Posts: jlg1000 | Ugly Hedgehog

lorvey wrote:

Are we sure that jig1000 is a real person? Or could it possibly something else???????

Dec 18, 2023 19:07:25 #

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Because we need another boring thread about AI. Can we got back to something important, like whether we need filters to protect our lenses or should we use aftermarket batteries?

AI is the new aftermarket battery filter

Dec 18, 2023 18:43:35 #

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

Exactly. AI doesn't think at all. In fact if you ask it to give you for example a picture of a modern woman it gives a nice pic. Ask it again to give you a pic of a modern woman and it will give you another nice pic. But not the same pic. AI is just the largest encyclopedia ever made and the processor is the human per sa just reading the encyclopedia and giving you the first data or answer it finds.

Partially correct, but not quite:

1) AI is not an encyclopedia.

As you may have read in this thread, I work offline, so I have (own) all the data necessary to create the images... if it were an encyclopedia, it wouldn't fit my disk, would it?

On the contrary, typical data files (a.k.a safetensor files) are about 6GB in size and represent every imaginable latent image.

2) The notion that each time you invoque an AI, you get another image is plain wrong.

That notion comes from Midjourney, but I don't use that system. For instance I code (partially) myself.

You can get as consistent results as you want, or even govern the pose, lighting, background... just as in photography. What is more, modern (les than a couple of months) AI is *not* text to image, but a very complex tool that allows the artist to create whatever he or she wants.

Case in point: all these images are consistent and (I made them yesterday):

Dec 18, 2023 12:57:28 #

f8lee wrote:

While the impact of this tech on still images is one thing, I think the real impact in the creative community will be felt in the animated versions. This same AI tech can be used to make what are essentially photo-realistic moving images - a gorgeous young woman walking down a pier on a lake with the wind blowing her hair and dress - generated without any human standing in front of a camera, etc. In fact, apparently a couple of top earning "models" on the quasi-porn site "onlyfans" are just that - completely computer generated (and raking in tens of thousands of dollars a month for whoever programmed them). I have heard that for a year or two now many car commercials where we see that vehicle driving across the salt flats or around a mountain switchback or whatever are in fact AI - this time the computer generates that Mustang or Range Rover or whatever over a battery powered blank "sled" that has four wheels (with an adjustable wheelbase) - basically a white box on wheels, as an overlay to give us the impression it was an actual car making those maneuvers.

That is what a large part of the SAG-AFTRA actor strike was about - actors are (rightfully) scared they will be replaced. Which they will. The current argument had to do with producers wanting to pay an actor for a day to take photos that they could then use, royalty free, for any purpose in perpetuity. And it seems perhaps the actors got a bit of a reprieve for now. But there is little doubt that in a few years - 2? 5? certainly before 10 - non existent actors will be generated entirely using AI - no longer will producers need to pay Brad Pitt (or whoever) royalties for using their likeness - we can see above the nature of these images that required no humans on sound stages or in front of or behind cameras, etc.

So once Hollywood is essentially decimated (and imagine if A.I. is put to use to write scripts as well!) what I foresee is a major shift in the world of thespians. Actors who truly love the craft, who want to act in front of other people, will migrate to the stage - live theater might make a comeback as audiences start to get fed up with "fake" talent. Meanwhile, those who today are celebrities without talent (they slept with the right director, whatever) - who I personally think constitutes the majority of that celebrity actor group - they will fade away and perhaps have to learn to code or something.

While the impact of this tech on still images is o... (show quote)

Yes, AI will arrive sooner than later.

Watch at these experiments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNRJegn7VYs&t=10s&ab_channel=MrComputeranimator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0efe4ynHmTE&ab_channel=MrComputeranimator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L9arGhfmI&t=1s&ab_channel=Davidtamayo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q89WrVnjqM8&t=3s&ab_channel=reallybigname

I didn't do any of them, I've seen them on Discord and are a couple of days old.

What is amazing is the fact that the technique improves on a daly base. Anything older than a month is worthless.

Dec 17, 2023 21:24:10 #

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Artists paid for their work?? We can't have that!

C'mon.

Anyone capable of ripping nice images from a cold computer deserves to be cold an artist.

Besides, we are messing with Entropy here... that alone deserves some respect

Dec 17, 2023 19:49:24 #

srt101fan wrote:

The "AI Artistry and Creation" section description says "This section exists to allow the display of AI produced images that are not related to photographic manipulation or post-processing". Seems pretty clear to me, these AI images, as interesting as they are, don't belong in the Main Photography Discussion section.

The images don't
The discussion does

Dec 17, 2023 18:54:27 #

JohnSwanda wrote:

Advertising also uses illustrations, which have the same advantage. They aren't photographs either.

Of course they are not... but as I've said many pro photographers are already using the AI tool.

Also, Photoshop's new generative fill feature is exactly that... and it is specifically targeted t photographers.

No matter how you look at it, it seems to belong to the photographer's toolbox. Maybe you have a job to shoot a wedding, but the background is boring or unpleasant... well just create a new one.

... maybe later one you have to erase the groom altogether ... no problem either

Dec 17, 2023 18:35:40 #

JohnSwanda wrote:

How is that different than posting about another art medium, say painting, and claim it is to inform photographers what is going on in making paintings, maybe photorealistic paintings to tie it in with photography?

Because this is a tool **many** pro photographers are already using.

Mostly advertising and product photography... some big agencies are building AI departments specially devoted to create high quality customized images.

Image an island of happy people drinking Coke... on a tropical island which resembles a Coke bottle. Now imagine it was created in a couple of hours without models, location, props, Photoshop nor CGI.

Dec 17, 2023 18:15:33 #

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Yeah, that is the argument. "What's the difference between a human being and a machine?" It is a pretty disturbing line of thinking.

I *IS* disturbing...

If you'd had a glimpse of the things I've seen...

Dec 17, 2023 18:09:43 #

Curmudgeon wrote:

I am going to watch this with interest. Like bsprague, I would like to know more about your workflow, what AI site(s) you use. Creating head shots like that is relatively simple on most AI sites, just the right words in the right order. With AI the devil is in the details, fingers, toes, how objects are held or used. Fingers have improved a lot since I started using AI, toes not so much. Subjects using or holding weapons, ancient or modern, tools of all sorts is still a crap shoot.

Hi,

I do not use any AI site, I work completely offline... I've downloaded and modded the open source software and also the models.

Everything is open source, no "setup.exe", no support but the forums. If it doesn't work, you fix it.

My system runs on Ubuntu Linux 22.04, an i9-13900 CPU and a Nvidia RTX 4090 GPU (air cooled).

I'm heavily using Stability AI's Stable Diffusion (modded), and ComfyUI (also modded) as a Workflow Manager and UI because of the flexibility. I also use a bunch of python scripts written by myself.

This is the workflow that created the pseudo-photos (as you can see, it's currently running):

Dec 17, 2023 17:21:31 #

Boris77 wrote:

So someone else took some photos so that a machine could index them so that you could call them up and rearrange a few pixals to create a new image of no emotional value. Another step forward for society.
I am looking forward to the newly discovered pictures of MM.
Boris

This is not how it works. No index, no rearrangement.

The weights of a neural network are trained to predict an outcome, it is the very method that ChatGPT uses and I've been able to create music with it... every child does the same when he learns to speak, draw or sing.

Dec 17, 2023 17:18:08 #

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Photos are used for this process.

In a sense yes...
In a sense no...

And in a sense, a Art student trained her/his/it's brain to create images by... looking to other's images. I don't find it too differently.

Let my explain with some images of my creation... they aren't meant to resemble photos, still they were created by the very same trained predictive models.

Dec 17, 2023 17:07:26 #

JohnSwanda wrote:

I don't think it belongs here or the photo gallery, it belongs in the AI section, because that's what it is about.

It would if it were intended as a showcase of pieces of art.

I believe this post belongs here because it is intended to stirr discussion and inform the photographers

Dec 17, 2023 14:23:54 #

In my previous post over AI generated, many - correctly - pointed out that there were many defects, especially with the hands, plastiky skin, etc.

Being myself involved in AI research, I continued improving on the matter and wanted to share a sample of my latest results. BTW I've got new hardware... this partly allows me to create more complex imaginery.

As before, Many will ahhh... point out, that it this is not the place for such a post and that it should be ostracized to some obscure sub-forum.

Still, I believe I belongs here - and of course NOT in the photo gallery - because my intentions are to inform this prestigious community on the state of the art on AI image creation and to stir discussion on how it might affect photography.

Full disclosure: ** No, they are not real and I did not use any photo of any kind **

(Download)

Dec 16, 2023 12:32:25 #

PC cleaner

jamesl wrote:

-------
CCleaner

Beware CCleaner.

As member of the sysadmin community, I've got many alerts against using it.

It has been flagged as malware and is completely forbidden in corporate computers.

Automated cleaners are PITA and do really nasty things to your registry, and system files... they breake more thing than what they fix...

If you really believe that your sister got slow and don't know how to fix it, do a complete backup of your valuable data, reformat and install everything from scratch.