As a young graphic designer in the late 1970s, my boss showed me how to draw an intricate logo by hand using ink, a pen and a brush. He proudly said "well at least we never have to worry about computers being able to do this." Enough said.
If I had to guess, I'd say AI photo-realistic images will be used more or less in the same cases as stock photos are used today. As long as it's for something generic. For all things personal or specific (a product, a portrait, an event, sport moment, etc.), there will always be a need for something authentic, for a human perspective and presence.
As a senior, AI doesn't do much for me at this point. Photography is the enjoyment of taking photos , competing with yourself to get a "that's one for the wall" photograph. When I stop enjoying that, I hang up (sell) the cameras.Still have tons of room on my walls......
Original film photographers fought going digital. They claimed that DSLRs/Digital wasn't real photography. I can also remember when film photographers would state that photographers using Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz, etc. were cheating. Now, DSLRs and post processing is the industry standard. Even people who have true talent such a painting, drawing, sketching, etc. started using digital software to create more art to sell. Graphic artists use a computer and software to create commercial art. So I really just don't understand the big deal with all of this. Art changes and involves over time, just as society and technology does. People should just look at AI as a tool. I don't personally believe it will ever truly replace true God-given talent. But it opens up doors to everyone and that's a good thing, if used wisely.
@@MegUSN52 AI is not a tool, it is a substitute for an Artist. If you are using AI you are just a client and the AI is the artist that spits images based on the client's request. If you ask a painter to paint you a blue and yellow horse masterpiece, you can't publish the painting and tell the world you painted it just because you give the painter instructions.
@@MegUSN52 I completely disagree. Just as @NUSAMA has replied, AI “art” where you write a prompt is not another medium of art. It’s a request for art to be made for you, instead of by you. You are not the artist here in this scenario, so don’t pretend to be. Comparing the total replacement of the artist in modern day with original film photographers fighting against the digital takeover doesn’t even come close to making sense. Responding to what you said about graphic artists using computers and software to create commercial art; they are still the artists creating the art with a tool instead of a tool entirely making it for them before stamping their name on it. It’s extremely lazy at the very least and isn’t something to be praised. AI “artists” (outside of Refik Anadol and other similar artists) may spend 200+ hours learning how to use an AI program like Midjourney, compared to a career artist spending an entire lifetime working on their craft. It is definitely really interesting and impressive technology, but that’s all it is.
Really good piece on this interesting topic. I think part of the anxiety comes from the absolute breakneck speed of AI development. I agree, it is 100% here and it’s staying. I think there will be a bit of separation amongst the photo community, what I mean is of your income depends on photography as a profession, there is certainly room for concern. And learning the tools and learning to adapt will yield great benefits. For others (like myself) a hobbyist, a person who photographs for pure emotional connection with the image, I don’t think AI is even in the same category, like a painting or cinema. However there is one very dark corner that I think all visually immersed artists should disavow and with very loud voices, AI generated documentary photography/photojournalism. Even saying it is oxymoron, faking real life events, deep fakes, etc. are an abomination and should be treated as such. Sorry long comment haha.
All Ai art has someone's human touch, all build on real works that came before it. As someone who makes private work just for myself, this of course is no threat at all. But for people who actually make money off photography it's a real threat. But on the other hand it might also be a great way to create reference images for actual photographers. DALL-E is like a doodle, but from what i have seen from Midjourney, there is in most cases at instagram size no way to tell the difference.
I agree. With the current state of the global economy, I believe businesses will seriously consider using images made using artificial means if the end result is 'good enough' and saves them money. You could argue that will help keep prices to the customer low - but I think it's more likely to be used to maintain / enhance profit margins.
It depends if you think that striving for a world of 'reducing costs' and maximising profits will lead to long term satisfaction of the average person. I think that this is totally different to the digitalisation of graphic software, an immense amount of skill was still needed to work with the new software. To type into a program 'create a portrait in the style of annie leibovitz of a boy walking down an alley with smokey eyes' requires next to no creative input. To meddle with art is to meddle with meaning. To steralise the world of human touch an interaction and to commodify this is to play with fire. It's clear what the benefits are (less money spent, more money made faster, faster faster), but we will not know the cost until we're shoulder deep in what we've walked into. Interesting time to be alive.
I don't think AI generated anything will take over human made things. It is the fact that these pieces were made by people, with their experiences and thoughts and self influencing every piece that gives it meaning and makes them important and special. An AI generated piece of work means nothing, it has no meaning or thought behind it at all, it may look cool but that's as far as it will ever go. Human made things will always be on top for us as a whole I think.
yeah but the problem is people trying to pass off AI generated art as their own or claiming that it is an acutaly photography taken by a human. Imagine how much better AI will be in just 5 years time.
@James Barcelona There is already other AI programs being developed to break down and figure out whether or not something given to it was generated by AI. I don't know if you have worked with machine learning in any way in the past, but when it gives out an image or video, etc, there are certain artifacts which are minute but noticeable when put under a "microscope". So for now that is what is being looked for, but in the future there will either have to he a tagging system in which you can prove via export from photoshop or other file system that what you are providing is authentic, maybe like copyright where it is a proper verification of proof. And if it becomes an issue, laws could be put in place to punish those who fake this verification like those who break copyright. That is just one idea, but there are ways to get around and prove something was made by someone and not AI
@dark whale Yes that is definitely a problem, and is insulting to the world of artists who have put years of effort into refining their craft. And yes in 5 years AI will definitely be much better, but for one it may also be kinda phased out and out of fashion to make things like that. But if not yes we will have to find some way to prove authenticity which I discussed in another reply here. I think with our ingenuity we will figure out some way around this issue. It may persist and there will be those who try to pass things off as their own, but it will be figured out in time and we will just have to wait and see
Problem is that you wouldn't know which one is real or AI generated. I foresee a huge rise in the number of "artists" in the near future. Like new age "celebrities" who make some weird stuff on tiktok.
thank you for your videos Faizal! you're such a great inspiration. your videos that are supposed to teach art of photography not only do that excellently, but are art themselves.
AI won't replace photography as an art, but it will kill the business part of it, starting with stock photography being killed off first. Next step is video. But as an art - no. Because even if the AI will get super good at what it does, the human-made art will always be in a greater value.
Hard disagree with the point that companies wouldn't take advantage of AI images over real people. They might like the idea of "human connection" but in the end the money will dictate. There is also a factor of convience when they can just type a prompt and instantly get results they can adjust. They can then run hundreds of iterations to get exactly what they want. A human photographer wouldn't be able to do that.
I think we can start by rejecting the term "AI art" and calling it what it is, "AI images." It's not art and the people who generate it with their computer software are not artists. Many people of course won't know the difference and this will give AI image makers real commercial power, and that is unfortunate for the commercial prospects of real artists, but we must persevere. Art, conceptualized and created by humans will always have value to the people that appreciate it. It's a magical and wondrous thing. I will never respect an AI image maker, or pay attention to their images on my screen in the same way I respect a person that creates art with their mind and their hands. Not by a long shot. I think many people feel the same way.
If anything I think AI will increase the barrier of entry for any artist in the future. In almost every kind of art on a commercial level people will have to compete with AI. I don't think the established artists will be very much affected by this but at the end of the day, money will dictate whether a company decides to use AI or a real artist. In the future artists will have to really stand out to be of any value to a business. You need to do what AI can't but you also need to use AI to your advantage as much as possible without losing your voice. I think new artists will have a real hard time ahead of them. It's a real shame because technology (meaning the internet) made it possible for so many people to follow their passion and now technology will take that away again.
Agreed, I think one must also consider that you not only would have to stand out but then continue to stand out even more as AI could very well adapt/copy your own style. Crazy.
I disagree. AI is neither creative, empathic, ingenious much less intelligent and as such no competitor in the art of photography or any other form of art. At present it thrives from human creations stored on some machines and shuffles elements picked from those images. From a commercial point of view it might to some extend compete with humans. Still, no prompt or avatar will ever catch the subtleties of human interaction, much less the nonverbal, which often play a key role when dealing with customers looking for fine tuned solutions. That day, when AI becomes aware of itself it might, but it might also not care about us or our wishes.
