3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
Sep 19, 2020 14:36:38 #
rmalarz wrote:
I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis... (show quote)
Nobody is trying to replace the artist. Yet.
But AI is something that is getting a lot of attention and $ poured into it.
It comes in various forms. For example Face Recognition is a form of AI is it not? I say it is.
The idea is the computer can help us in different ways. It can teach. It can critique. It can select for us. The idea is AI can enhance these things. It won’t replace the artist but as I said it could enable the computer to be a helper.
For example you hire an assistant to help you with routine tasks and you teach her how to do things to assist you. Only in this case the assistant is a computer program.
How about if the computer were able to recognize scenes and apply keywords? File images in folders? Rate them for you (you always get to review the ratings). That would save a lot of time.
Lots of people like to use presets. You can think of the computer as the next level of presets. You can roll your own look the computer will remember it and apply it but it’s way more than Just copy settings.
Ha I had a thought. Say I download some images and the computer says “what were you thinking? That shot is soft, you framed this one wrong, the horizon is crooked, the leading lines don’t go anywhere, the exposure is too light, you have blown pixels. The exposure is too dark, you have crushed the blacks. Bla bla... Just like posting on UHH!!!
😅
Sep 19, 2020 14:42:48 #
Remember people said “ no computer can beat a human at chess”. Now they can beat Grand Masters. There are even tournaments where the computers are playing each other.
But that doesn’t mean a Grand Master is less respected.
Perhaps some day computers will generate art. That won’t mean artists are less valuable.
But that doesn’t mean a Grand Master is less respected.
Perhaps some day computers will generate art. That won’t mean artists are less valuable.
Sep 19, 2020 14:47:20 #
rmalarz wrote:
I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis... (show quote)
Hi Bob,
I must disagree with Rudis that AI is a buzzword. It is a field of study in computer science that I have been involved in for over three decades. AI is the top tier designation and comprises many subareas such as expert systems, machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, and so on. Can AI technology be used to replace humans doing certain work. You bet it can. Robotic manufacture of automobiles and quality control activities for example. Another, we is still unnerving to me, is AI being used to implement self-driving trucks which are currently being tested on the open highways in same places. As the story goes, back in the late 1960s, one of the major airlines said they had implemented a fully computerized commercial airplane. On its initial flight, the system came on the intercom and announced to the passengers as the plane was starting its roll down the runway that the airplane was under full computer control and no crew was now needed. All passengers need not be afraid of this new technology because Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, ...
For photography, AI can be a great aid to us in post-processing, but the creative tweaking we all do will remain until the system can analyze enough of your work to learn your style and then you are no longer needed.
What you think an image should look like and what I do may be similar or quite different.Doc Barry
Sep 19, 2020 15:01:16 #
This Blake Rudis falsely assumes that serious hobbyists and professionals are the only ones taking pictures! The vast majority of photographers are casual shooters, or people using a camera to visually document something, with no intent of artistic expression. These photographers generally welcome decision-making by camera and editor.
Sep 19, 2020 15:05:26 #
It depends on what task is assigned to AI. It might improve the selection of aperture, ISO and shutter speed over a range of situations that is wider than current auto exposure cameras already do. However, great photographers sometimes drastically beak those rules to get a result other photographers let alone a computer can anticipate. An analogous situation applies to selection of focus both which object and what depth.
On the other hand there are some tasks which may be beyond human capability. Assuming AI technology actually be used and not just a buzzword Topaz Gigapixel AI modifies the image file in away that I don’t think can be done “by hand”. When it works it results in no perceptible change to the image except that it can be printed larger with minimal loc of appearing resolution.
Post processing software often has slider functions that must be used with care less “halos” result. I think finding a way to keep the function while thwarting the halo might be a good application.
On the other hand there are some tasks which may be beyond human capability. Assuming AI technology actually be used and not just a buzzword Topaz Gigapixel AI modifies the image file in away that I don’t think can be done “by hand”. When it works it results in no perceptible change to the image except that it can be printed larger with minimal loc of appearing resolution.
Post processing software often has slider functions that must be used with care less “halos” result. I think finding a way to keep the function while thwarting the halo might be a good application.
Sep 19, 2020 15:16:10 #
JD750 wrote:
Remember people said “ no computer can beat a human at chess”. Now they can beat Grand Masters. There are even tournaments where the computers are playing each other.
But that doesn’t mean a Grand Master is less respected.
Perhaps some day computers will generate art. That won’t mean artists are less valuable.
But that doesn’t mean a Grand Master is less respected.
Perhaps some day computers will generate art. That won’t mean artists are less valuable.
Computers generate art today. Those $15.98 8 x 10 oil paintings are computer generated
Sep 19, 2020 15:31:01 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
I have no special knowledge of AI in photography but AI is a very broad term. Some programs are able to deal with more variables and more scenarios than others and I doubt that it's clear exactly when "smart" becomes AI.
