Is photography dying?

[Erik van Straten]

Great photography, drawing and painting has to do with human fantasy. AI will be as unimaginative as the images of cookies on cookie packaging. I think people with imagination will continue to draw, to paint and to photograph, simply because it's fun to do. Imaginative works of art will always be made.

 

[Dogman]

Given how quickly trends appear and then fade out, AI will likely slip into the background quietly very soon. Something new will replace it, something more trendy.

 

[eckhardf]

I think generative AI in all communicative areas (still images, text, text to speech, video etc.) will up-end the social order as soon as it's indistinguishable from 'real' photography, text, speech etc. The objectivity of all information will need to be questioned and validated; and this will be virtually impossible to do.

Fake news will have a field day and it will be difficult to determine what is really real and what's been generated by an AI. Society is held together by communication. And powerful AI's (and their owners) may be able to disrupt and reshape societies with believable mis-information. Soon you will need to question and doubt the veracity of all (especially digital) sources of information.

In relation to photography for example; Say you post a great photo from a fashion shoot on-line: how do you 'prove' it's not AI generated or altered? Sure; for many the joy is in the creative process - so validity is irrelevant. But for those who want to share or display their work to others and claim authorship; doubts may exist in the audiences mind as to the work's veracity.

Of course we will all continue doing what we do photographically; but I think the rise of convincing generative AI will rapidly reshape the context within which our photographic works are viewed.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Given how quickly trends appear and then fade out, AI will likely slip into the background quietly very soon. Something new will replace it, something more trendy.

I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong.

 

[jsrockit]

In relation to photography for example; Say you post a great photo from a fashion shoot on-line: how do you 'prove' it's not AI generated or altered? Sure; for many the joy is in the creative process - so validity is irrelevant. But for those who want to share or display their work to others and claim authorship; doubts may exist in the audiences mind as to the work's veracity.

Well, you can almost bet it will be AI in the future. But, it is fashion... who cares? It's about the clothes! 😉

 

[boojum]

No, the camera lucida was invented much later, end of the 18th century. Vermeer used a camera obscura. Why "suspected"?

Don't mess with the Dutch. "Gentle when stroked, fierce when provoked." ;o)

There was an hour-long "film" here about the use of a Camera Lucida by Vermeer. Yes, it had not been "invented" but there was the relationship Vermeer had with the lens grinder that raises suspicion. In the video it was demonstrated how it would have been done. And in one painting there is a long horizontal line painted which normally would have been painted straight whereas in reality the object sags a bit in the middle which would have been revealed with the Camera Lucida. The film examined both sides of the allegations, Needless to say the film proposal of the Camera Lucida was much disputed. In the film it was shown how easy it was to get really good, life-like, almost photographically real images. And the Camera Lucida is much more practical in use than the Camera Obscura.

I take no position on this, I am reporting only what I have seen in the film and if I can find it I will send you the link. Please have a foam rubber brick in hand to throw at the TV when watching the show not a real brick if I do find the show. ;o)

Vermeer will forever be a mysterious and magical painter.

 

[boojum]

AI has been used in photography for years with photo editors. Those plug-ins and "effects" are forms of AI. Some editors now can do real magic with an image, changing it radically. Adobe may soon have PS or LR able to respond to voice commands rather than just from pull-down menus. I do not see this as a simple black or white issue, this is a large swath of grey. And disputing it and its import is like saying that these new looms will never match what can be done on the hand looms. This is an oft-traveled road.

It is also new. I had an interaction with ChatGPT on Sling last night trying to resolve an issue. Give me a call center in India. LOL

 

[boojum]

No, the camera lucida was invented much later, end of the 18th century. Vermeer used a camera obscura. Why "suspected"?

Eric. OK, my friend, I have tracked down the source, a film that showed a few years ago: Tim's Vermeer - Wikipedia

Vermeer will always be a mystery for a number of reasons. We know so little of him. His paintings were so much of one type. He produced so little. His skills were amazing. Check out the film. I will be re-watching it tonight. And remember that I am only the messenger. ;o)

Proost

PS - Some criticism of this possible technique that may have been used by Vermeer is being echoed today re AI and photography. It never fails to amuse that one persons "art" is so much more real and so much more valid than another person's "art." These arguments get trotted out with every new technology and are not new, and to quote the noble English poet,

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

 

[Pál_K]

AI has been used in photography for years with photo editors. Those plug-ins and "effects" are forms of AI. Some editors now can do real magic with an image, changing it radically. …. And disputing it and its import is like saying that these new looms will never match what can be done on the hand looms. …

AI will be able to do a much better job of manipulating images or creating entirely new false images to control what people see and think.