A lot of the AI hype is overblown, but let's discuss the impact commercial photography specifically. I think AI will kill "stock" photography, but that was rarely a true moneymaker. The average commercial photographer's "bread-and-butter" - wedding photography will be pretty safe. I can see AI editing on that space. "Art photography" also safe, humans will outcreate AI (there's much of a sameness to those Mid Journey images). Architectural, documentary, and photojournalism also safe(ish). Fakes in photojournalism, specifically, have been a problem since the Crimean War. AI fakes are a quantum leap in that struggle. Portraits... There's going to be a lot of "make me look skinny!," but there already is that. Ditto Landscape. Leaving Street Photography... I dunno, Street is a process, the Perfect Moment. AI allows one to fake it... I guess it will come down to personal integrity. Fortunately?? there is no real money in Street Photography. The overarching issue, I think, is that what used to be fine by beginning commercial photographers to "cut their teeth" - simple product photoshoots, stock, travel, etc... Will now be done by machine. I am afraid we are looking at the last generation of true photographers, not because of AI taking THEIR jobs, but because of AI starving the next generation. We shall see...
1. Wasn't there a similar situation in cinema a few decades ago with the introduction of CGI? Over the last few years, we saw the partial return of practical effects, because people got tired of CGI. An image that comes to mind is the Jumbo Jet driving into a building in Nolan's Tenet. 2. AI might be a bigger danger to commercial photography (product photography, fashion, food etc.) as to art. Commercial photography often seems to be a reproduction of something that we have seen before, giving us a comfortable feeling of familiarity. Art is (or should be) the complete opposite, challenging our perception and ways of thinking. 3. AI images can make new, interesting, even weird and uncanny visual combinations, which might enable artists to use an AI image as a starting point for their work. 4. In our globalized world, where everybody buys the same clothes and drinks their coffee in the same franchise bars, AI seems to have little difficulty to visualize our lack of true individuality. 5. Is there a huge difference between a heavily photoshopped photo and an AI image of a similar situation?
Beautiful breakdown. It's always refreshing to get what other photographers think about AI. Although who knows where AI might go in the future. I'm sure, like with anything else, will be a feeling of nostalgia. Just like what film is in digital world. The feeling (connection) will always be desired.
Fascinating subject. This does not only effect the photographer, but models, locations and everything associated with commercial photography. This sort a reminds me of CGI...and its effects on the movie industry, yet we still have practical effects still being made.
AI images are not photography, as they don't really represent the real world, similar to how a photograph of an oil painting does not replace the painting itself. It is possible that cameras may eventually include some form of encryption, verifying that the image is real. Despite this, there is still a place for documentary, photojournalism and street photography; however, I do believe that AI will eventually destroy the stock photography world, as well as low-effort street photography that focuses more on form than content.
I find it pretty scary what AI can actually do. But what I think is key that creators and artists make it a strong point of how genuine something made by us as humans is. With our creativity and own eye. 🤙🏻
Interesting breakdown of a fascinating subject. I’m old enough to have seen computers take over so many industries and they will continue to do so. But what Ai will always lack is the human urge to create for the hell of it. For itself. If the motivation for creating is money, then yes, Ai will be an issue. But doing it for your self, out of love for the media, whatever it may be, is what sets us apart from machines. If anything it’s a blessing, reminding us what the reason for creating is in the first place
I wonder, about the Dall-E photos of Morocco - your prompt says a "Blue painted alley". Maybe it was interpreting it as "in a painted style" rather than "painted-blue"? Of course, the other photos it generated had a painterly look to them anyway, so maybe that's just Dall-E's thing.
There is a good chance stock photography will get replaced by AI art. Just as companies like Squarespace have replaced web designers jobs. Why hire a web designer when you use a cheap template? Though just because these template sites exist doesn't mean everyone uses them. Those that can afford it will still hire website designers because they have more say on how it looks and functions. I find AI art great for brainstorming ideas. I'm in my final year at uni. It could take me weeks to test out all my ideas for a project, or I can spend a few hours brainstorming my ideas with the AI. I know for a fact I would fail if I tried to hand in AI images for my project, other than the mixed media module, but it was a mix of photography and AI and I had to state that was what it was. Putting your photographs in Outpainting is lots of fun. I've also been playing with creating Img2Img to create double exposures using a mix of photography and AI. When the camera was invented a lot of painters felt threaten and feared the end of human made art. Claiming the camera was doing all the work as all a person did was push a button. Photographers know there is a lot more to getting a good image than just pointing and pushing a button. To be fair there is a lot more to creating AI art then just typing in a few words. AI won't replace photographers, anymore than photography ended paintings. It is just another tool for people to create images with. I suspect that there will be a disruption, especially considering AI is a hot news subject at the moment, so it makes sense that advertisers are cashing on the attention. Does that mean they will only use AI art. I doubt it. People like celebrities and brands. I suspect it will be used mostly as another editing tool rather than replace photographers.
Wow, looks like the end of the photography profession, the photography industry and a great tool for misinformation by unscrupulous advertisers and Governments. I do agree with you in your statement about human art gaining more meaning, and value.
I think stories are what's important. We use photography/illustration/AI/etc to tell those stories visually and choose whichever tool suits our needs best (quality, cost, time, et al). My guess is that many of the companies choosing to use AI would never have hired the photographers or illustrators that are most upset by the innovation-so they're not really missing out on work. Whether a camera w/film or a canvas w/paint or AI w/prompts was used to capture details or bring an artist's vision to life, it's how an image makes you feel that's the kicker. I'll take an emotionally-powerful AI-assisted image over a technically-competent human-created-with-a-camera image that makes me feel nothing every time.
Another aspect, for me, is that I can't afford to travel to other parts of the world, but I can use AI to imagine what a trip to Paris might be like with all of the images I think or hope I would get to take, imagined with something like Midjourney.
I think wedding photographers are still safe because AI can’t create that level of intimacy that a person can. Scary for street photographers and fine artists though.
You right AI is not photography...PERIOD!!!Agreed. For those who want to live in a make belief world and love science fiction go ahead but if it continues photography, photojournalism is dead...
I agree that there will always be clients who want to work with photographers or purchase real photography, but I can see see AI art taking a large bite out of the low to mid range stock photographers. When I tried Midjourney 4 it was creating work as good or better images than what I used to sell through stock agencies in the past, not to mention no photo shoot expenses other than a subscription. I find it all pretty fascinating, but I'm also glad I'm not trying to make a living with my photography commercially anymore.
Really interesting take on this subject. I would love to experiment with ai and see how well it is able to generate photos for various genres. However I would argue that ai generated art can be called photography: "painting with light" as you said. These images only exist through the pixels on your screen. So the light behind the pixels are in a way painting the photo you see.
Every time you use it, you train it to essentially replace a real photographer or graphic artist. Stop playing with this toy which is only enabling it to destroy someone's livilhood.
This is an interesting and important subject to discuss. Ultimately some categories of photography will fade. Such as photographers who supply libraries. Smartphones and social media have already changed the social photography sector, since candid family shots stored on phones seem to trump formal studio shots today. Categories such as sports photographers and journalists will still have work and new outlets will be found for artist-photographers. What bothers me more is being presented with something that is fake and thinking its real - its already so hard to know if what we are seeing and reading is true or not. The concept of photographic evidence will come to an end.
This might kill stock photography first… as an art form I think photography will stay with us. Did paintings become absolete after inventing photography? Did people stop riding horses after an automobile came around? It will change, it will evolve, but it will not dissapear.
Your videos and style of putting together a video has really inspired me a lot recently, and you've motivated me to push on with my photography studies for the next two years - even with quite a bit more enthusiasm now for what lies ahead of me haha. Hopefully in the future I can begin to make the type of videos I want to make due to your influence on me - Thank you for everything :)
Thanks for video, been wanting to get your input on AI photography and what some groups are calling post-photography movement which in fact has been around for more time than AI Photography.
