What is happening to photography? (Page 6): I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words could create an illustration like that. I would also agree that the cat is out of the bag...

MJPerini

I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words could create an illustration like that. I would also agree that the cat is out of the bag, there is no stopping it, even if we might want to.
I would also say that it is a product of machine learning, and what that implies is that the 'machine' is fed billions of words and pictures PRODUCED BY OTHER PEOPLE, in order for words to be connected to pictures in various ways by the machine. It can only generate what it has been fed. ( or recombinations of such which is the learning part of Machine learning) The NY Times recently (albeit WAY too late) made their words & pictures off limits as sources for machine learning.
We have yet to get legal or moral answers to the question of ownership and authorship.
If you look at Hip Hop and Music sampling, since each component piece can be identified, rules were made, so many seconds and is the new work transformative etc.
But the scale of AI makes that pretty much impossible, and the most likely source of words and images is likely to be from 'Content Creators' who make their living by writing, drawing, painting and photographing the world for a living. All that creative output has been basically stolen to feed the big A.I. Blender.
In a world driven by 'Can We', it is rare that we ask 'Should We'
We have all benefitted from the march of technology, in Photography we have the best tools we have ever had.
Photography has always been an expressive medium. From Ansel Adams' "The negative is the score, The Print is the Performance" we have idealized our captures to match what we saw, both visually and emotionally.
I use those tools in my own work. I capture RAW files that will give me the best chance to make the print I see in my head. By its nature Photography is selective, we POINT the camera at a subject, we choose a lens to include or exclude. We Crop. I am all for doing those things. But for myself, I set limits, I do not add elements to pictures that weren't there. I don't replace skies. Will I pluck out a piece of trash, ? Yes. It is what I do.
I have rules for myself.
I do think each of us should be thoughtful, and have a philosophy about how we practice our craft.
But each person gets to decide what they want to do, and how they want to do it.
I suspect most folks would decide something different, and that is fine with me.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

rehess wrote:

My goal has never been to “wow” folk {not even with flying vehicles}.

That's often a reason given by those who are too lazy to put the effort in or who are simply too challenged to accomplish anything for which some others will say 'Wow', that's a great capture.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Grahame wrote:

That's often a reason given by those who are too lazy to put the effort in or who are simply too challenged to accomplish anything for which some others will say 'Wow', that's a great capture.

Some, but not ALL.....

I don't shoot to WOW people, I shoot for me.
If someone says WOW, that's cool, but definitely NOT why I'm shooting!

So PLEASE don't put us all of us in the same basket!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

MJPerini wrote:

I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words could create an illustration like that. I would also agree that the cat is out of the bag, there is no stopping it, even if we might want to.
I would also say that it is a product of machine learning, and what that implies is that the 'machine' is fed billions of words and pictures PRODUCED BY OTHER PEOPLE, in order for words to be connected to pictures in various ways by the machine. It can only generate what it has been fed. ( or recombinations of such which is the learning part of Machine learning) The NY Times recently (albeit WAY too late) made their words & pictures off limits as sources for machine learning.
We have yet to get legal or moral answers to the question of ownership and authorship.
If you look at Hip Hop and Music sampling, since each component piece can be identified, rules were made, so many seconds and is the new work transformative etc.
But the scale of AI makes that pretty much impossible, and the most likely source of words and images is likely to be from 'Content Creators' who make their living by writing, drawing, painting and photographing the world for a living. All that creative output has been basically stolen to feed the big A.I. Blender.
In a world driven by 'Can We', it is rare that we ask 'Should We'
We have all benefitted from the march of technology, in Photography we have the best tools we have ever had.
Photography has always been an expressive medium. From Ansel Adams' "The negative is the score, The Print is the Performance" we have idealized our captures to match what we saw, both visually and emotionally.
I use those tools in my own work. I capture RAW files that will give me the best chance to make the print I see in my head. By its nature Photography is selective, we POINT the camera at a subject, we choose a lens to include or exclude. We Crop. I am all for doing those things. But for myself, I set limits, I do not add elements to pictures that weren't there. I don't replace skies. Will I pluck out a piece of trash, ? Yes. It is what I do.
I have rules for myself.
I do think each of us should be thoughtful, and have a philosophy about how we practice our craft.
But each person gets to decide what they want to do, and how they want to do it.
I suspect most folks would decide something different, and that is fine with me.

I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words cou... (show quote)

The New York Times recently made their images off limits...

Really!? How did they do that? How's it working out for them??
Not well I imagine!

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Longshadow wrote:

Some, but not ALL.....

