Cameras & Artists Become Obsolete? (Page 3): On a side note, can every photographer be turned into an artist using AI? I don’t know why but that just popped into my head.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

On a side note, can every photographer be turned into an artist using AI? I don’t know why but that just popped into my head.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

CHG_CANON wrote:

I don't shoot what it looks like. I process it until it looks like I want.

A manipulator, not a photographer!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Hip Coyote wrote:

I did not want to hijack the thread on the Sony exec commenting that phones may make the DSLR, et al, obsolete in a few years. I subscribe to a newsletter titled, "1440." It is an attempt to present minimally biased articles. it also has a subsection on various interesting topics...and I came across this.

In summary, deep learning AI programs can now allow a user to simply write / say what they want to see in a photo depiction or art piece and the deep learning can create that image. This has been accomplished and refined since first efforts in 2016. Imagine you want to see an image of a seascape, with a rainbow, with an elephant jumping from the water, with a feather held by its trunk. That is possible. The learning can also mimic famous artists. Want a wood block ink print (wrong term probably) piece of art / image of your farm house that mimics the style of a known artist? That is now possible. Want a photo of Ansel-like image but of a more modern time, place? That is probably possible.

So, as we look at a very limited view of phones replacing cameras, IMO, we are considering the wrong eventualities. Even if one wants to maintain a real image they took with an imaging device, imagine taking a very grainy, out of focus shot (or more likely a series of images / video) of some far off subject. Put it into a computer (or more likely the imaging device will have the conduit to the AI program) tell it to not only sharpen and refine the image, we can ask it to add trees, animals, monsters or what ever it is that we want.

Or going a step further, we take our grand kid to Disneyland and forget to take photos, they are destroyed or we chose to not take images, what ever. So we simply direct the AI to create an image of said child on the teacups at Disney...with grand pa sitting next to him. Did that scene occur? Nope. But the image will be created. And over time, when grand pa is dead, and the child now has grand kids, will that image be held up as fact as something that occurred? And it may take another AI program to decipher if that image is fake or real. There are images on FaceBook that are completely AI.

What does this mean for artists? Will people create things by hand or by a click of the shutter? Or will they simply direct AI to create it?

Is photography destined for the grave? I simply do not see how big bodies, big lenses can survive this. As someone mentioned, the ergonomics of cameras are preferable...but that is way too limited of thinking. What if the imaging device is not even hand held? What if it is simply an overlay on glasses or accomplished with the point of a finger? I don't know. I do believe that imaging will be changed. This video explains it quite well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM

I did not want to hijack the thread on the Sony ex... (show quote)

I'd bet that there are products like wallpaper and printed fabric where designs have been created rhis way for years. Maybe even commercial prints for the kitchen. And I'm certain about greeting cards.

But I still have enough faith left in human nature that a place will remain for genuine original artistic endeavor.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Like most things often are, the popularity of a "Smartphone" in everyone's hands is generationally influenced. When we dine out, I often see toddlers being pacified at the parent's table with a Smartphone or tablet. An entire generation will grow up with a Smartphone in their hand taking snapshots of....well, just about anything and everything.

The AI filters that interface with the Smartphone camera are a form of entertainment, enhancement, and whimsy. A person can chat with others while making themselves look like a cat or a fox. Of course, there are beauty enhancements available as well. Technology is getting smarter....unfortunately, I can't say the same about many folks today.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Festus wrote:

A manipulator, not a photographer!

But it started with a photograph by a photographer.
A photographer is one who takes pictures.
What happens after the fact is different.
When one edits, one becomes an editor, or a manipulator.

Perception...

srsincary Loc: Cary, NC

Ysarex wrote:

While looking at this post and quickly looking at the linked video I am listening to my recording of Brahms Piano Trios by the Odeon Trio. I'm hearing how Leonard Hokanson, Kurt Guntner and Angelica May worked together and shared their emotional understanding and discoveries of these Brahms works to produce a unified interpretation and expression for me to experience.

I am fully confident that the day will never come when I would choose to hear this music preformed by a machine.

Unless the machine can successfully integrate the emotion chip that Lt. Commander Data's creator fabricated, but chose not to implant in his neural circuitry (I think it is because he was not sure about its 'maturity').

- Star Trek Next Generation gobbledygook (loved the series).

😄

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

CHG_CANON wrote:

Sometimes I arrive at just the right time when a thousand images will surely capture something.

Somehow I just can’t do the “spray and pray” thing, even though my cameras are capable of it. I think it’s a hold over from my film shooting days, where I tried to make every shot count. The end result is I’m sure I’m missing some great images.

srsincary Loc: Cary, NC

Longshadow wrote:

But it started with a photograph by a photographer.
A photographer is one who takes pictures.
What happens after the fact is different.
When one edits, one becomes an editor, or a manipulator.