This won’t just affect photography but the whole of the arts including music and filmmaking as much as any form of drawn/painted art. Not sure why people would invent programs that will replace human creativity. The whole point of art and the enjoyment is knowing it was made by a human and came from their vision. Computer generated photographs will clearly do well in the commercial market as they can cutout the middle man and save money but why kill the arts?
Depends on the type of photography. Perhaps fine art photography or over-processed / edited photos that serve as nothing more as eye-candy or to sell pre-sets then perhaps, even hopefully. But documentary photography of actual events, actual moments that are important to the photographer, things that you want to preserve for yourself or share with others (and of others) then no. Since such a gravid body of photography is bordering on computer generated today, then AI photography - enhanced or fully generated - will become a major part of that process. For me, photography is about sentimentality and nostalgia. I can't be nostalgic for something that doesn't or never did, exist or, more importantly, I never experienced myself.
Whoa!!! Dall-E to me is definitely more abstract & water painting. Midjourney i am blown away at how real it all looks, literally had to stare to see the flaws. THAT IS SCARY AF!!! Not bc of a threat to my work but more so bc much like Inception…if we can’t decipher the difference between dream & reality we lose our grasp on whats actually real. The obvious is that A.I. has literally existed since the first computers like Apple started talking to us. The scary part is blurring the lines of reality & fantasy. The upside for someone like me is being able to use this as a tool as not being a graphic designer but who is very creative & can create whats in my head finally to see how it comes out. That part is mind blowing. It’s definitely controversial and i see why, it can also be beautiful in the right context too. At the of the day we need to be careful we do not lose our human connection.
I think AI art will have its own category, much like Photoshop (composite) artist, digital artists, photographers, ect. I've seen some really impressive pencil drawings that look like b&W photography, but no one would ever call them photography. If a digital artist makes photorealistic images they are still not classed as photography. Most agree that photography is captured in the camera. While I suspect some will use AI rather than stock photography, there is still a lot of areas that the AI can't do, such as anything realistic, events, news, documenting, capturing moments and memories. Its also still really hard to get the AI to give you what you want. Even if you copy other's prompts or text description. I follow a few FB AI groups and some have started to play Chinese whispers/broken telephone game with the AI, by using its description of an images and feeding that text in as a prompt. Starting with one image and showing how much it changes over the course of a few image text prompts. I think we also need to stop thinking of the art the AI produces as belonging to the AI. The AI is using all our art, it is all human art. AI reflects the data. There are a few AI artists that only train the AI on their artwork. The AI reconstructs their work, in interesting ways. They don't give the AI the credit, they acknowledge the AI as another artist tool. The public AI are not creating these images out of its own thinking, it is societies art. It is like a mass collaboration. We don't credit the camera for photographs, though don't get me wrong I appreciate a good camera. We don't credit the paints or whatever materials and tools we use to be creative with. We need to recognise that AI art is our art.
😱😱😱 camera companies will go bust,we’ll all lose our beloved hobby/passion,cameras will become obsolete and binned…..”is AI the end of photography” what a load of tosh…..you’ll never replace the joy of using a camera,the experience of being in that moment when you take the photo….if your thing is being sat behind a screen then bang on.
I believe there was a similar concern when digital cameras came on the scene. People felt it was cheating, taking the actual skill of using a camera, light, etc out of the hands of the photographer and letting the camera do all the work. Similar argument with phones. But here we are and both are accepted without question. AI will find its place and people will adapt.
It will be the end of comercial photography for sure. Imagine what company would choose to hire and pay a photographer? when can they just type some words and get what they want. Graphic designers, models and a lot of other professions will take the hit as well. It may not kill human photography %100 but it will slow down the number of people getting into it, since you can not make money and survive from the craft. As an art form photography will continue to be of great value if not even more.
I'm not certain but I THOUGHT one or more of the AI generated images posted by another person to which you referred there was a copyright? If so, I'm curious about the legal and ethical consequences of a person copyrighting an AI image generated by parameters the person entered into the AI app.
Maybe not the end for all pro photographers. But for many. Just like it will be for so many software developers. AI and machine learning can write all the code for you. No need for many programmers anymore.
My biggest concern is that: 1. AI 'art' is stolen art. Whether paintings or photos, this AI stuff is being generated from already existing work. 2. As seen recently the even more concerning aspect is that these AI generated images can be very realistic and be used to spread false information. The debate of 'is photography dead because of AI' is irrelevant: ofc it's not. But what AI is going to be used for is extremely concerning.
The future will be a mixture between the real world and a generated environment. We need reference points to reality because otherwise everything would become indifferent.
Photographs will always have at least one important item that will set them apart from AI-generated images, no matter how good AI gets... their foundation will always begin as a seed in the heart and soul of a human being capturing an actual moment in time with a camera. Computer-generated images, no matter how amazing they become, will never be able to lay claim to that. The greatest challenge for photographers will be educating people about that uniqueness and value.
I am not afraid that AI is going to take over art rather I see it as a tool to make more art in a different space. Nothing can devalue something that a person creates. I don’t know why many people get offended by AI art. We can appreciate it for its contribution.
Well, you have joined the RUclips creators that have voiced this concern recently and yes, we should be concerned. AI it has been said, is like photography to painters and illustrators of years gone by. A killer of the art forms. This I am afraid, the same concerns we have today with AI and how it will impact us as artists in the photography field. I am now a non working professional that is using photography purely to create art for the sake of creating art. I do not sell my work and mostly view it in my own home. Commercial photographers, ones who make their income with this art form, will be impacted as Faisal mentions in this video. But how will that impact all photographers and the art form of photography itself is a huge unknown. Unfortunately AI is here, and it’s growing in popularity as well as maturing as a product. So nobody has a crystal ball to tell what will happen in the future. As was also pointed out, AI has been here for a while now, think iPhone photos, it wasn’t until we saw these websites and companies using AI technology to create what resembles a photograph as easy as typing in a line of text describing what you want to see that I got nervous. As I am not making money from my art at this time, I understand the concerns of professional photographers. It is bad enough that the field is so saturated now that you need to find a way to be seen as “special”, what ever that means, to be seen as truly successful. What I am saying is we have to wait to see what impact this has on the art of photography. I am concerned and we should all be but, don’t stop creating, don’t stop trying to get better and don’t give up a passion that you have for photography in it’s present state… I know I won’t.
One of the things I don’t like about AI is how it’s making me second guess is some real photographs are AI. I would never have guessed some of those images you shared in the video were AI
The profit motive always wins; sad but true. I think a certain number of photographers work will be recognized and rewarded and it will make it an exclusive club that most photographers will be denied admission. We already have this, right?
Tried it and was very surprised with the realistic results. We cannot avoid it. But on the other hand who wants fake pictures from their wedding. There will be a market for real Photography still - at least for now.
A I is not only a threat to photography, but to humanity as we know it, it has been conceived mainly for that purpose, to diminish and strip the human being of all its greatness, if AI were not restricted, it would end all professions. , employment, and human expression, it is only a question of knowing what interests are behind it, and to what 4genda they respond, to finish I would say that art has been, is and will be a human expression, the AI only feeds (steals) from what made by man, it is not really "intelligent" but totally ARTIFICIAL.
At the end of the day the cost will decide if AI will replace an illustrator or a photographer, with the level of advancement in AI is right now, commercial photography will see some drastic changes in the years to come. As for my personal photography using AI will cut off all the pleasure of creating something with my camera. Thanks for bringing video of this subject, quite an interesting reflection
Unless you're a professional photographer, don't sweat the quality issues. Using AI as a crutch doesn't make anyone an artist. Embrace the suck and learn the photographic process. I'm no genius but I enjoy my photography and the end results I create. If I had to rely on AI to get what I want, I'd take up knitting.
