AI "Photography"

[tony67]

Tried this in the photography board but not much interest.
Its come up here a few times in various discussions between the writers and actors strike for example, which sparked my interest in it in the first place.
I now see their point.
(Its also becoming a concern in writing software BTW)

Recently I have been playing with AI photo generation quite a bit.
As an example every year we try and get a good picture of the dog in a Christmas hat, its not so easy as the dog just does not cooperate.
Still the dog is better than the cats, at least it will cooperate for photos.
This year I took 100 pictures of the dog, created a model and set the scene in AI Software.
I was very impressed with the results, I've only just started so I have more to learn, but its pretty impressive top me.
I can use that same model for other holidays as well, for example new years or St Patrick's Day.

The thing is after sending it to the wife she said its not photography. It's not really a photo, but still much of the same work went into it.
I don't recall but maybe similar things came up around photoshop early on.

I know there is a lot of argument around this in general, but is it photography?
There is a lot of adjusting to get the correct results.
You also need to be able to creatively write to get the photo you want.
I had to set up equipment and take 100s of photos to build a good model.
It took several days (or more) to get a decent result with a person and then there is still a lot of fine tuning to get it perfect.
The dog was a lot easier but I had already messed with people for a few weeks.

Many photographers were against Digital cameras for quite a while, even SLRs, let alone camera phones.
Even once they did embrace it they still stuck to the Nikon\Canon thing. Yeah they had lenses already so a big factor, $1000s in lenses.
Its unfortunate as some of the best cameras failed as they were against mirrorless.
IMO Samsung NX cameras are still better than much of what is out there today, but Samsung gave up on it.

Anyway my though is a wedding photographer could take a ton of photos before the wedding to build the model.
You can then take the standard photos at the wedding.
Between those you can create the perfect wedding photos for your wall etc.

Thoughts?

 

[dizneegirl]

It's not a photograph, and not photography, even if it took photos to make it. Once it goes all together in the software, it's 3D modeling and photo mapping, no longer photography.

 

[Magical2017]

Old school me says no, but 2023 me says, "We have to adapt." I think it is simply a new way to explore photography.

 

[TikiRob]

I have been heavily invested in AI for my work in the creative field and I think you make some good points. When I approach the subject with colleagues who consider themselves "artists," they baulk at the notion of AI generated/enhanced images. Colleagues who are writers are skeptical as well. If I meander over to those in the science and tech fields, they have fully embraced it and are thrilled with the possibilities.

In general, I think all AI is a tool to do better work, quicker. For what you are describing, I think it depends on what you want. A photo of your dog in a hat for a Christmas card purposes... brilliant! Photos documenting an event (or experience like a vacation)... a counterfeit reality.

Nobody is going to say "well, your dog never actually wore that hat!" because it is cute and harmless. A photo of my family at the Disneyland that wasn't taken on our actual trip but generated from our photos and public images is disingenuous.

Lots of ethical questions around AI and I'm excited to hear other's takes!

 

[Magical2017]

It's not a photograph, and not photography, even if it took photos to make it. Once it goes all together in the software, it's 3D modeling and photo mapping, no longer photography.

I admittedly do not know much about 3D modeling and photo mapping and had not considered this when I wrote my response.

 

[tony67]

It's not a photograph, and not photography, even if it took photos to make it. Once it goes all together in the software, it's 3D modeling and photo mapping, no longer photography.

Yeah it becomes more like art at that point I think.

 

[tony67]

I have been heavily invested in AI for my work in the creative field and I think you make some good points. When I approach the subject with colleagues who consider themselves "artists," they baulk at the notion of AI generated/enhanced images. Colleagues who are writers are skeptical as well. If I meander over to those in the science and tech fields, they have fully embraced it and are thrilled with the possibilities.

In general, I think all AI is a tool to do better work, quicker. For what you are describing, I think it depends on what you want. A photo of your dog in a hat for a Christmas card purposes... brilliant! Photos documenting an event (or experience like a vacation)... a counterfeit reality.

Nobody is going to say "well, your dog never actually wore that hat!" because it is cute and harmless. A photo of my family at the Disneyland that wasn't taken on our actual trip but generated from our photos and public images is disingenuous.

Lots of ethical questions around AI and I'm excited to hear other's takes!

Yeah that is the big issue, events.

I see getting the perfect wedding photo as ok, I mean how much post processing goes on in photoshop anyway?
Replacing faces in group shots etc..