Perhaps, being an engineer, I am just pessimistic and seek the worst-case scenario. For example, I see AI as allowing my enemies to create images of an atrocity befallen them without ever actually having to suffer that atrocity; they won’t have to burn a metaphorical Reichstag.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Eric. OK, my friend, I have tracked down the source, a film that showed a few years ago: Tim's Vermeer - Wikipedia

Vermeer will always be a mystery for a number of reasons. We know so little of him. His paintings were so much of one type. He produced so little. His skills were amazing. Check out the film. I will be re-watching it tonight. And remember that I am only the messenger. ;o)

Proost

PS - Some criticism of this possible technique that may have been used by Vermeer is being echoed today re AI and photography. It never fails to amuse that one persons "art" is so much more real and so much more valid than another person's "art." These arguments get trotted out with every new technology and are not new, and to quote the noble English poet,

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Recently some more studies were done about Vermeer. He was a real family man and was spiritually very developed, more than previously thought.

Thanks a lot, Boojum, for this.

Erik.

 

[boojum]

AI will be able to do a much better job of manipulating images or creating entirely new false images to control what people see and think.

Perhaps, being an engineer, I am just pessimistic and seek the worst-case scenario. For example, I see AI as allowing my enemies to create images of an atrocity befallen them without ever actually having to suffer that atrocity; they won’t have to burn a metaphorical Reichstag.

Wag the Dog

 

[boojum]

And don't forget that this technology has not come here from another planet, brought by an alien like Tommy in The Man Who Fell to Earth. This AI has been created by mere mortals right here on earth. Granted they have special skills, wear those pointed hats with stars and crescent moons on them - some tinker with lenses as a hobby - but what AI knows has been taught to it by "us."

I have been through this with CD's, MP4's, JPG's and all manner of technological impossibilities which we use now in our day-to-day lives. AI will be the boogeyman, until you start findiing uses for it and then you will wonder how you ever got along without it. Who needs computers? Or cell phones? And do not forget that this is not new, it is just new to us. And to quote again the wonderful Adm. Grace Murray Hopper, "We are just at the edge."

 

[boojum]

I just finished watching Tim's Vermeer. It does put it out there that Vermeer could well have used and used well this mirror trick. It also poses the question, and this is so important, of why do art and technology live in separate houses? Da Vinci was the ultimate polymath who designed machines of war and La Gioconda. It is possible Vermeer was also a gifted polymath who could marry art and technology. The point is that they are not mutually exclusive, it just takes more talent as more has to be mastered. Or in Vermeer's case, perhaps less art and more technology than has been believed. The movie is worth a watch.

Knowledge is sometimes scary but isn't it a comfort to know that with the world round we will not fall off the edge?

 

[sjones]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don’t know if anyone strictly views art and technology as mutually exclusive concepts, lest we all forget that photography from its inception was a product of technology. The problem is when people contend or even just imply that technology determines the legitimacy of art, that technology and art are inextricably linked. Back in the late aughts, when everyone was eating up DSLRs and tossing out film, the film lovers derided digital as soulless while the digital converts derided film as antiquated, the horse versus the car. Both sides were objectively wrong, though they may sit on their opinions as long as they please (there are far more pressing issues). Technology axiomatically expands the type of art possible; it introduces new tools, capabilities, and mediums to the overall process. Again, the camera itself being proof of this. However, in aesthetic terms, technology can never render past art obsolete or “quaint.” In the end, how one wants to create is their prerogative. For me, it's taking out my old rangefinder and photographing things that visually prod the eyeballs. As for AI and technology in general, I'm hoping that we humans will use it to dramatically reduce work hours to allow us to pursue our creative interests (assuming that the job doesn't quite do it), or at least to get more sleep. Unfortunately, such vision of the future might be a bit too quixotic.