"...almost realistic pictures."

[AlanKlein]

Ikea didn't kill furniture carpenters, the email didn't kill letters, the internet didn't kill phone calls.

How happy are you when you get a hand written letter from a friend, instead of an email? AI will change everything but the scarcity of real photography will make it even more valuable for some.

It may turn out that the everyday, banal snapshots taken by amateurs will become the most original, creative, and appreciative shots there are.

 

[smoke665]

It's good that it can be more realistic as the pictures it showed me looked like something from a video game.

I've always thought of photography as capturing photons. The photons can be captured chemically with emulsions or electronically with digital sensors, but they were all radiated or reflected from something.

Over my lifetime I've dabbled in many different mediums, photography, wood carving, turning, furniture construction, watercolor, pencil, pen & ink, prism color pencils, and oil. In all of them my goal was not to capture exactly , but to duplicate what my mind sees.

In photography the camera captures reflected light with all its imperfections (specularity, color, dynamic range limitations, etc). The human eye sees and the brain compensates, we see white, regardless of the temperture of the light, we see details beyond the DR capability of the camera to record, and we aren't limited to a static focus point. From my film days in the darkroom to digital at the computer, I edit to create an image from the mind'/eye view.

 

[smoke665]

It may turn out that the everyday, banal snapshots taken by amateurs will become the most original, creative, and appreciative shots there are.

My biggest complaint with the cell phone and all the filters, is it discourages individual creativity, lowers expectations on what's acceptable, and creates unrealistic low opinions on the value of those who strive to learn the craft.

 

[AlanKlein]

My biggest complaint with the cell phone and all the filters, is it discourages individual creativity, lowers expectations on what's acceptable, and creates unrealistic low opinions on the value of those who strive to learn the craft.

I don't think that's necessarily so. First off, photography has different purposes, not only art. It's mainly a form of communication and documentation like the written word.

I appreciate when my daughter emails me an iPhone photo or short video of my new grandson. I'm not looking for something artsy and she's not trying to create art, just share her love for her son with me. I can watch him grow up together with her. For the kid's first birthday, I created a slide video show for her 4K TV as well as a photo book for keepsake. I mixed art with documentation.

Cellphones have given us more ways to share photography and life with each other that weren't available years ago and duplicates many of the old methods, like slide projection, that's more documentary than art. Yet, I also set aside time strictly for film photography where I can apply my "art".

It's not either or. It's all good.

 

[smoke665]

don't think that's necessarily so.

Really? How about the industry decline Infographic: Smartphones Wipe Out Decades of Camera Industry Growth

We live in an instant gratification world, people are more interested in posting images on FB for likes, than long lasting memories. Are smartphones really to blame for declining camera sales? Or is it something else?

I've seen the decline in photography as a profession here. The cell phone has given a false opinion to customers as to the value of the craft. Consequently we have a lot Moms with cameras and no training booking cheap photoshoots. Their cell phone using customers don't know the difference. They get 25-30 digital images they can post on social media, so their equally naive friends can like.

 

[terri]

It may turn out that the everyday, banal snapshots taken by amateurs will become the most original, creative, and appreciative shots there are.

And if that ever happens, it's going to be a sorry state of affairs for originality, creativity, and art appreciation. I call that a race to the bottom!

Over my lifetime I've dabbled in many different mediums, photography, wood carving, turning, furniture construction, watercolor, pencil, pen & ink, prism color pencils, and oil. In all of them my goal was not to capture exactly , but to duplicate what my mind sees.

Oh yeah? See you in The Creative Corner.

Consequently we have a lot Moms with cameras and no training booking cheap photoshoots.

Gah! You had me until this comment. Please don't single out women with the trope of "moms with a camera," when there are untrained people of all stripes doing this same thing. You've likely come across a few yourself.

 

[jeffashman]

I don't think things have changed a whole lot. There was a time when photography was the purview of a small group, then companies like Kodak introduced photography to the masses, and we had the gamut of cameras from little cardboard boxes with a role of film in them that one could pop in the mail or drop off at WalMart, to instamatics, point and shoots, SLRs, all the way up to the high end Hasselblads. Cellphones are just a better instamatic for the masses, and are great for capturing memories, and even professional shots. The decline is more to the camera manufacturers shooting themselves in the foot with high priced equipment, and in the case of the US, the bogus authorized versus grey market camera equipment, as if somehow the EU and Asia/Oceania have lower standards for equipment build and reliability. AI can do everything except be genuine human created art/productions and once the novelty of AI wears off, the human produced art will be more sought after than art produced by a computer. AI won't be out there standing knee deep in the muck to get a shot of a muskrat family on a picnic. Just my opinion.

 

[AlanKlein]

Really? How about the industry decline Infographic: Smartphones Wipe Out Decades of Camera Industry Growth

We live in an instant gratification world, people are more interested in posting images on FB for likes, than long lasting memories. Are smartphones really to blame for declining camera sales? Or is it something else?

I've seen the decline in photography as a profession here. The cell phone has given a false opinion to customers as to the value of the craft. Consequently we have a lot Moms with cameras and no training booking cheap photoshoots. Their cell phone using customers don't know the difference. They get 25-30 digital images they can post on social media, so their equally naive friends can like.

Just because people bought more real cameras before doesn't mean they were into art. They just took their banal pictures with them and now that they have cell phone cameras, take the same banal pictures without having to buy a separate camera. Of course, now there are more banal pictures.

 

[AlanKlein]

And if that ever happens, it's going to be a sorry state of affairs for originality, creativity, and art appreciation. I call that a race to the bottom!