I currently deal with the prevalence of AI in my day job, and while it is certainly different looking at it from an economic point of view, ultimately my position is this: I enjoy the making of, so where I draw my line on letting technology change that is personal. I prefer digital, and once upon a time that was looked at much the same way we look at AI now. AI will not meaningfully affect photography for me, because I enjoy the doing of photography. But I don't get paid to do it, so much like people still choose to use oil paint today, and people choose to use film stock today, I'll likely continue to not use AI in any meaningful way. Learning how to do photography and putting it into practise is the whole point.
It won't affect your enjoyment because its obviously just your hobby. But if it's your career, it absolutely will steal work away from you and potentially destroy your ability to earn a living.
@@ScottTeresi Indeed. As I said, AI is encroaching on my day job in visual arts elsewhere. That said, part of me is pragmatic - to be able to be creative and be paid for it is a privilege and I'm happy that dynamic has lasted as long as it has (and will hopefully continue to)
And the images you showed here are from past versions of Stable Diffusion and Midjourney (and probably some of Dall.E 2 which was quickly overtaken by the other two AIs even though it was the one that started the madness)... picture yourself here at only a few months up to a maximum of 5 years... you could make short but well-done videos in just 5 minutes or maybe a little more.
If corporations will have to choose between paying a photographer or an artist or using AI there is no doubt in my mind that they will always choose the least expensive option which will be AI.
Hello. I like the AI subjects. The subjects I get are more art like. I consider them art, because the illusion is not real. Everything about it is a fantasy. Nothing was there until you command it to create. I really enjoy it very much. It's a different tool for creating illusions. 😊
You can have access to any song for a few dollars per month, and yet the clamour for vinyl has only grown. I have no fear of AI, as I know the human need for an analogue connection will always remain.
I believe in the near future digital services provided by humans will still be desired as it is deemed as authentic. It already happens today with 'hand-crafted' physical items as opposed to something produced by a machine cheaply in china. The only downside to that is, as a human you would really, really need to stand out in your line of work for businesses or clients to hire you since your services are most likely going to be a lot more expensive than say, paying for an AI membership. Some people are gonna appreciate the creativity of an artist but also, businesses run on efficiency, cost, and convenience. That would be extremely hard to compete with.
Great video! so informative and accurate. I agree with you that conventional art is going to be much more appreciated because of AI, nevertheless is kind of scary.
AI is somewhat different from previous things. I don’t think it will be the end of photography but it may be the end of some particular types of professional photogrqphy, and possibly of some conceptual fine art photography.
This was a great video essay on a very interesting topic! I think corporations will utilize AI in any way they can to reduce costs, the least of which I think will be image generation... it'll be anything and everything. Goldman Sachs (gross lol) just released a report saying AI will threaten 300 million jobs (7% in the US). But I do think there will still be people who want to work with people, as you said, but AI will decrease the number of those jobs and the competition for them. The exponential growth of the technology is quite surprising though, so who knows what the world will look like in 5 years... but as you also said it might create a different demand for human created art. Photographers and artists will always exist.
First of all, photography is personal. AI can never replace that moment of using your camera. Secondly, would like to see how AI can create a photograph of the person who does the request. Would it be a mugshot of someone else:)). AI is another channel for selling media, but without any connection with reality.
Very good presentation. Just like you, I am optimistic about AI imagery, and I think it is just an evolution of art. From hand drawn paintings to photograghs to digital photographs to AI art and more forms of art will come... But there is something special about an art or photography by humans. Our mind and body are incredibly complex, and science has yet to figure out how we function, think, and with how we create art! Therefore, a hand drawn art is precious, and so does a photograph! AI will continue to evolve, and just like our smartphones in the near future, it will assist digital cameras to help with better composition, lighting, renders, etc... 😊
Once there are no more artists with jobs and AI has no more content to feed off of then all “innovation” in art will die. “Art” dies. Without us AI Art can’t exist. In my opinion it should be sued into oblivion. You are right, corporations and businesses are just going to default to whatever is cheapest. And the platform that is cheapest won’t be reimbursing any of the people who actually built their technology.
Great job! I think AI will be used in all aspects of life! Not just Photography! While it seems to be a threat, we can't stop progress! Hopefully we have the forethought to manage it well! Otherwise our progress could be our digression!
Today, you never know if the artwork you see is created by a human or by an AI, I have an Art Gallery and I now display AI art along with my art. I don't know what to think but I had to join or get out of the way.
There will be AI artists, and graphic designer/photographers who mix and match the mediums creating a fusion that is impossible to tell what is real. There will be a whole new level consumers, of AI, as well as artists, who don't really care whether an image was generated in Midjourney, crafted in photoshop, or photographed using a camera with a sensor/film. Welcome to the real roaring 20's of the 21st Century…
Faizal. Very much agree with you AI is to stay But this make us humans to think more of our own creations and value them as truly an emotional respond to our intellect Eventually AI will generate a lot of near perfect if not perfect photos But being so easily generated and at large quantities they become trash
Now what happens when you use AI to generate the description to generate the image? Does this initiate an infinite regression of AI-generated content? In any event, this development seems unsettling. Is there a Turing Test for this? p.s : Fascinating, chilling, informative presentation. Thank You ...
Professional photographers will have to embrace it or lose work. It will clearly save time and money where product photography is concerned. AI snow capped mountain with photoshopped bottled lager cooling in the snow vs flight to the alps. Mid journey is getting too good 😢
Giant 3-D printers make houses. Houses designed by architects. Did the printer conceive of the house? No, the architect did. Just so with AI image-making. AI image-making opens to door to casting our subconscious, our fears, our memories onto the page. A photographer "takes" an image; an AI-assisted creator makes an image from their mind.
I expect that eventually, AI will be used to reliably detect AI imagery. Also, as automation is used to replace work generally, then regulation will be introduced by (democratic) governments to ensure that people live productive and rewarding lives. Lots of thought and upheaval along the way, though. The process has already begun - that's how inequality begins and it's well underway so a remedy will become more and more urgent.
My main issue with AI is that its using someone else's images to generate its image. This causes issues with copyrights and how people are being paid for their work. Although I appreciate ethe images AI can generate, I think its more harmful than helpful because of the stuff I mentioned as well as the lack of emotion that humans put into art. I think AI generated art could be cool for mass produced décor but I wouldn't say it could count as fine art.
One thing certain, there is going to be much less professional artists, photographers, musicians, writers, programmers in the future. Those and many other creative works will become just hobbies... for those who willl manage to secure a stable job in some other non-automated field.
As a young graphic designer in the late 1970s, my boss showed me how to draw an intricate logo by hand using ink, a pen and a brush. He proudly said "well at least we never have to worry about computers being able to do this." Enough said.
I guess we're running around a circle. Traditional art will go back anytime soon.
Lol goodness
To be fair, in your boss’ career, and perhaps also in yours, you never had to worry about it?
@@catmatism calculator is a computer
I was just saying that
If I had to guess, I'd say AI photo-realistic images will be used more or less in the same cases as stock photos are used today. As long as it's for something generic. For all things personal or specific (a product, a portrait, an event, sport moment, etc.), there will always be a need for something authentic, for a human perspective and presence.
As a senior, AI doesn't do much for me at this point. Photography is the enjoyment of taking photos , competing with yourself to get a "that's one for the wall" photograph. When I stop enjoying that, I hang up (sell) the cameras.Still have tons of room on my walls......
I am sure when photography first came out lot of painters thought it lacked the human touch and it would bring the end.
"From today painting is dead" - Paul Delaroche, French artist, when seeing a photograph for the first time in 1840.
Original film photographers fought going digital. They claimed that DSLRs/Digital wasn't real photography. I can also remember when film photographers would state that photographers using Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz, etc. were cheating. Now, DSLRs and post processing is the industry standard. Even people who have true talent such a painting, drawing, sketching, etc. started using digital software to create more art to sell. Graphic artists use a computer and software to create commercial art. So I really just don't understand the big deal with all of this. Art changes and involves over time, just as society and technology does. People should just look at AI as a tool. I don't personally believe it will ever truly replace true God-given talent. But it opens up doors to everyone and that's a good thing, if used wisely.