Perception...

Why is post-processing a photograph to make an image look like one wants just 'manipulation'?

When an impressionist created a painting of a scene, the final product looked very different from the subject. The result may cost millions and is considered truly fine art, not oil-paint-manipulation!

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

AI is another tool in the hand of a artist. Offers no threat to Art

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

srsincary wrote:

Why is post-processing a photograph to make an image look like one wants just 'manipulation'?

When an impressionist created a painting of a scene, the final product looked very different from the subject. The result may cost millions and is considered truly fine art, not oil-paint-manipulation!

Please see the quoted statement to which I replied.
HE called it manipulation, not I.
Besides, in an editor, an image really is manipulated.
See manipulate, definition #2:
"to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance."

Perception...

badapple Loc: Twin Lake, Michigan

A thread that became a rope.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Fredrick wrote:

Somehow I just can’t do the “spray and pray” thing, even though my cameras are capable of it. I think it’s a hold over from my film shooting days, where I tried to make every shot count. The end result is I’m sure I’m missing some great images.

I've softened my stance on a number of things related to photography over the past two or three years. Wanton use of Continuous Exposure is not one of them. "Capturing the moment" has always been a hallmark of what makes a photograph. And yes, there are some exceptions, including most landscapes, for example. Turning the job of capturing a moment over to the mechanism of the camera seems to me a far worse transgression than turning over decisions relating to exposure or white balance.

Before anyone asks, yes, I do use Continuous Shutter Release occasionally. Usually either to capture a sequence of motions or operations of a person or machine, or to quickly collect a set of bracketed exposures for doing an HDR treatment.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Hip Coyote wrote:

I did not want to hijack the thread on the Sony exec commenting that phones may make the DSLR, et al, obsolete in a few years. I subscribe to a newsletter titled, "1440." It is an attempt to present minimally biased articles. it also has a subsection on various interesting topics...and I came across this.

In summary, deep learning AI programs can now allow a user to simply write / say what they want to see in a photo depiction or art piece and the deep learning can create that image. This has been accomplished and refined since first efforts in 2016. Imagine you want to see an image of a seascape, with a rainbow, with an elephant jumping from the water, with a feather held by its trunk. That is possible. The learning can also mimic famous artists. Want a wood block ink print (wrong term probably) piece of art / image of your farm house that mimics the style of a known artist? That is now possible. Want a photo of Ansel-like image but of a more modern time, place? That is probably possible.

So, as we look at a very limited view of phones replacing cameras, IMO, we are considering the wrong eventualities. Even if one wants to maintain a real image they took with an imaging device, imagine taking a very grainy, out of focus shot (or more likely a series of images / video) of some far off subject. Put it into a computer (or more likely the imaging device will have the conduit to the AI program) tell it to not only sharpen and refine the image, we can ask it to add trees, animals, monsters or what ever it is that we want.

Or going a step further, we take our grand kid to Disneyland and forget to take photos, they are destroyed or we chose to not take images, what ever. So we simply direct the AI to create an image of said child on the teacups at Disney...with grand pa sitting next to him. Did that scene occur? Nope. But the image will be created. And over time, when grand pa is dead, and the child now has grand kids, will that image be held up as fact as something that occurred? And it may take another AI program to decipher if that image is fake or real. There are images on FaceBook that are completely AI.

What does this mean for artists? Will people create things by hand or by a click of the shutter? Or will they simply direct AI to create it?

Is photography destined for the grave? I simply do not see how big bodies, big lenses can survive this. As someone mentioned, the ergonomics of cameras are preferable...but that is way too limited of thinking. What if the imaging device is not even hand held? What if it is simply an overlay on glasses or accomplished with the point of a finger? I don't know. I do believe that imaging will be changed. This video explains it quite well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM

I did not want to hijack the thread on the Sony ex... (show quote)

There will always be a spot for an actual photographer. Yes, all of the possibilities you have mention will come to fruition - if they haven't already. But even the concept of what should or needs to be created from nothing is not the ability of any AI at this time in history. Creativity has to start with a human being at this time. And it is much easier to start with a photo to modify than start with absolutely nothing.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Here is my 2 cents: Someone said photography would replace paintings....didn't happen. Someone said color film would replace B&W ...didn't happen. Someone said roll film would replace the view camera,,,, didn't happen. Someone said digital cameras would replace film,,,,,didn't happen. That doesn't mean that their use did not diminish but they are all still around.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

badapple wrote:

A thread that became a rope.

Always.