Oh yeah? See you in The Creative Corner.


Gah! You had me until this comment. Please don't single out women with the trope of "moms with a camera," when there are untrained people of all stripes doing this same thing. You've likely come across a few yourself.

My point is that compared to AI and filter generated photos, snapshots are more creative and original.

 

[limr]

I don't think things have changed a whole lot. There was a time when photography was the purview of a small group, then companies like Kodak introduced photography to the masses, and we had the gamut of cameras from little cardboard boxes with a role of film in them that one could pop in the mail or drop off at WalMart, to instamatics, point and shoots, SLRs, all the way up to the high end Hasselblads. Cellphones are just a better instamatic for the masses, and are great for capturing memories, and even professional shots. The decline is more to the camera manufacturers shooting themselves in the foot with high priced equipment, and in the case of the US, the bogus authorized versus grey market camera equipment, as if somehow the EU and Asia/Oceania have lower standards for equipment build and reliability. AI can do everything except be genuine human created art/productions and once the novelty of AI wears off, the human produced art will be more sought after than art produced by a computer. AI won't be out there standing knee deep in the muck to get a shot of a muskrat family on a picnic. Just my opinion.

I agree. The tool itself can't kill creativity that wasn't there to begin with. Most people, let's face it, are not particularly creative and are going to go for the easiest option to obtain their purpose. In this case, it's a snapshot using a cell phone instead of using a point and shoot. The difference is that we all now *constantly* have our cell phones with us, and taking a thousand pictures doesn't cost a thing, so people simply take more photos now and have more ways of sharing. So it's not that suddenly everyone is lacking creativity because of Instagram photos. It's just that now, we can very easily see all the crappy pictures people share. We don't have to sit through boring vacation slideshows anymore.

I'm reminded of what a friend of mine in Turkey said once: "We don't have a lot of handicapped people in Istanbul." I said, "My bet is that you have a LOT more than you think. You just can't *see* them because the sidewalks are narrow and uneven, curbs are about 2 feet tall, there are stairs instead of ramps, and no handicapped access to buildings."

There have always been PLENTY of crappy, unimaginative pictures. We just couldn't see them all like we can now.

The AI tool, I'm sure, can be used by creative people to create a new art form. It can also be used by creative but unethical people for very nefarious purposes, which is honestly my only real concern. The same tool is also probably going to be used in very banal ways for very banal results by the same people who have produced banal, filtered cell phone shots. For them, it's a shiny new tool, and as soon as they are distracted by the next shiny new tool, they'll move on. The creativity is in the person, not the tool.

 

[smoke665]

! You had me until this comment. Please don't single out women with the trope of "moms with a camera," when there are untrained people of all stripes doing this same thing. You've likely come across a few yourself

Didn't mean to make it sound sexist but it seems there are more women than men doing it here. Maybe it's because they have more opportunity but male or female would find it hard to pay the overhead and make a profit doing $30 sets.

 

[snowbear]

Didn't mean to make it sound sexist but it seems there are more women than men doing it here. Maybe it's because they have more opportunity but male or female would find it hard to pay the overhead and make a profit doing $30 sets.

Guys are just lazier than the women.

 

[AlanKlein]

I agree. The tool itself can't kill creativity that wasn't there to begin with. Most people, let's face it, are not particularly creative and are going to go for the easiest option to obtain their purpose. In this case, it's a snapshot using a cell phone instead of using a point and shoot. The difference is that we all now *constantly* have our cell phones with us, and taking a thousand pictures doesn't cost a thing, so people simply take more photos now and have more ways of sharing. So it's not that suddenly everyone is lacking creativity because of Instagram photos. It's just that now, we can very easily see all the crappy pictures people share. We don't have to sit through boring vacation slideshows anymore.

I'm reminded of what a friend of mine in Turkey said once: "We don't have a lot of handicapped people in Istanbul." I said, "My bet is that you have a LOT more than you think. You just can't *see* them because the sidewalks are narrow and uneven, curbs are about 2 feet tall, there are stairs instead of ramps, and no handicapped access to buildings."

There have always been PLENTY of crappy, unimaginative pictures. We just couldn't see them all like we can now.

The AI tool, I'm sure, can be used by creative people to create a new art form. It can also be used by creative but unethical people for very nefarious purposes, which is honestly my only real concern. The same tool is also probably going to be used in very banal ways for very banal results by the same people who have produced banal, filtered cell phone shots. For them, it's a shiny new tool, and as soon as they are distracted by the next shiny new tool, they'll move on. The creativity is in the person, not the tool.

My vacation slideshows are never boring. It's my relatives who are boring.

 

[Brooklyn Albertan]

"When was the last time you got a hand-written letter from a friend in the mail?"

So true. How I miss getting letters from my two childhood pen friends. Now, it's email. Letter writing was, itself, and art form. You know what else you don't see on the trains these days? People actually reading a book.

"The creativity is in the person, not the tool."

Spot-on. Good to see young people, like my kids, getting into analog, even $1 thrift store point and shoot cameras. Creativity can come from such simplicity, if a person is wired such. It can also be taught.

"I personally have less than zero use for this technology, but I also don't give a rat's ass about what others want to do with their time or their art."

AI ain't human. In the grander scheme of things, it's taking people's jobs away. We need more human creativity. More human interaction. More letter writing. More book reading. More time outdoors. Less time altering reality. And so on.

 

[smoke665]

Interesting new twist in the AI debate. Stock Brokers are now promoting the use of AI investing. Some of which are claiming up to an 87% accuracy for up to 3 days in advance.