Bill Clark
Veteran
No.
Great photographers are getting to be fewer and fewer.
Great photographers are getting to be fewer and fewer.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Hmm... I'm not sure about this, and need a definition for "great photographers" that would go beyond personal taste. What I do think may be the case is that there's a lot more shallow, conventional dross to wade through to see the good work that is being done.
das
Well-known
I don't know. I think rather that opportunities for great photography may be getting fewer and fewer.
If one thinks about history's most iconic photographs that are shown over and over in popular culture, they tend to fall into five categories: celebrity portraiture, photojournalism, still-life / environmental photography, and to a far lesser extent "street photography" and abstract photography. For the average person, we do not and cannot encounter most famous people. Celebrities are not only living more isolated, cloistered lifestyles, they also often have highly-curated PR, which means that only certain "approved" photos will be released to the public. This has more or less always been the case, but great still photos of celebrities were much more important parts of PR in the past (magazines, press packets, posters) before the video age. Also for the average person, unless we physically encounter something important happening, our personal opportunities for photojournalism are generally limited to whatever world we exist in. Photojournalism also will often be only as powerful as the rest of the world thought that event was important or the subject compelling. For landscapes and still life, it is fairly easy for anyone with skill to take the same iconic photos of mountains, lakes, flowers, etc., as we long as we have access to them. News outlets over the past few decades have been cutting back on sending still photographers out into the world, so we see less and less of that all of the time. For "street photography," the ones we see the most are from the same handful of famous photographers, many of whom probably staged what were presented as "spontaneous" moments, and whose "regular people" photos gained heightened fame through a kind of "Picasso effect" -- where no one would have taken them seriously if they were not already at least somewhat famous and conventionally-talented photographers.
Very, very few people will ever take a photograph that hundreds of thousands of people will see. So, if we have realistic expectations of our own photography and find satisfaction in it, even though our best photos will never be seen outside of a select group of people, I suppose that "great" could be defined differently for different people. But "great" as in "popular culture great," it seems like the number of individuals who have access to "great" subject matter will probably continue to decline.
Last edited:
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
"...our personal opportunities for photojournalism are generally limited to whatever world we exist in." This is an advantage, not a liability. As any photojournalist will tell you, it's all about access. So many of us are members of communities (of race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.) that are rarely accessible to "outsiders". We have the access that others outside those communities would love to have. It's a question of vision: we have to see ourselves as worthy of documentation and see our communities as the important members of the world family that they are.
das
Well-known
I mean, I agree with this. I am not saying it is a liability, but to contrast it to a world where news and public interest organizations would sponsor and pay people to document worlds and situations we cannot experience in our own geography. Which they are doing less and less, thus limiting opportunities for great photography.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
joe bosak
Well-known
I saw that and thought of what I saw on ebay today:
Simply describing an item in your own words is irrelevant, as ebay AI can create extensive but largely meaningless prose within a few seconds, incorporating key words from your title, chosen categories and product detail, into lengthy, florid sentences and paragraphs padded extensively with words that add nothing and creating an impressive but vapid description to encourages buyers to purchase your item.
Ebay will survive, but is getting weird.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
^^ I'm seeing more of this from various articles and reviews not written by humans. You can tell it was machine culled from various sources and re-assembled in a sort of semi-cubist fashion. I see it a lot for product reviews or new car model announcements.
Henry
Well-known
We haven't really gotten over the part where most generative AI tends to create elaborate hallucinogenic lies. Even short pieces of text might drift into inaccuracy.
The issue is the same with images.
Spend fifteen minutes talking to https:/bard.google.com and you'll see plenty of it. Ask it a question that requires accuracy and any close reading will show you misinformation. The biggest issue, in my mind, is how convincing it can be when it really gets going. People tend to trust authoritative "sounding" sources, and these generative AI tools are perfect for doing just that. I suspect many governments will use them for misinformation campaigns around the world (probably to their danger, since it's just as likely to make up lies about them too).
The issue is the same with images.
Spend fifteen minutes talking to https:/bard.google.com and you'll see plenty of it. Ask it a question that requires accuracy and any close reading will show you misinformation. The biggest issue, in my mind, is how convincing it can be when it really gets going. People tend to trust authoritative "sounding" sources, and these generative AI tools are perfect for doing just that. I suspect many governments will use them for misinformation campaigns around the world (probably to their danger, since it's just as likely to make up lies about them too).
Erik van Straten
Veteran
When photography was invented, someone said "From today painting is dead".
Erik.
Erik.
AlexMogens
Established
AI isn’t photography, all it can do is replace some photography. This impacts the overall ecosystem of photography. Photography will grow more niche and there will be fewer jobs.
das
Well-known
I mean, it kind of is. Before photography, paintings were in large demand because they often had a utilitarian nature-- e.g., painted portraits were the only method of capturing someone's likeness. People also commissioned / bought landscape paintings to remember places they had visited or imagined. Also, well-off folks' residences were filled with all sorts of paintings for decorative purposes -- still life, landscapes, portraits of relatives, etc.. Compared to that, the demand for real paintings today is a small fraction of what is was in the 19th century and before.
das
Well-known
I saw a TikTok this week where a professional had a few decent digital photos of herself and from those had AI generate a series of PR headshots and half-body shots. Looked as good as anything a digital pro photographer could do, albeit it was kind of high school portrait-ish.
I think that's the thing. It will be good at the cliches if you try to make it copy photography. I saw somewhere where someone used AI to mimic the styles of all types of famous photographers. A lot of people were impressed, but to me they did not look anything like those photographer´s photos nor would I care about that type of image.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
It was Paul Delaroche, a French painter.
Other painters from the same era, like Ingres, were fascinated by photography.
Erik.
D
Deleted member 82967
Guest
You might be referring to this:
G'MIC 2.7 - Process Your Images with Style!
The IMAGE team at the GREYC research laboratory is pleased to announce the release of version 2.7 of G’MIC (GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing), its free, generic, extensible, and probably a little magical, framework for digital image processing. The previous PIXLS.US article on this open-source...
pixls.us
If so, the style can be applied with as much or as little one desires.
My woodland street, when rendered to perfection, is pretty boring because I live there. However, when "stylized" based on van Gogh's "the Starry Night" it becomes quite striking when not over-done.
No, I meant specifically well known photographers and trying to make the AI images look like those photographers style.You might be referring to this:
G'MIC 2.7 - Process Your Images with Style!
The IMAGE team at the GREYC research laboratory is pleased to announce the release of version 2.7 of G’MIC (GREYC’s Magic for Image Computing), its free, generic, extensible, and probably a little magical, framework for digital image processing. The previous PIXLS.US article on this open-source...pixls.us
If so, the style can be applied with as much or as little one desires.
My woodland street, when rendered to perfection, is pretty boring because I live there. However, when "stylized" based on van Gogh's "the Starry Night" it becomes quite striking when not over-done.
Henry
Well-known
Man, that is an art project right there.