Time for Photographers to be Scared? (Editorial)
Apr 28, 2024 12:39:19 #
charles brown wrote:
That software would have to be itself AI. I agree and have wondered if a rating system such as that used for movies could be developed. Another idea is to develop software that looks at an image and identifies how much AI was used before being posted. Maybe also identifies what AI was used for. Just thoughts.
I think the fear over AI is much ado about nothing. In its current state, it’s an extension of the processing tools we used to retouch images.
It has a potential to do more than that and as it valves, we’ll see how that fits in. I don’t see it replacing humans, but rather extending what they can do, like a tractor helps a farmer tend a bigger field.
Apr 28, 2024 13:01:52 #
Btw , Photograms have never been photographs. They can be artistic works but they are shadow images. Nothing wrong with that, there are great ones, but the term photograph was coined to describe light through a lens ( pinhole’s count because they form images in the same way) ‘drawing’ an image on a sensitive material.
So even photograms , while similar to photographs are not the same thing.
So even photograms , while similar to photographs are not the same thing.
Apr 28, 2024 13:43:08 #
The Truth about AI is that we shouldn't make too many pronouncements about it's future, and how it will affect us (collectively or individually) until we understand what we are talking about.
It really does appear to me, that NO ONE understands it sufficiently yet.....See below
The things we know so far are that as AI relates to Images and Photography, it is based on machine learning and iterative exposure to existing photographs which were created by other people, and used with or without permission and mostly without compensation to the creators.
I think we can safely say it is not photography in any real sense, but those who cavalierly say "It's just like any other tool for editing, are on pretty shaky ground......
Proponents tell us it is ...."Safe and Effective" Experience suggests perhaps We shouldn't be so sure...
Here is just one example:
https://newatlas.com/technology/ai-index-report-negatives/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ea1e2a0721-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_04_26_09_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-ea1e2a0721-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
It really does appear to me, that NO ONE understands it sufficiently yet.....See below
The things we know so far are that as AI relates to Images and Photography, it is based on machine learning and iterative exposure to existing photographs which were created by other people, and used with or without permission and mostly without compensation to the creators.
I think we can safely say it is not photography in any real sense, but those who cavalierly say "It's just like any other tool for editing, are on pretty shaky ground......
Proponents tell us it is ...."Safe and Effective" Experience suggests perhaps We shouldn't be so sure...
Here is just one example:
https://newatlas.com/technology/ai-index-report-negatives/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ea1e2a0721-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_04_26_09_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-ea1e2a0721-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
Apr 28, 2024 13:54:36 #
Apr 28, 2024 13:59:20 #
MJPerini wrote:
I agree with that. Well said. The Truth about AI is that we shouldn't make too m... (show quote)
MJPerini wrote:
I don't know if your referring to my comment above but that's ok if you were. However I don't believe I'm on shaky ground because I said "in its current state". Yes it is being used in many other ways besides photography, video and movie production for instance, and it can be used to re-create likenesses of actors. That was a big issue in the recent actors guild strike. It's also being used in tech and finance. those who cavalierly say "It's just like any other tool for editing, are on pretty shaky ground......those who cavalierly say "It's just like any other tool for editing, are on pretty shaky ground......
Like any other tool, it will be used for good and for nefarious purposes. It's not AI but the values of the user that will determine the end use (good or evil).
Apr 28, 2024 14:31:40 #
Apr 28, 2024 14:42:16 #
Apr 28, 2024 16:13:25 #
rockdog wrote:
This is exactly correct!! AI can help do the mundane things and free us up for the more creative & enjoyable things. Another view....
Of course AI might resent that, then we get the Skynet problem when the machines decide to eliminate the humans.
Apr 28, 2024 16:41:00 #
MJPerini wrote:
The Truth about AI is that we shouldn't make too m... (show quote)
"It really does appear to me, that NO ONE understands it sufficiently yet..." That is what concerns me. Already being used extensively in photography and other fields. Am sure "unanticipated consequences" going to happen and they will not be pleasant.
"Proponents tell us it is ...."Safe and Effective" Experience suggests perhaps We shouldn't be so sure..." Any time we are told don't worry, that is the time to start worrying.
Apr 28, 2024 17:45:33 #
JD750 wrote:
people will always take pictures of family and friends, and at weddings and events. For some of us Photographs store memories.
Advertising and marketing, making movies, is about making money and photography costs money. If AI technology is able to provide the same product at a lower cost you can expect AI will displace photography and become common in those areas.
Advertising and marketing, making movies, is about making money and photography costs money. If AI technology is able to provide the same product at a lower cost you can expect AI will displace photography and become common in those areas.
Probably the most sensible comment so far
Apr 28, 2024 18:23:26 #
[quote=Curmudgeon]As we know Adobe has been integrating more and more AI features into Photoshop generative fill and has upgraded Firefly, its AI generating program, to Version 3.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
Apr 28, 2024 18:27:48 #
[quote=cyan]
A while back I watched a video a guy removed some wires using AI. He had a pretty clean skyline with wires in it. I had an image with wires in the sky and there were some trees on the edge of the frame and the wires entered the trees. I tried his step by step instruction on my image. The result was horrible. it placed pieces of wires and trees all over the sky and sky in the trees. A complete mess -> Into the TRASH. I stopped worrying about AI taking over at that point.
Curmudgeon wrote:
HA!! I can tell you it is far from perfect. As we know Adobe has been integrating more and more AI features into Photoshop generative fill and has upgraded Firefly, its AI generating program, to Version 3.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
A while back I watched a video a guy removed some wires using AI. He had a pretty clean skyline with wires in it. I had an image with wires in the sky and there were some trees on the edge of the frame and the wires entered the trees. I tried his step by step instruction on my image. The result was horrible. it placed pieces of wires and trees all over the sky and sky in the trees. A complete mess -> Into the TRASH. I stopped worrying about AI taking over at that point.
Apr 28, 2024 19:06:09 #
JD750 wrote:
HA!! I can tell you it is far from perfect. br ... (show quote)
The thing about AI is that it keeps getting better. Sometimes using Photoshop generative fill has been less than satisfactory, but when it has worked, which is most of the time, it has been amazing. I used to try the old Content Aware fill (non-AI) and it often gave bad results, but generative fill is a huge improvement.
Apr 28, 2024 21:20:42 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
As we know Adobe has been integrating more and more AI features...
It would help if the "AI" image software included EXIF metadata in the image files revealing how it was created.
The term "AI" is a headline grabbing, misleading catch phrase that gets applied to all kinds of software that has nothing to do with "intelligence" - artificial or otherwise. "Machine Learning" is a better description, even though these algorithms do not "learn" the way humans do. Using super computer power, they are able to wade through huge data sets and be trained to recognize specific patterns in timely ways above human ability. The ones and zeros in a digital image is a fairly large data set. For example machine learning software can be trained to recognize the signs of lung cancer by analyzing hundreds of X-Ray or CT scan images.
60 Minutes had a segment tonight on "AI" and Nvidia, the company that made deep machine learning possible with its graphics processing chips and super computers. It also discusses why "AI" is not magic and cannot eclipse human creativity. View the 60 Minutes segment here: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-60-minutes-video-2024-04-28/
Apr 28, 2024 21:47:08 #
[quote=cyan]
Do you take your photos with a camera?
Curmudgeon wrote:
As we know Adobe has been integrating more and more AI features into Photoshop generative fill and has upgraded Firefly, its AI generating program, to Version 3.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
I have never used AI & probably never will. AI is too perfect, and I like imperfections in a photo.
Do you take your photos with a camera?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.