@@MegUSN52 AI is not a tool, it is a substitute for an Artist. If you are using AI you are just a client and the AI is the artist that spits images based on the client's request. If you ask a painter to paint you a blue and yellow horse masterpiece, you can't publish the painting and tell the world you painted it just because you give the painter instructions.
@@MegUSN52 I completely disagree. Just as @NUSAMA has replied, AI “art” where you write a prompt is not another medium of art. It’s a request for art to be made for you, instead of by you. You are not the artist here in this scenario, so don’t pretend to be. Comparing the total replacement of the artist in modern day with original film photographers fighting against the digital takeover doesn’t even come close to making sense. Responding to what you said about graphic artists using computers and software to create commercial art; they are still the artists creating the art with a tool instead of a tool entirely making it for them before stamping their name on it. It’s extremely lazy at the very least and isn’t something to be praised. AI “artists” (outside of Refik Anadol and other similar artists) may spend 200+ hours learning how to use an AI program like Midjourney, compared to a career artist spending an entire lifetime working on their craft. It is definitely really interesting and impressive technology, but that’s all it is.
AI will contribute to our thirst for authenticity. We’ll know it when we see it.
Great video.
Really good piece on this interesting topic. I think part of the anxiety comes from the absolute breakneck speed of AI development. I agree, it is 100% here and it’s staying. I think there will be a bit of separation amongst the photo community, what I mean is of your income depends on photography as a profession, there is certainly room for concern. And learning the tools and learning to adapt will yield great benefits. For others (like myself) a hobbyist, a person who photographs for pure emotional connection with the image, I don’t think AI is even in the same category, like a painting or cinema. However there is one very dark corner that I think all visually immersed artists should disavow and with very loud voices, AI generated documentary photography/photojournalism. Even saying it is oxymoron, faking real life events, deep fakes, etc. are an abomination and should be treated as such.
Sorry long comment haha.
spot on
All Ai art has someone's human touch, all build on real works that came before it. As someone who makes private work just for myself, this of course is no threat at all. But for people who actually make money off photography it's a real threat. But on the other hand it might also be a great way to create reference images for actual photographers. DALL-E is like a doodle, but from what i have seen from Midjourney, there is in most cases at instagram size no way to tell the difference.
I agree. With the current state of the global economy, I believe businesses will seriously consider using images made using artificial means if the end result is 'good enough' and saves them money. You could argue that will help keep prices to the customer low - but I think it's more likely to be used to maintain / enhance profit margins.
It depends if you think that striving for a world of 'reducing costs' and maximising profits will lead to long term satisfaction of the average person. I think that this is totally different to the digitalisation of graphic software, an immense amount of skill was still needed to work with the new software. To type into a program 'create a portrait in the style of annie leibovitz of a boy walking down an alley with smokey eyes' requires next to no creative input. To meddle with art is to meddle with meaning. To steralise the world of human touch an interaction and to commodify this is to play with fire. It's clear what the benefits are (less money spent, more money made faster, faster faster), but we will not know the cost until we're shoulder deep in what we've walked into. Interesting time to be alive.
I don't think AI generated anything will take over human made things. It is the fact that these pieces were made by people, with their experiences and thoughts and self influencing every piece that gives it meaning and makes them important and special. An AI generated piece of work means nothing, it has no meaning or thought behind it at all, it may look cool but that's as far as it will ever go. Human made things will always be on top for us as a whole I think.
yeah but the problem is people trying to pass off AI generated art as their own or claiming that it is an acutaly photography taken by a human. Imagine how much better AI will be in just 5 years time.
@James Barcelona There is already other AI programs being developed to break down and figure out whether or not something given to it was generated by AI. I don't know if you have worked with machine learning in any way in the past, but when it gives out an image or video, etc, there are certain artifacts which are minute but noticeable when put under a "microscope". So for now that is what is being looked for, but in the future there will either have to he a tagging system in which you can prove via export from photoshop or other file system that what you are providing is authentic, maybe like copyright where it is a proper verification of proof. And if it becomes an issue, laws could be put in place to punish those who fake this verification like those who break copyright. That is just one idea, but there are ways to get around and prove something was made by someone and not AI
@dark whale Yes that is definitely a problem, and is insulting to the world of artists who have put years of effort into refining their craft. And yes in 5 years AI will definitely be much better, but for one it may also be kinda phased out and out of fashion to make things like that. But if not yes we will have to find some way to prove authenticity which I discussed in another reply here. I think with our ingenuity we will figure out some way around this issue. It may persist and there will be those who try to pass things off as their own, but it will be figured out in time and we will just have to wait and see
Tell that to any company manager and see him laughing his ass off, of course economics would be a priority.
Problem is that you wouldn't know which one is real or AI generated. I foresee a huge rise in the number of "artists" in the near future. Like new age "celebrities" who make some weird stuff on tiktok.
thank you for your videos Faizal! you're such a great inspiration. your videos that are supposed to teach art of photography not only do that excellently, but are art themselves.
AI won't replace photography as an art, but it will kill the business part of it, starting with stock photography being killed off first. Next step is video. But as an art - no. Because even if the AI will get super good at what it does, the human-made art will always be in a greater value.
Hard disagree with the point that companies wouldn't take advantage of AI images over real people. They might like the idea of "human connection" but in the end the money will dictate. There is also a factor of convience when they can just type a prompt and instantly get results they can adjust. They can then run hundreds of iterations to get exactly what they want. A human photographer wouldn't be able to do that.
Yupp. Levi’s is now using AI for their modeling photos
exatly what they want and in just few secondes
I think we can start by rejecting the term "AI art" and calling it what it is, "AI images." It's not art and the people who generate it with their computer software are not artists. Many people of course won't know the difference and this will give AI image makers real commercial power, and that is unfortunate for the commercial prospects of real artists, but we must persevere. Art, conceptualized and created by humans will always have value to the people that appreciate it. It's a magical and wondrous thing. I will never respect an AI image maker, or pay attention to their images on my screen in the same way I respect a person that creates art with their mind and their hands. Not by a long shot. I think many people feel the same way.
Totally agree !!!!
If anything I think AI will increase the barrier of entry for any artist in the future. In almost every kind of art on a commercial level people will have to compete with AI. I don't think the established artists will be very much affected by this but at the end of the day, money will dictate whether a company decides to use AI or a real artist. In the future artists will have to really stand out to be of any value to a business. You need to do what AI can't but you also need to use AI to your advantage as much as possible without losing your voice. I think new artists will have a real hard time ahead of them. It's a real shame because technology (meaning the internet) made it possible for so many people to follow their passion and now technology will take that away again.
Most sensible outlook. Also relevant to other creative work, affected by AI.
Agreed, I think one must also consider that you not only would have to stand out but then continue to stand out even more as AI could very well adapt/copy your own style. Crazy.
So, lots of people out of a job - which is exactly what any sensible person is worried about.
I disagree. AI is neither creative, empathic, ingenious much less intelligent and as such no competitor in the art of photography or any other form of art. At present it thrives from human creations stored on some machines and shuffles elements picked from those images. From a commercial point of view it might to some extend compete with humans. Still, no prompt or avatar will ever catch the subtleties of human interaction, much less the nonverbal, which often play a key role when dealing with customers looking for fine tuned solutions. That day, when AI becomes aware of itself it might, but it might also not care about us or our wishes.
