The AI thread

[BrianShaw]

Now that everyone has chimed in with expostulations... how about returning to the topic at hand?

[Sal Santamaura]

Now that everyone has chimed in with expostulations... how about returning to the topic at hand?

OK, I'll play. AI will either increase interest and participation in "traditional" photography, decrease interest in it, or have no effect whatsoever. "The topic at hand" is one that, while not as divisive as the expostulations, accomplishes no more and enables no more useful resolution(s) than they do. Posts made in this thread amount to pure speculation. The only definitive response to the title question is "We'll see what happens."

[Tin Can]

In the year 2525 it woman or man or childs are still alive

Remember that song

We will never khow

So it goes

[djdister]

Humans have created images using whatever they had at hand for thousands of years, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

[jnantz]

Humans have created images using whatever they had at hand for thousands of years, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

yups, it's digital raw material.

IDK getting back to John's main post..

maybe there will be some sort of "authentication" situation through forensic digitography.
and the "author" of said image can be charged with perjury if the image is a fabrication.

the problem is modern humans have terrible memories because of "real life" and toxic billion image every day bombardment, many have a very short attention span and
they are easily swayed with a photograph and siggestions, and they believe photography to be "like a memory" or something. and it's not. there's surveillance video everywhere now
so maybe all the doorbells and street cameras and ATM cameras have us all covered and we won't have to worry much about if something has been tampered with, cause it's been shown on you tube or "ring nation", or "fail academy" already.

[bdkphoto]

Getting back to the sprawling discussion (that has been largely beaten to death) I'll offer a few thoughts on the trade associations and AI as it related to the professional world. Our (hopefully banned troll) was completely off the mark with his views of PPofA - the certification process at PPA is primarily a studio/lighting competence test. PPA membership is mostly retail photographers - that is folks who work directly with their end clients - weddings, family portraits, maternity, family events etc. They have 30K members (its the largest of the photo trade associations in the US) - as Brian mentions the benefits of joining are largely business related-- marketing, contracts, insurance, legal advice, best practices for their specific clientele, find a photographer databases, social meetings and and discounts with suppliers. It is certainly not a scam. The other major photo trade associations play the same role for their specific membership - ASMP for the magazine/editorial world, APA for the advertising photographers, NPPA for news photographers.

As to AI in the professional world - the vast majority of professional work is still directly indexical - a specific subject that needs to be photographed in a specific way for a specific reason:"Hey Bruce- we need you to shoot our new building in Brooklyn, hero shot day/night, lobby roof deck for our architectural firm's marketing brochure and the AIA competition ".... AI isn't going to be able to do that. Because an AI generated image is not copyrightable it will have limited value for high profile advertising and marketing, where the client can't control the use of the work by others. It will be interesting to see how copyright law evolves with work that is both original and AI combined - allowing conceptual photographers to create value using both techniques. I am far more worried about the real estate market as it relates to the health of my business than how AI will impact it.

[Alan Klein]

I was at a wedding yesterday and asked one of the photographers how many photos they take. She said around 2500. She said someone else goes through them but they use AI. I didn't ask what AI reviews in them but should of. I suspect just eliminating pictures out of focus, or eyes closed shut would save a lot of time for the human effort.

[BrianShaw]

I’ll bet that or similar isn’t uncommon, but that is completely absurd.

[jnantz]

Brian

what part is completely absurd having a tool to help edit or taking 2500 photographs?
modern wedding photographers with a 2nd shooter or 3rd typically have 3x that many images to review AND video. they don't get rid of people blinking and swap heads with better images and more people looking good. that's been common practice for decades .. gone are the days of 50 film holders or 40 rolls of 120 film ..

[faberryman]

what part is completely absurd having a tool to help edit or taking 2500 photographs?
modern wedding photographers with a 2nd shooter or 3rd typically have 3x that many images to review AND video. they don't get rid of people blinking and swap heads with better images and more people looking good. that's been common practice for decades .. gone are the days of 50 film holders or 40 rolls of 120 film ..

Does a wedding photographer really need to take 7500 photos? That sounds like a monkey with a typewriter approach.