Without humans it is not a movement; it is a revolution.
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.
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?
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.
we again go back to cutting out those people who aren't capable of using those tools creatively.
After all, it's not your creativity but the creativity of the original programmers who made the AI app.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
You realize that the next step is for AI to actually paint on canvas.
AI eliminates photography.
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.
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.
Anyone for dogs playing poker?
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?
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?