A lot of the AI hype is overblown, but let's discuss the impact commercial photography specifically. I think AI will kill "stock" photography, but that was rarely a true moneymaker. The average commercial photographer's "bread-and-butter" - wedding photography will be pretty safe. I can see AI editing on that space. "Art photography" also safe, humans will outcreate AI (there's much of a sameness to those Mid Journey images). Architectural, documentary, and photojournalism also safe(ish). Fakes in photojournalism, specifically, have been a problem since the Crimean War. AI fakes are a quantum leap in that struggle. Portraits... There's going to be a lot of "make me look skinny!," but there already is that. Ditto Landscape. Leaving Street Photography... I dunno, Street is a process, the Perfect Moment. AI allows one to fake it... I guess it will come down to personal integrity. Fortunately?? there is no real money in Street Photography. The overarching issue, I think, is that what used to be fine by beginning commercial photographers to "cut their teeth" - simple product photoshoots, stock, travel, etc... Will now be done by machine. I am afraid we are looking at the last generation of true photographers, not because of AI taking THEIR jobs, but because of AI starving the next generation. We shall see...
Love your optimistic outlook on this dude, exactly what I needed to hear 🙏🙏
It will be difficult to now what is human and what isn't in the near future, let alone photography....
1. Wasn't there a similar situation in cinema a few decades ago with the introduction of CGI? Over the last few years, we saw the partial return of practical effects, because people got tired of CGI. An image that comes to mind is the Jumbo Jet driving into a building in Nolan's Tenet.
2. AI might be a bigger danger to commercial photography (product photography, fashion, food etc.) as to art. Commercial photography often seems to be a reproduction of something that we have seen before, giving us a comfortable feeling of familiarity. Art is (or should be) the complete opposite, challenging our perception and ways of thinking.
3. AI images can make new, interesting, even weird and uncanny visual combinations, which might enable artists to use an AI image as a starting point for their work.
4. In our globalized world, where everybody buys the same clothes and drinks their coffee in the same franchise bars, AI seems to have little difficulty to visualize our lack of true individuality.
5. Is there a huge difference between a heavily photoshopped photo and an AI image of a similar situation?
Beautiful breakdown. It's always refreshing to get what other photographers think about AI. Although who knows where AI might go in the future. I'm sure, like with anything else, will be a feeling of nostalgia. Just like what film is in digital world. The feeling (connection) will always be desired.
Fascinating subject. This does not only effect the photographer, but models, locations and everything associated with commercial photography. This sort a reminds me of CGI...and its effects on the movie industry, yet we still have practical effects still being made.
AI images are not photography, as they don't really represent the real world, similar to how a photograph of an oil painting does not replace the painting itself. It is possible that cameras may eventually include some form of encryption, verifying that the image is real. Despite this, there is still a place for documentary, photojournalism and street photography; however, I do believe that AI will eventually destroy the stock photography world, as well as low-effort street photography that focuses more on form than content.
I find it pretty scary what AI can actually do. But what I think is key that creators and artists make it a strong point of how genuine something made by us as humans is. With our creativity and own eye. 🤙🏻
Well done, love your mellow style of sharing information-in an age where er'body is screaming in their videos about opinions.
Excellent video. I share your hope that the recent surge in AI imagery will lead to a greater appreciation for the creativity of human made art!
Interesting breakdown of a fascinating subject. I’m old enough to have seen computers take over so many industries and they will continue to do so. But what Ai will always lack is the human urge to create for the hell of it. For itself. If the motivation for creating is money, then yes, Ai will be an issue. But doing it for your self, out of love for the media, whatever it may be, is what sets us apart from machines. If anything it’s a blessing, reminding us what the reason for creating is in the first place
Thank you, May I ask where you get your music backgrounds?
I wonder, about the Dall-E photos of Morocco - your prompt says a "Blue painted alley". Maybe it was interpreting it as "in a painted style" rather than "painted-blue"? Of course, the other photos it generated had a painterly look to them anyway, so maybe that's just Dall-E's thing.
how does it actually work ? does it take images that already exist (photos) and do a collage ?
There is a good chance stock photography will get replaced by AI art. Just as companies like Squarespace have replaced web designers jobs. Why hire a web designer when you use a cheap template?
Though just because these template sites exist doesn't mean everyone uses them. Those that can afford it will still hire website designers because they have more say on how it looks and functions.
I find AI art great for brainstorming ideas. I'm in my final year at uni. It could take me weeks to test out all my ideas for a project, or I can spend a few hours brainstorming my ideas with the AI. I know for a fact I would fail if I tried to hand in AI images for my project, other than the mixed media module, but it was a mix of photography and AI and I had to state that was what it was. Putting your photographs in Outpainting is lots of fun. I've also been playing with creating Img2Img to create double exposures using a mix of photography and AI.
When the camera was invented a lot of painters felt threaten and feared the end of human made art. Claiming the camera was doing all the work as all a person did was push a button. Photographers know there is a lot more to getting a good image than just pointing and pushing a button. To be fair there is a lot more to creating AI art then just typing in a few words.
AI won't replace photographers, anymore than photography ended paintings. It is just another tool for people to create images with.
I suspect that there will be a disruption, especially considering AI is a hot news subject at the moment, so it makes sense that advertisers are cashing on the attention. Does that mean they will only use AI art. I doubt it. People like celebrities and brands. I suspect it will be used mostly as another editing tool rather than replace photographers.
Wow, looks like the end of the photography profession, the photography industry and a great tool for misinformation by unscrupulous advertisers and Governments. I do agree with you in your statement about human art gaining more meaning, and value.
I think stories are what's important.
We use photography/illustration/AI/etc to tell those stories visually and choose whichever tool suits our needs best (quality, cost, time, et al). My guess is that many of the companies choosing to use AI would never have hired the photographers or illustrators that are most upset by the innovation-so they're not really missing out on work.
Whether a camera w/film or a canvas w/paint or AI w/prompts was used to capture details or bring an artist's vision to life, it's how an image makes you feel that's the kicker. I'll take an emotionally-powerful AI-assisted image over a technically-competent human-created-with-a-camera image that makes me feel nothing every time.
Another aspect, for me, is that I can't afford to travel to other parts of the world, but I can use AI to imagine what a trip to Paris might be like with all of the images I think or hope I would get to take, imagined with something like Midjourney.
I think wedding photographers are still safe because AI can’t create that level of intimacy that a person can. Scary for street photographers and fine artists though.
agreed
most importantly: AI can't attend a wedding ;)
"by definition, photography is painting with light"
- good point.
You right AI is not photography...PERIOD!!!Agreed. For those who want to live in a make belief world and love science fiction go ahead but if it continues photography, photojournalism is dead...
I agree that there will always be clients who want to work with photographers or purchase real photography, but I can see see AI art taking a large bite out of the low to mid range stock photographers. When I tried Midjourney 4 it was creating work as good or better images than what I used to sell through stock agencies in the past, not to mention no photo shoot expenses other than a subscription. I find it all pretty fascinating, but I'm also glad I'm not trying to make a living with my photography commercially anymore.
Really interesting take on this subject. I would love to experiment with ai and see how well it is able to generate photos for various genres.
However I would argue that ai generated art can be called photography: "painting with light" as you said. These images only exist through the pixels on your screen. So the light behind the pixels are in a way painting the photo you see.
Every time you use it, you train it to essentially replace a real photographer or graphic artist. Stop playing with this toy which is only enabling it to destroy someone's livilhood.
This is an interesting and important subject to discuss. Ultimately some categories of photography will fade. Such as photographers who supply libraries. Smartphones and social media have already changed the social photography sector, since candid family shots stored on phones seem to trump formal studio shots today. Categories such as sports photographers and journalists will still have work and new outlets will be found for artist-photographers. What bothers me more is being presented with something that is fake and thinking its real - its already so hard to know if what we are seeing and reading is true or not. The concept of photographic evidence will come to an end.
This might kill stock photography first… as an art form I think photography will stay with us. Did paintings become absolete after inventing photography? Did people stop riding horses after an automobile came around? It will change, it will evolve, but it will not dissapear.
I will never understand how anyone could put their name to an image that they never took and never saw.
somehow that little (human) in the end made me wanna cry. thank you for being human.
How do you get midjourney 4 - 5?
Your videos and style of putting together a video has really inspired me a lot recently, and you've motivated me to push on with my photography studies for the next two years - even with quite a bit more enthusiasm now for what lies ahead of me haha. Hopefully in the future I can begin to make the type of videos I want to make due to your influence on me - Thank you for everything :)
Thanks for video, been wanting to get your input on AI photography and what some groups are calling post-photography movement which in fact has been around for more time than AI Photography.
This won’t just affect photography but the whole of the arts including music and filmmaking as much as any form of drawn/painted art. Not sure why people would invent programs that will replace human creativity. The whole point of art and the enjoyment is knowing it was made by a human and came from their vision. Computer generated photographs will clearly do well in the commercial market as they can cutout the middle man and save money but why kill the arts?
Depends on the type of photography. Perhaps fine art photography or over-processed / edited photos that serve as nothing more as eye-candy or to sell pre-sets then perhaps, even hopefully. But documentary photography of actual events, actual moments that are important to the photographer, things that you want to preserve for yourself or share with others (and of others) then no. Since such a gravid body of photography is bordering on computer generated today, then AI photography - enhanced or fully generated - will become a major part of that process. For me, photography is about sentimentality and nostalgia. I can't be nostalgic for something that doesn't or never did, exist or, more importantly, I never experienced myself.
Whoa!!! Dall-E to me is definitely more abstract & water painting. Midjourney i am blown away at how real it all looks, literally had to stare to see the flaws. THAT IS SCARY AF!!! Not bc of a threat to my work but more so bc much like Inception…if we can’t decipher the difference between dream & reality we lose our grasp on whats actually real.
The obvious is that A.I. has literally existed since the first computers like Apple started talking to us.
The scary part is blurring the lines of reality & fantasy.
The upside for someone like me is being able to use this as a tool as not being a graphic designer but who is very creative & can create whats in my head finally to see how it comes out. That part is mind blowing.
It’s definitely controversial and i see why, it can also be beautiful in the right context too. At the of the day we need to be careful we do not lose our human connection.
I think AI art will have its own category, much like Photoshop (composite) artist, digital artists, photographers, ect. I've seen some really impressive pencil drawings that look like b&W photography, but no one would ever call them photography. If a digital artist makes photorealistic images they are still not classed as photography. Most agree that photography is captured in the camera.
While I suspect some will use AI rather than stock photography, there is still a lot of areas that the AI can't do, such as anything realistic, events, news, documenting, capturing moments and memories.
Its also still really hard to get the AI to give you what you want. Even if you copy other's prompts or text description. I follow a few FB AI groups and some have started to play Chinese whispers/broken telephone game with the AI, by using its description of an images and feeding that text in as a prompt. Starting with one image and showing how much it changes over the course of a few image text prompts.
I think we also need to stop thinking of the art the AI produces as belonging to the AI. The AI is using all our art, it is all human art. AI reflects the data.
There are a few AI artists that only train the AI on their artwork. The AI reconstructs their work, in interesting ways. They don't give the AI the credit, they acknowledge the AI as another artist tool. The public AI are not creating these images out of its own thinking, it is societies art. It is like a mass collaboration. We don't credit the camera for photographs, though don't get me wrong I appreciate a good camera. We don't credit the paints or whatever materials and tools we use to be creative with. We need to recognise that AI art is our art.
Does anyone know the title of the book shown roughly 13-14 mins in?
Somehow my reply has been deleted... It's Harry Gruyaert red book.
@@pavelproshin7995 Thankyou
This has pretty much destroyed my interest in photography and I don't know if I'm going to pick up my camera anymore. It makes me sick to my stomach.
😱😱😱 camera companies will go bust,we’ll all lose our beloved hobby/passion,cameras will become obsolete and binned…..”is AI the end of photography” what a load of tosh…..you’ll never replace the joy of using a camera,the experience of being in that moment when you take the photo….if your thing is being sat behind a screen then bang on.
What book is that at 14:07 ?
If anything, this convinced me to go all in on film.
I believe there was a similar concern when digital cameras came on the scene. People felt it was cheating, taking the actual skill of using a camera, light, etc out of the hands of the photographer and letting the camera do all the work. Similar argument with phones. But here we are and both are accepted without question. AI will find its place and people will adapt.
It will be the end of comercial photography for sure. Imagine what company would choose to hire and pay a photographer? when can they just type some words and get what they want. Graphic designers, models and a lot of other professions will take the hit as well.
It may not kill human photography %100 but it will slow down the number of people getting into it, since you can not make money and survive from the craft.
As an art form photography will continue to be of great value if not even more.
Love the sign out... CREATED BY FAIZAL WESTCOTT (HUMAN)! Nice work man.
I'm not certain but I THOUGHT one or more of the AI generated images posted by another person to which you referred there was a copyright? If so, I'm curious about the legal and ethical consequences of a person copyrighting an AI image generated by parameters the person entered into the AI app.
Maybe not the end for all pro photographers. But for many. Just like it will be for so many software developers. AI and machine learning can write all the code for you. No need for many programmers anymore.
The thought of these technocrats putting themselves out-of-work is the only thing bringing me joy amymore.
My biggest concern is that:
1. AI 'art' is stolen art. Whether paintings or photos, this AI stuff is being generated from already existing work.
2. As seen recently the even more concerning aspect is that these AI generated images can be very realistic and be used to spread false information.
The debate of 'is photography dead because of AI' is irrelevant: ofc it's not. But what AI is going to be used for is extremely concerning.
,,,very interesting video feature,,,well done!!
The future will be a mixture between the real world and a generated environment. We need reference points to reality because otherwise everything would become indifferent.
Photographs will always have at least one important item that will set them apart from AI-generated images, no matter how good AI gets... their foundation will always begin as a seed in the heart and soul of a human being capturing an actual moment in time with a camera. Computer-generated images, no matter how amazing they become, will never be able to lay claim to that. The greatest challenge for photographers will be educating people about that uniqueness and value.
I am not afraid that AI is going to take over art rather I see it as a tool to make more art in a different space. Nothing can devalue something that a person creates. I don’t know why many people get offended by AI art. We can appreciate it for its contribution.
Fantastic conclusion to a hot topic!
Well, you have joined the RUclips creators that have voiced this concern recently and yes, we should be concerned. AI it has been said, is like photography to painters and illustrators of years gone by. A killer of the art forms. This I am afraid, the same concerns we have today with AI and how it will impact us as artists in the photography field. I am now a non working professional that is using photography purely to create art for the sake of creating art. I do not sell my work and mostly view it in my own home. Commercial photographers, ones who make their income with this art form, will be impacted as Faisal mentions in this video. But how will that impact all photographers and the art form of photography itself is a huge unknown. Unfortunately AI is here, and it’s growing in popularity as well as maturing as a product. So nobody has a crystal ball to tell what will happen in the future. As was also pointed out, AI has been here for a while now, think iPhone photos, it wasn’t until we saw these websites and companies using AI technology to create what resembles a photograph as easy as typing in a line of text describing what you want to see that I got nervous. As I am not making money from my art at this time, I understand the concerns of professional photographers. It is bad enough that the field is so saturated now that you need to find a way to be seen as “special”, what ever that means, to be seen as truly successful. What I am saying is we have to wait to see what impact this has on the art of photography. I am concerned and we should all be but, don’t stop creating, don’t stop trying to get better and don’t give up a passion that you have for photography in it’s present state… I know I won’t.
One of the things I don’t like about AI is how it’s making me second guess is some real photographs are AI. I would never have guessed some of those images you shared in the video were AI
The profit motive always wins; sad but true. I think a certain number of photographers work will be recognized and rewarded and it will make it an exclusive club that most photographers will be denied admission. We already have this, right?
Tried it and was very surprised with the realistic results. We cannot avoid it. But on the other hand who wants fake pictures from their wedding. There will be a market for real Photography still - at least for now.