I don't shoot to WOW people, I shoot for me.
If someone says WOW, that's cool, but definitely NOT why I'm shooting!

So PLEASE don't put us all of us in the same basket!

That's why I used the word "often"

They will know who they are.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Grahame wrote:

That's why I used the word "often"

They will know who they are.

twosummers Loc: Melbourne Australia or Lincolnshire England

larryepage wrote:

Something to think about...right now, we are in the "free demonstration period" of AI. It's fun to play without having to pay. At some point, it's going to be commercialized, and users will have to pay. The free lunch will end. Given the computing power and storage required to support AI systems, the rates are probably going to be somewhere between "significant" and "pretty high." How is that going to affect your opinion?

Yup, you’re right. It cost billions to develop and service. I pay $20 a month for ChatGPT Plus. I consider it great value and I use it for personal projects and support my business

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

It appears that although this AI example is simply stunning it appears that AI decided to include an imminent head collision in the lower left of the image. That is the problem with AI. The results may initially appear to be realistic and accurate there is almost always mistakes.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

I'm a professional landscape photographer and nature lover. AI doesn't bother me because I'm only interested in nature. I recently photographed the Devonian Great Barrier Reef in Western Australia. It was formed 350 million years ago.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

twosummers wrote:

Hi my friends - I've been absent from the site for... (show quote)

This one is easily distinguishable from a "real" one. Some others, not so much. But, who cares? If it looks good on the wall, it looks good on the wall.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

cahale wrote:

This one is easily distinguishable from a "real" one. Some others, not so much. But, who cares? If it looks good on the wall, it looks good on the wall.

(But for some it must then be called "art", NOT a "photograph" otherwise their heads would explode....

)

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Thomas902 wrote:

twosummers Lincolnshire England but a three hour d... (show quote)

Critical body parts? Like arms, legs, mouth? Those you are calling critical are just the fun parts.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

David Martin wrote:

Does AI actually create de novo contents (images, drawings, patterns, etc.) for the subject and background matter, or does it just do a search and then compile a collage of varying content previously created by others?

It does a collage of images in its data base. I just took a course in ai and how it doesn't think or create. It just follows instructions. Due to the fact it has a HUGE database to draw from it seems amazing. I agree it is very useful but as far as thinking it does not. If you read or watch a video about the Chinese Thought experiment you will understand how it actually works. John Searcy is the thought experiment author. It is very enlightening.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

MJPerini wrote:

I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words could create an illustration like that. I would also agree that the cat is out of the bag, there is no stopping it, even if we might want to.
I would also say that it is a product of machine learning, and what that implies is that the 'machine' is fed billions of words and pictures PRODUCED BY OTHER PEOPLE, in order for words to be connected to pictures in various ways by the machine. It can only generate what it has been fed. ( or recombinations of such which is the learning part of Machine learning) The NY Times recently (albeit WAY too late) made their words & pictures off limits as sources for machine learning.
We have yet to get legal or moral answers to the question of ownership and authorship.
If you look at Hip Hop and Music sampling, since each component piece can be identified, rules were made, so many seconds and is the new work transformative etc.
But the scale of AI makes that pretty much impossible, and the most likely source of words and images is likely to be from 'Content Creators' who make their living by writing, drawing, painting and photographing the world for a living. All that creative output has been basically stolen to feed the big A.I. Blender.
In a world driven by 'Can We', it is rare that we ask 'Should We'
We have all benefitted from the march of technology, in Photography we have the best tools we have ever had.
Photography has always been an expressive medium. From Ansel Adams' "The negative is the score, The Print is the Performance" we have idealized our captures to match what we saw, both visually and emotionally.
I use those tools in my own work. I capture RAW files that will give me the best chance to make the print I see in my head. By its nature Photography is selective, we POINT the camera at a subject, we choose a lens to include or exclude. We Crop. I am all for doing those things. But for myself, I set limits, I do not add elements to pictures that weren't there. I don't replace skies. Will I pluck out a piece of trash, ? Yes. It is what I do.
I have rules for myself.
I do think each of us should be thoughtful, and have a philosophy about how we practice our craft.
But each person gets to decide what they want to do, and how they want to do it.
I suspect most folks would decide something different, and that is fine with me.

I would agree that it is amazing that 50 words cou... (show quote)

Most intelligent writing on the two subjects that you covered in the entire 6 pages as of now.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

Thomas902 wrote:

twosummers Lincolnshire England but a three hour d... (show quote)

Other than the thumb on the left hand it is a very good image