That said, I just this week experimented with removing unwanted objects from a picture using Pixelmator Pro which is Mac only. Unlike a simple clone/replace as in my CaptureOne, this one uses some very impressive approaches. I needed to take out a faded orange pole that was messing up a nice snapshot of a bucket of flowers and also three chains holding up the bucket. In the attached picture I left the poles that are farther away in the image so you can see what they are like. I also fixed there the pole was in front of the black fence uprights but there is a slight imperfection there.
To do this by hand would have meant hours of tedious work with the picture enlarged so I could work with individual pixels. But it only took a few seconds with the app. Beyond that, the app make the sky look right in the areas where it inserted sky to replace pole or chain.
It's a tool. It's a very good one. My grandfather did want power steering or an automatic transmission until my father bribed the car dealer. Get over it.
That said, I just this week experimented with removing unwanted objects from a picture using Pixelmator Pro which is Mac only. Unlike a simple clone/replace as in my CaptureOne, this one uses some very impressive approaches. I needed to take out a faded orange pole that was messing up a nice snapshot of a bucket of flowers and also three chains holding up the bucket. In the attached picture I left the poles that are farther away in the image so you can see what they are like. I also fixed there the pole was in front of the black fence uprights but there is a slight imperfection there.
To do this by hand would have meant hours of tedious work with the picture enlarged so I could work with individual pixels. But it only took a few seconds with the app. Beyond that, the app make the sky look right in the areas where it inserted sky to replace pole or chain.
It's a tool. It's a very good one. My grandfather did want power steering or an automatic transmission until my father bribed the car dealer. Get over it.
Sep 19, 2020 15:32:38 #
RWebb76 wrote:
i dont think it will replace the human, but it wil... (show quote)
Don't you need shoephone to do that?
Sep 19, 2020 15:38:41 #
Perhaps Blake can explain it more completely than the outline I posted here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05uemgoqiSU
Oh, and Blake provides examples of why this is so.
--Bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05uemgoqiSU
Oh, and Blake provides examples of why this is so.
--Bob
Sep 19, 2020 15:40:14 #
rmalarz wrote:
I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis... (show quote)
Excellent thread and a concise precise of your take on Blake’s points,
My personal approach to the potential effect of AI on the future of photography is that it will be negligible or non-extant. Why? Because although AI can conceivably impact the technical aspect of image production, its influence on what I consider to be the essence of image excellence - in whatever medium any image may have been, is, or will be produced, that being artistic vision and creativity, has long been, and,IMO, ever shall be beyond the reach of the capacity of mere intellect- be it naturally inherent in the would-be artist, or simply “artificial”
Dave
Sep 19, 2020 15:49:34 #
rmalarz wrote:
I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis... (show quote)
Bob, I think Blake Rudis and you are applying a very narrow view of photography. In that context, Rudis’ arguments against AI being the way of the future in PP look really weak and overly simplistic.
First he says “AI is just a buzzword”. Huh? Is that supposed to be an argument for why AI will not be the future of PP?
And yes, a true artist wants to create the best he can and many artists use post-processing to give them something other than what they achieved with the camera. I can see that those folks might not want to automate the PP process. But many artistic photos are already being created with the photographer relying on in-camera AI to produce the final result without any after-camera processing, no?
This AI argument is just another version of the old Straight-Out-Of-Camera (SOOC) vs post-processed images debate. And to me there is no basis for disagreements because there’s room for both. Artists who want to create images combining as-taken photos with whatever degree of post-manipulation they want, especially if they enjoy PP, should certainly do so. And there’s nothing wrong with them rejecting AI PP. Those who want to concentrate their artistic endeavors on the creation of the camera-produced image, and only minimal use of PP, should certainly follow their path. And I suspect many photographers not out to create “artistic” images will welcome AI because it will make their job easier.
Full disclosure: I have not seen the video and am reacting only to your post!
Sep 19, 2020 15:55:03 #
If you want to replace the sky, put the head of someone else on others body. If you want to make red car blue replace picture of your ex with you with your current. If you do those AI can help.
I don't do anything like that so..
I don't do anything like that so..
Sep 19, 2020 16:03:10 #
JD750 wrote:
Of course it won’t replace the human. Think of it more as a helper.
Sep 19, 2020 16:04:16 #
rmalarz wrote:
But it sure can give the average photographer some warm fuzzies about how good "their" work is.
--Bob
--Bob
Sep 19, 2020 16:50:43 #
Uuglypher wrote:
Excellent thread and a concise precise of your tak... (show quote)
A necessary addendum to my earlier post:
Intellect, neither natural nor artificial, dictates ones aesthetic sense, and thereby play no role in artistic creativity!
Dave
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.