InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

First, you have three threads on this forum, and only the two in the nudes section have images.

I'm not disputing the amount of work that it takes to generate these views, nor am I saying there are not applications for this technology. In my mind, if you really wanted to impress people on this site, you would generate a complete scene with people skinned in clothes and put it on another section of this forum. While your creations are impressive in their near realism, they are not photographs. I would be more impressed by shadowbox images of art manikins taken with a real camera. A photo in my mind captures a scene in the real world. While a photo is an image, not every image is a photo.

Even with a patient model and photographer, there is a limit to how many times you can attempt to get a scene captured correctly. In your virtual world you can go to sleep one night, open up your program the next day and continue to tweak your scene. You have no models complaining that they're hungry, need to take a bathroom break, are too hot or cold, etc. It is not the real world. I'm sure there are forums where you can display this type work.

anderzander

It is the next generation in real world photography, I have photographed real models in clothing and nudes, I'm not interested in the old world anymore, even though I have a trusty Nikon F Vintage 1968, that on occasion I go out and shoot a roll of BW, because I still enjoy photography, I still have all of my dark room equipment.

My introduction here was purely educational.
I will post at a later date my color and BW real world photo images on the regular site, after that I will leave HedgeHog.

anderzander

It is the next generation in real world photography, I have photographed real models in clothing and nudes, I'm not interested in the old world anymore, even though I have a trusty Nikon F Vintage 1968, that on occasion I go out and shoot a roll of BW, because I still enjoy photography, I still have all of my dark room equipment. And lots of lens and cameras.

My introduction here was purely educational.
I will post at a later date my color and BW real world photo images on the regular site, after that I will leave HedgeHog.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I think a lot of people need to back off a little. We couldn't do what the OP does if you held a gun to our heads. Are you comfortable dismissing new imaging technology like everyone did to digital 25 years ago and missing the bus again?

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

I'm sorry, I don't see it. When digital first emerged I think a lot of people saw the writing on the wall that it would eventually give film a run for its money. Computers were doubling in speed and storage capacity at an amazing rate and prices were falling as it happened. It was easy to see the trend would eventually lead to great digital cameras at an affordable price.

This technology on the other hand is hell bent on eliminating the model. I don't care how much knowlege is required to do it well, it's not photography. My son taking screen shots of video games he is playing is not photography. I thought this site is about taking, viewing, and improving photographs. I thought this particular section was about taking photos of the human form. A real human.

Imagine this scenario. I'm a pro using this type of technology and have all the latest gear and software. I book a very attractive model for a "photo" session. I bring her into my studio, which is the size of a normal bedroom and have her stand on a turntable. Over the next 20 minutes or so I have her hold different poses while the table rotates and I do a detailed 3D scan of her form. Is she naked? Why would she have to be? I just need to get a really good rendering of her facial features and basic outline for her body. I might also get her to read a predetermined script while I image her mouth and jawline from several angles. In less than an hour I'm done. I pay her her minimum fee and send her on her way.

Now, over the course of the next few years she becomes a feature model in explicit images and films that she didn't sign up for. In a few years, those stills and films may be almost indistinguishable from real film. Is it her? No. Are those derivative works photography? Hell no!

What is the world coming to? Will people go to a "photo creator" and have their wedding portfolio done. I can imagine the questionnaire.

1. where would you like to be married?
2. would you like any famous guests in attendance?
3. that double chin on the groom, are you marrying that too, or do you want me to take 20 lbs off of him.
4...

I stand firm, in my mind these are not photos or photography. Your opinion may be different and if so, that's OK by me.

anderzander

It is a whole other world of creativity, I did my stint as a portrait photographer and I tried nudes as well, I'm not into looking at real naked bodies, I started out in nude figurative drawing, I've seen plenty of naked men and women, there are figurative photographers better than me, I'm an explorer of the new arena and nothing more. I'd rather jump off a cliff and try flying, which I did in hang gliding and crash land rather than be limited, dying of boredom is the kiss of death.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Then why bother depicting your fake models unclothed? There seems to be a disconnect there. Granted, fake people never need showers, they don't eat, they only talk when you hit the play button. A 3D rendering is probably a pretty cheap date after you invest in the software. Today your dream girl can have a DD breasts and blond hair and tomorrow she can be a B-cup redhead. Like that Aussie accent; just click a box.

Is that our future, where all our friends and partners are animated computer programs? That's where this technology seems to be heading.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

You are defending model's who may be put out of work by digital figure art? Oh, the humanity! What about the buggy whip manufacturers who were hurt by the automobile? Or the candle makers by the lightbulb? Look at all the ditch diggers who lost their jobs because of the steam shovel. In effect you're saying, there ought to be a law against progress, because too many people get hurt, no?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I think anderzander may have a point.

Google "Elon Musk and AI" and the following pops up:
Elon Musk's Billion-Dollar Crusade to Stop the A.I. Apocalypse | Vanity ...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/.../elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x
Elon Musk is famous for his futuristic gambles, but Silicon Valley's latest rush to embrace artificial intelligence scares him. And he thinks you should be frightened too. Inside his efforts to influence the rapidly advancing field and its proponents, and to save humanity from machine-learning overlords.

AI, the Internet of Things, Big Brother, check out the movie Demon Seed from 1977...

The future is a bit scary. I certainly hope another "disruptive technology" comes along soon to save us from the current "disruptive technology."

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

My guess is we'll all be killed by global warming first because, don't you know, the human race cannot adapt to change. However for me, not having to go to some weddings and having a digital photographer art me in has a nice ring to it.

Thurber Mingus

I'm perfectly fine seeing and learning about this new frontier in AI, CGI, or whatever we want to call it, but I agree that it's not photography, which is what this forum is about.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I'm not convinced that the human race can't adapt... it just takes more time than we probably have left, given Moore's Law and the rate at which technology is "adapting."

Actually, either fate is still scary, and I think it's high time that we get a return visit from the aliens who experimented with putting their DNA into chimpanzees. Have they abandoned their experiment, or are they still just observing? Even evolutionists agree that adaptation often happens in leaps and bounds rather than progressively, and I am hoping that something in our human development will change abruptly and soon.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

It doesn't belong in the photography forum? It looks photographic on your screen doesn't it? I've seen a lot worse that have originated from cameras, but so bad that I wasn't sure. Do photos now have to come with descriptions of origin?

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

No, I was suggesting that THIS IS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY!

pho·to·graph
ˈfōdəˌɡraf
noun
1.
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Definitions are not necessarily static. I am sure the words "... or other light-sensitive material" and "..., or stored digitally" were not in Webster's 1950's (or thereabouts) dictionary.

Similarly, "marriage" used to be between a man and a woman.