For documenting an actual event, like a war though - no. Already enough fake stuff in that realm without involving AI.

 

[mistysue]

It's closer to photoshop than photography.
If you photoshopped something together, you likely wouldn't tell people it was an actual photo, so why would you use AI to photoshop things and then pass it off as a photo.

 

[tony67]

It's closer to photoshop than photography.
If you photoshopped something together, you likely wouldn't tell people it was an actual photo, so why would you use AI to photoshop things and then pass it off as a photo.

Good point, but of course how much is actually real today?

90% of Instagram or social media is their best 10% and staged.
Even going to peoples annual christmas letters, how fake are those?

I'm on the fence in general with this, it will be interesting to see where it goes.
One of the reasons I am looking at it, no doubt much of the work I do will be replaced with AI in a few years, just glad I am close to retirement.

 

[ronandannette]

Yeah that is the big issue, events.

I see getting the perfect wedding photo as ok, I mean how much post processing goes on in photoshop anyway?
Replacing faces in group shots etc..

For documenting an actual event, like a war though - no. Already enough fake stuff in that realm without involving AI.

The proverbial horse is already out of the barn, and the potential is chilling. We already couldn’t believe everything we read, now we can’t believe what we see.

 

[tony67]

The proverbial horse is already out of the barn, and the potential is chilling. We already couldn’t believe everything we read, now we can’t believe what we see.

Yup.

Not to get too far in the weeds, but there are already AI "models" or influencers on various platforms.
They are not even models of real people, but a combination of people or a real person adjusted.

In many cases its pretty obvious to me, but for the average person they have no idea.
Guys are making the usual comments about them and sending them money etc...
In many cases its a guy behind the avatar. Its pretty scary really.

 

[ronandannette]

Yup.

Not to get too far in the weeds, but there are already AI "models" or influencers on various platforms.
They are not even models of real people, but a combination of people or a real person adjusted.

In many cases its pretty obvious to me, but for the average person they have no idea.
Guys are making the usual comments about them and sending them money etc...
In many cases its a guy behind the avatar. Its pretty scary really.

There is no emoji or response button on here to adequately express my reaction to this. I just really can’t process what kind of a world we are living in.

 

[tony67]

There is no emoji or response button on here to adequately express my reaction to this. I just really can’t process what kind of a world we are living in.

I often think the same thing but then I think back so talks with some of my older friends who were adults in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the said similar things.

"These kids today"

It does seem far worse today, but maybe that just our perspective (I hope).

 

[Stratman50th]

So in my opinion it's not photography. Is it it's own art format? Sure, just like all the blending that goes on in Photoshop where they take a stock photo of a model and put them into a creation where they are fighting a dragon. Not a photo, but still a recognized art piece within the photoshop world.
I'm old school. I did a lot of film photography. I didn't have my own darkroom so I had to send my film out. When SLRs became affordable I embraced them as the results were instantaneous. That being said, I still go for manual settings on my digital cameras that are the same as I used on my film cameras. Plus I still strive for the perfect shot instead of the machine gun method. Finally, while I have used light room on some photos in post, it is very rare. The exception is B&W. Even with the digital camera set to B&W, the results are still too crisp and look like, we'll to me anyway like what they are, digital color photos just in black and white. They lack the gradients of depth and grain of film. I can process them in Lightroom to make them look right.
So I guess what I'm saying is no to AI if it's trying to be "real" photography.
PS: Yup, I'm one of those guys with thousands in prime lenses (Canon). Also, I think Nikon makes great cameras, I just started out on the Canon platform and wasn't going to double my expenditures.

 

[ramee]

I often think the same thing but then I think back so talks with some of my older friends who were adults in the 50s, 60s and 70s and the said similar things.

"These kids today"

It does seem far worse today, but maybe that just our perspective (I hope).

Right. It seems difficult to keep up with technology. Today’s generation has AI, photoshop, Snapchat…I had Kid Pix.

I think it’s a great form of art but does allow the lines of reality to be blurred a bit too much for comfort.

Like what ronadette was saying, it'll be harder figure out truth from fact. But maybe we’ll just adapt.

Makes me think we’re not too far off from stuff you see in science fiction, though. Wall-e comes to mind with the whole becoming consumed with living your life outside of reality due to the technological advances.

 

[_19disnA]

AI seems to be the lastest buzzword in the tech space. A lot of companies use that term loosely in an attempt to drive up their stock price. Every article I read describes AI as something different. As it relates to photos, long before AI was the hot buzzword, there were lots of software packages where you could modify your photos ('photoshop' was a common term even when using some other software). Lighten/darken backgrounds, remove unwanted items from the background, etc. I don't consider that AI, but more along the lines of digital enhancements.

