Your thoughts on AI software and the future of photography

[satans worm]

I watched this from F-Stoppers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ewIel7oSkc

I think even at the moment we all have different limits to what's ok in post processing, from touching up ,dodging and burning, spot removal, then tree removal, people removal, color changes ,background changes, somewhere along the line most people think its too much manipulation and stop, and i guess equally some happily plow through this into the graphic design spectrum.


But after watching the video i cant help but feel like the 'art' of photography is going to be cheapened in the future, with fake bokeh, sunsets and god rays at the click of a button, along with whitening teeth, slimming stomachs and even making people smile.

Of course it might be that I am a grumpy old man who needs to embrace the future (and click to smile button), who has inadequacy issues with seeing people take better pictures on iPhones than I can take on my SLR (actually, this latter part is definitely true!)

Most the time i get over the sheer brilliance of every image i see on FlickR by not going on Flickr and also trying to remember as long as i enjoy the process and, before looking at other photographs, like my results enough, then its ok

How do you view the future?

(as a side note, id be selling any stocks in canon etc as if this AI stuff really does take off like i think it will, no point in having any 'real camera' as anything you want, from long exposure, sunsets, lighting and bokeh will all be able to be faked in post)

[Simpo Two]

People can buy all the food they need in microwaveable boxes - 5 mins on High, done. But spending hours cooking from raw ingredients is more fashionable than ever. Why?

There is no single future to photography. Everybody can do it how they wish.

[steveatesh]

Simpo Two said:

People can buy all the food they need in microwaveable boxes - 5 mins on High, done. But spending hours cooking from raw ingredients is more fashionable than ever. Why?

There is no single future to photography. Everybody can do it how they wish.

Plus 1.
Although I think the market for “proper” cameras with lots of buttons, interchangeable lens and complex menus will shrink to pro and dedicated enthusiasts.

The thought of going out with my iPhone (competent though it is at photos) taking a series of shots then whizzing them through some computational app just doesn’t appeal as much as taking out the Sony, a couple lens, then spending ages in Capture One and Affiniity seeing where they end up and which ones to keep.

I’ve tried ON1 Portrait AI and although I can see a place for it whizzing through a lot of photos quickly it didn’t (for me anyway) produce high quality portraits. A hammer to do precision engineering in my view, but other views are valid too!

[K12beano]

satans worm said:

I watched this from F-Stoppers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ewIel7oSkc

Well that is both interesting technology advance and an interesting debate, well discussed by those two.

So thanks for the link.




I suppose we are all sitting in a transitional phase between the past and the future. I thought it said a lot when the waved the D1H - I mean, that wasn't very long ago, was it?

And now moving the lighting in an image - Wow!

Paraphrasing: do we look at everything and go "I know what's going on?" or do we go "wow!"

But, fundamentally, does technology destroy art?

[SCEtoAUX]

Do what you want, how you want, with what you want.

It's art, all that matters is the end product.

[StevieBee]

satans worm said:

I watched this from F-Stoppers
But after watching the video i cant help but feel like the 'art' of photography is going to be cheapened in the future, with fake bokeh, sunsets and god rays at the click of a button, along with whitening teeth, slimming stomachs and even making people smile.

Back in the day (early to mid 80s) I was a Graphic Designer at an agency that did all the Ford marketing stuff. We'd get shots done of cars both in studio and on location most of which went off to a company in London that would fettle the image. The two guys who did the shots (can't remember one of the them but the other was called Peter Hampshire) were amongst the world's leading automotive photographers at the time so there was nothing wrong with the photos - just that they didn't quite work within the context they were going to be used.

These 10x8 transparencies would come back having been completely transformed; people added, location changed, colour changed.... everything done by hand, airbrushing, inking-in, splicing...

I can recall one campaign for a special edition Capri ('Laser' I think!). They only had the car for a day and shot it driving round the roads near Warley in Brentwood, close to Ford HQ. The images that ended up being used in the campaign looked like it was whizzing round the mountain roads above Monaco. You really wouldn't of spotted the joins.

So, it's nothing new. Only the process applied is new.

My view is that technology can amplify art, not eradicate it. It enables you to do things that were previously not possible, explore all manner of different approaches and create interesting images..... if you want to. I don't buy into this idea that should only use what comes out of the camera. Editing has opened up a new realm of photography that I personally quite enjoy.

And something that has long held true is that you can sprinkle glitter on a turd but you can't polish it. So you still need to apply the basic skills of lighting, composition and creativity to taking pictures. The Ai referred to in the video isn't true Ai (little is). The operator still has to make decisions as to what to do, what goes where and ultimately, decide if it looks right.

An example of how I apply this...

First shot is fairly hum-drum. I was precariously perched on a bank and not really able to get the shot I envisaged but fired the shutter anyway:




A couple of hours one rainy Sunday afternoon and I end up with this:



I took the picture. And I edited it. So it's still my interpretation and ended up as something that you could hang on the wall - which at least 15 people have having purchased it! It might not be to everyone's taste but that's 'art' - it never is.