either get squeezed out or can never get in.

And, yes, it’s depressing…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This argument is not valid in my opinion, since it relies on the implicit assumption that new technology replaces the existing technology. While some technologies have indeed disappeared (e.g. Cibachrome), the vast majority of technological process in photography has proven at least so far to be additive: new possibilities have been added to the existing ones. As such, I don't agree that AI, or any other image-making technology, will exclude people from practicing a variant of photography that they feel more at ease with, or that they are better capable of.



This is only true where the final image is somehow embedded in the technology itself. As such, you can't equate all AI to all AI, since there'll be differences. But for the vast majority of AI image-generation tools I've seen pop up over the past three decades (e.g. Bryce3D had its original release in 1994), user input in the form of creative decisions made during run-time (as opposed when programming the algorithm) has been crucial in determining the end result.

Coincidentally, I think Bryce is a neat example in particular because especially in its early days, I've seen a vast amount of imagery made with it that seemed to be inspired by landscape photography of dramatic canyon scenes. Despite this, it doesn't seem to have stopped professional and amateur photographers alike to position their tripods and selfie sticks at Horseshoe Bend. Moreover, while the present discussion on AI implies that all this is brand new, the technology of raytracing and the art produced with it has already been with us for decades.

Your argument is similar to stating that Van Gogh wasn't the creative mind behind his paintings, but rather the manufacturers of his brushes and paints. Surely, Van Gogh's art would have been very different if he had had only access to mineral pigments and a blowpipe like the people behind the stellar paintings in Lasceaux, but I have no doubt that the star of his artistry would have shone just as brightly despite of it. Feel free to extrapolate this line of reasoning towards today's and tomorrow's technologies.

No, I'm sorry, but your argumentation doesn't work for me. There are too many flaws in it that appear to stem from a particularly depressing flavor of technological pessimism more so than from careful observation and reasoning.

VanGogh's modern brushes and paints wouldn't help me. I can't draw. Likewise, my inability to use the "brushes" of Photoshop, AI, and other tools requiring artistic talent to draw, limits my photographic talents. So just like with painters, if you can't draw, you can't paint.

Photography gave the rest a chance to compete and get involved with artistic results. Now, we again are being put on the back burner because of photo tools requiring artistic talent. AI will make the whole photographic process a waste of time if you don't even need a camera and only need a computer. Even true artists will feel superseded. You realize that the next step is for AI to actually paint on canvas. Who needs VanGogh? Then we all can commiserate together and take up horse breeding.

Actually, this might encourage more film photography, I'll give you that. As long as the save the earth people don't forbid chemicals as they forbid plastic straws, it might turn out OK.

 

[Pieter12]

VanGogh's modern brushes and paints wouldn't help me. I can't draw. Likewise, my inability to use the "brushes" of Photoshop, AI, and other tools requiring artistic talent to draw, limits my photographic talents. So just like with painters, if you can't draw, you can't paint.

Photography gave the rest a chance to compete and get involved with artistic results. Now, we again are being put on the back burner because of photo tools requiring artistic talent. AI will make the whole photographic process a waste of time if you don't even need a camera and only need a computer. Even true artists will feel superseded. You realize that the next step is for AI to actually paint on canvas. Who needs VanGogh? Then we all can commiserate together and take up horse breeding.

Actually, this might encourage more film photography, I'll give you that. As long as the save the earth people don't forbid chemicals as they forbid plastic straws, it might turn out OK.

Fully automated photography, especially digital and smart phones and now the current trend of lo-fi digital cameras further democratize photography. No talent or skills necessary. You should be pleased.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Fully automated photography, especially digital and smart phones and now the current trend of lo-fi digital cameras further democratize photography. No talent or skills necessary. You should be pleased.

AI eliminates photography. You don't need a camera. Just press the button on your computer.

 

[Pieter12]

AI eliminates photography. You don't need a camera. Just press the button on your computer.

It doesn’t eliminate photography. It uses elements of images scoured from the internet. Somebody had to take them. Maybe even you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It doesn’t eliminate photography. It uses elements of images scoured from the internet. Somebody had to take them. Maybe even you.

So AI will scour the web combining the best of the best so any idiot who still can't tie his shoelaces will be able to produce magnificent pictures in their basements better than the originals while the rest of us photographers will be checking the weather to see if it's going to rain.

 

[Pieter12]

So AI will scour the web combining the best of the best so any idiot who still can't tie his shoelaces will be able to produce magnificent pictures in their basements better than the originals while the rest of us photographers will be checking the weather to see if it's going to rain.

Have you seen some of the AI images? A lot of it is crap, just like traditional photography.

 

[koraks]

You realize that the next step is for AI to actually paint on canvas.

You're lagging behind, my man
AI image generation is there, and has been for some time.
Museums have copies made of highly valued paintings with '2.5D' technology, which is layered inkjet printing that builds the same texture as in the original.
Combine the two, you've got something very, very closely resembling to a genuine oil painting, with no human hands involved.

AI eliminates photography.

It won't

 

[VinceInMT]

VanGogh's modern brushes and paints wouldn't help me. I can't draw. Likewise, my inability to use the "brushes" of Photoshop, AI, and other tools requiring artistic talent to draw, limits my photographic talents. So just like with painters, if you can't draw, you can't paint.

Photography gave the rest a chance to compete and get involved with artistic results. Now, we again are being put on the back burner because of photo tools requiring artistic talent. AI will make the whole photographic process a waste of time if you don't even need a camera and only need a computer. Even true artists will feel superseded. You realize that the next step is for AI to actually paint on canvas. Who needs VanGogh? Then we all can commiserate together and take up horse breeding.

Actually, this might encourage more film photography, I'll give you that. As long as the save the earth people don't forbid chemicals as they forbid plastic straws, it might turn out OK.

Two reactions to your comment. First, you can draw and paint. It’s a learned skill just like photography. And I do not mean this as a personal critique in anyway but bringing this up as a teacher, you might look into something in the psychology of learning called “mindset,” specifically the work of Carol Dweck. This provides a quick overview: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-mindset-2795025

Second, you say “gave the rest a chance to compete.” Really? This is a competitive activity/event? What are the rules of the competition? What are the prizes?

 

[Pieter12]

Abract art might end up being the winner, here. Getting the right keywords for AI to search and use, along with some of the subtleties of color interaction that are present in much of abstract art, could be a challenge for AI to produce anything approaching the real thing. Of course, if you just want to reproduce an existing work of art, you can give much more specific instructions for AI to go on.

For realistic work, I was surprised by an AI generated image of Kevin McCarthy that was on the Late Show the other night. On the TV screen, it did look a lot like someone had painted it.

 

[VinceInMT]

So AI will scour the web combining the best of the best so any idiot who still can't tie his shoelaces will be able to produce magnificent pictures in their basements better than the originals while the rest of us photographers will be checking the weather to see if it's going to rain.

Yes, and the work, since it is based on existing “great” images, will be derivative. There will be plenty of mountains, sunsets, etc.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, and the work, since it is based on existing “great” images, will be derivative. There will be plenty of mountains, sunsets, etc.

Anyone for dogs playing poker?

 

[VinceInMT]

Anyone for dogs playing poker?

But it looks good on the wall next to my Elvis on black velvet.

 

[jtk]

I think many will lose interest in photography if AI creates better pictures than we can shoot. Photography may just fall back to personal snaps of family and friends. What's the point of getting up 4 am to go shoot the sunrise if someone else in their basement at noon, still in their pajamas, can do it better from their computer?

Hardly anybody has "interest in photography." Proof is everywhere.