A I is not only a threat to photography, but to humanity as we know it, it has been conceived mainly for that purpose, to diminish and strip the human being of all its greatness, if AI were not restricted, it would end all professions. , employment, and human expression, it is only a question of knowing what interests are behind it, and to what 4genda they respond, to finish I would say that art has been, is and will be a human expression, the AI only feeds (steals) from what made by man, it is not really "intelligent" but totally ARTIFICIAL.
At the end of the day the cost will decide if AI will replace an illustrator or a photographer, with the level of advancement in AI is right now, commercial photography will see some drastic changes in the years to come. As for my personal photography using AI will cut off all the pleasure of creating something with my camera. Thanks for bringing video of this subject, quite an interesting reflection
Great thoughts man. I wish I could get great great street shots as consistently as AI created images. I appreciate your insight.
Unless you're a professional photographer, don't sweat the quality issues. Using AI as a crutch doesn't make anyone an artist. Embrace the suck and learn the photographic process. I'm no genius but I enjoy my photography and the end results I create. If I had to rely on AI to get what I want, I'd take up knitting.
I currently deal with the prevalence of AI in my day job, and while it is certainly different looking at it from an economic point of view, ultimately my position is this: I enjoy the making of, so where I draw my line on letting technology change that is personal. I prefer digital, and once upon a time that was looked at much the same way we look at AI now. AI will not meaningfully affect photography for me, because I enjoy the doing of photography. But I don't get paid to do it, so much like people still choose to use oil paint today, and people choose to use film stock today, I'll likely continue to not use AI in any meaningful way. Learning how to do photography and putting it into practise is the whole point.
It won't affect your enjoyment because its obviously just your hobby. But if it's your career, it absolutely will steal work away from you and potentially destroy your ability to earn a living.
@@ScottTeresi Indeed. As I said, AI is encroaching on my day job in visual arts elsewhere. That said, part of me is pragmatic - to be able to be creative and be paid for it is a privilege and I'm happy that dynamic has lasted as long as it has (and will hopefully continue to)
Well presented provoking thought.
And the images you showed here are from past versions of Stable Diffusion and Midjourney (and probably some of Dall.E 2 which was quickly overtaken by the other two AIs even though it was the one that started the madness)... picture yourself here at only a few months up to a maximum of 5 years... you could make short but well-done videos in just 5 minutes or maybe a little more.
If corporations will have to choose between paying a photographer or an artist or using AI there is no doubt in my mind that they will always choose the least expensive option which will be AI.
Hello. I like the AI subjects. The subjects I get are more art like. I consider them art, because the illusion is not real. Everything about it is a fantasy. Nothing was there until you command it to create. I really enjoy it very much. It's a different tool for creating illusions. 😊
You can have access to any song for a few dollars per month, and yet the clamour for vinyl has only grown. I have no fear of AI, as I know the human need for an analogue connection will always remain.
More like: What will it be in 6 months?
I believe in the near future digital services provided by humans will still be desired as it is deemed as authentic. It already happens today with 'hand-crafted' physical items as opposed to something produced by a machine cheaply in china. The only downside to that is, as a human you would really, really need to stand out in your line of work for businesses or clients to hire you since your services are most likely going to be a lot more expensive than say, paying for an AI membership. Some people are gonna appreciate the creativity of an artist but also, businesses run on efficiency, cost, and convenience. That would be extremely hard to compete with.
the thing that separates us from AI is the ability to love and empathize. TBH, we don't even empathize well (if at all. Look at the internet)
Great video! so informative and accurate. I agree with you that conventional art is going to be much more appreciated because of AI, nevertheless is kind of scary.
AI is somewhat different from previous things. I don’t think it will be the end of photography but it may be the end of some particular types of professional photogrqphy, and possibly of some conceptual fine art photography.
This was a great video essay on a very interesting topic! I think corporations will utilize AI in any way they can to reduce costs, the least of which I think will be image generation... it'll be anything and everything. Goldman Sachs (gross lol) just released a report saying AI will threaten 300 million jobs (7% in the US). But I do think there will still be people who want to work with people, as you said, but AI will decrease the number of those jobs and the competition for them. The exponential growth of the technology is quite surprising though, so who knows what the world will look like in 5 years... but as you also said it might create a different demand for human created art. Photographers and artists will always exist.
First of all, photography is personal. AI can never replace that moment of using your camera. Secondly, would like to see how AI can create a photograph of the person who does the request. Would it be a mugshot of someone else:)). AI is another channel for selling media, but without any connection with reality.
Very good presentation. Just like you, I am optimistic about AI imagery, and I think it is just an evolution of art. From hand drawn paintings to photograghs to digital photographs to AI art and more forms of art will come... But there is something special about an art or photography by humans. Our mind and body are incredibly complex, and science has yet to figure out how we function, think, and with how we create art! Therefore, a hand drawn art is precious, and so does a photograph! AI will continue to evolve, and just like our smartphones in the near future, it will assist digital cameras to help with better composition, lighting, renders, etc... 😊
Once there are no more artists with jobs and AI has no more content to feed off of then all “innovation” in art will die. “Art” dies. Without us AI Art can’t exist. In my opinion it should be sued into oblivion. You are right, corporations and businesses are just going to default to whatever is cheapest. And the platform that is cheapest won’t be reimbursing any of the people who actually built their technology.
Great job! I think AI will be used in all aspects of life! Not just Photography! While it seems to be a threat, we can't stop progress! Hopefully we have the forethought to manage it well! Otherwise our progress could be our digression!
thank you, han tyumi knew it way before it all
Today, you never know if the artwork you see is created by a human or by an AI, I have an Art Gallery and I now display AI art along with my art. I don't know what to think but I had to join or get out of the way.
There will be AI artists, and graphic designer/photographers who mix and match the mediums creating a fusion that is impossible to tell what is real. There will be a whole new level consumers, of AI, as well as artists, who don't really care whether an image was generated in Midjourney, crafted in photoshop, or photographed using a camera with a sensor/film. Welcome to the real roaring 20's of the 21st Century…
Faizal. Very much agree with you AI is to stay But this make us humans to think more of our own creations and value them as truly an emotional respond to our intellect
Eventually AI will generate a lot of near perfect if not perfect photos But being so easily generated and at large quantities they become trash
Now what happens when you use AI to generate the description to generate the image? Does this initiate an infinite regression of AI-generated content? In any event, this development seems unsettling. Is there a Turing Test for this? p.s : Fascinating, chilling, informative presentation. Thank You ...
Skynet: "I will be back... with more images"
Professional photographers will have to embrace it or lose work. It will clearly save time and money where product photography is concerned. AI snow capped mountain with photoshopped bottled lager cooling in the snow vs flight to the alps. Mid journey is getting too good 😢
Giant 3-D printers make houses. Houses designed by architects. Did the printer conceive of the house? No, the architect did. Just so with AI image-making. AI image-making opens to door to casting our subconscious, our fears, our memories onto the page. A photographer "takes" an image; an AI-assisted creator makes an image from their mind.
I expect that eventually, AI will be used to reliably detect AI imagery. Also, as automation is used to replace work generally, then regulation will be introduced by (democratic) governments to ensure that people live productive and rewarding lives. Lots of thought and upheaval along the way, though. The process has already begun - that's how inequality begins and it's well underway so a remedy will become more and more urgent.
My main issue with AI is that its using someone else's images to generate its image. This causes issues with copyrights and how people are being paid for their work. Although I appreciate ethe images AI can generate, I think its more harmful than helpful because of the stuff I mentioned as well as the lack of emotion that humans put into art. I think AI generated art could be cool for mass produced décor but I wouldn't say it could count as fine art.
Love the vibes!
One thing certain, there is going to be much less professional artists, photographers, musicians, writers, programmers in the future. Those and many other creative works will become just hobbies... for those who willl manage to secure a stable job in some other non-automated field.
The first selections are good but in terms of composition from a POV of a photographer, none of em passes for my taste.
I ai believe that ai actually copying our editing to make imaging look like what we edit to get to
CCTV already captures life on the streets but is it street photography?