Most of the supposed AI images I have seen online look fake/artificial and clearly don't look the real thing. I think you can tell when something is fake without a lot of effort. What difference does it make if you choose to modify images of your dog for personal use? If you print it and put it in a frame to display, does it really matter how it was produced or whether or not someone else considers it 'photography'?

 

[tony67]

AI seems to be the lastest buzzword in the tech space. A lot of companies use that term loosely in an attempt to drive up their stock price. Every article I read describes AI as something different. As it relates to photos, long before AI was the hot buzzword, there were lots of software packages where you could modify your photos ('photoshop' was a common term even when using some other software). Lighten/darken backgrounds, remove unwanted items from the background, etc. I don't consider that AI, but more along the lines of digital enhancements.

Most of the supposed AI images I have seen online look fake/artificial and clearly don't look the real thing. I think you can tell when something is fake without a lot of effort. What difference does it make if you choose to modify images of your dog for personal use? If you print it and put it in a frame to display, does it really matter how it was produced or whether or not someone else considers it 'photography'?

Was just using the dog as an example and it sparked a discussion at home.
My wife is someone who still prints photos and puts them into binders.
It took her a long time to embrace digital cameras, I even have a brand new Canon EOS Elan 7 that was a gift for Christmas way back then. She decide she was good with digital and it never got used.
So I wanted to discuss with folks who are a bit more tech savvy.

There are loads of "hyper realistic" images that shocked me TBH, its very hard to tell IMO.
There are plenty that are not so hard to tell as well.
Much comes down to the model and building it properly to start with.
Garbage in equals garbage out.

As for AI being the latest buzzword, I here what you are saying. A few years back it was cloud. Every few years there is something that is a stock multiplier that everyone just jumps on.
I recall a situation where it was using XML as a buzzword. So we jumped through hoops to convert something to XML and back again for no reason except that the sales team could say we used XML.

I am in tech and I have friends that are using and evaluation AI to write code and it can do 60-70% of the work. They are already using it. I've not started playing with it yet.

The key, much like photos is getting the correct model. You cant just say write me a program to replace X (formerly known as twitter) and expect it to work. That seems to be what threads is.

 

[tony67]

PS: Yup, I'm one of those guys with thousands in prime lenses (Canon). Also, I think Nikon makes great cameras, I just started out on the Canon platform and wasn't going to double my expenditures.

Makes sense. I am a Canon guy only because I had canon film cameras and lenses.
I left Canon because they were always a few steps behind, 4k being a prime example. Same with mirrorless.
With the NX you could get shots that were next to impossible using 4k and 256 frames per second.

Tried MFT for a while as well with Panasonic Lumix and it was ok.

I have come back to Canon now and I have an R8 (full frame) and a M200 compact.
Of course they don't share lenses with each other or use the old lenses without an adapter
And worse they don't let the third parties make lenses, like Sigma.

 

[_19disnA]

Yes, I also work in an area where I interact with IT, so it is interesting to see what the latest IT developments are. I agree about that whole 'cloud' thing a few years ago. It is just another name for the various servers running the internet. Where a server is or how many you interact with when using the internet is really more of the 'behind the curtain' stuff the user never sees (or doesn't care or need to know). Cloud based whatever has somewhat faded into the background. The hype seems to have moved elsewhere.

Personally, I liked the move to digital photography/cameras. No need to process expensive film, wait for it to get developed and with digital you can just erase the photos you don't want and start over. With removable HD cards, you can take hundreds of photos and never worry about running out of film. Probably also better for the environment since you no longer need those various harsh/expensive chemicals that were used to process/develop your negatives. Far easier to store in a digital medium and pass around to others, archive or have prints made.

 

[Stratman50th]

Makes sense. I am a Canon guy only because I had canon film cameras and lenses.
I left Canon because they were always a few steps behind, 4k being a prime example. Same with mirrorless.
With the NX you could get shots that were next to impossible using 4k and 256 frames per second.

Tried MFT for a while as well with Panasonic Lumix and it was ok.

I have come back to Canon now and I have an R8 (full frame) and a M200 compact.
Of course they don't share lenses with each other or use the old lenses without an adapter
And worse they don't let the third parties make lenses, like Sigma.

This is most of my current gear:



Old film stuff: