p.3 #2 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
chez wrote:
We’ve accepted cgi in movies…many of the great movies contain heavy cgi. We accept machine built pottery…just back from Mexico where there are markets full of “authentic” Mexican pottery that is not hand made. We accept rugs that are not hand woven. One day we’ll accept photos generated by computers.
It will be up to the photographer to sell customers on authentic prints…just like it’s up to the craftsman to sell their pottery is handmade.
I think movies might be different since a suspension of disbelief is an inherent requirement for the medium.
p.3 #3 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
sungphoto wrote:
As long as there are people obsessed with the idea of recording moments of their life in images, photography will never die. People have hailed the death of photography for over a century, since the brownie camera came out, but somehow it keeps puttering on as an art form, hobby, philosophy of life etc.
When printed, photos become artifacts of our brief existence on the earth. AI images are kind of like those magic eye "3d" images. Once you figure out the trick, they lack meaning, because the effect is cognitive not emotional.
"People have hailed the death of photography for over a century..."
A sentence from the It is written school of rhetoric. Any chance you can provide names for these people? And maybe a few of their hails?
p.3 #5 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
snapsy wrote:
I think movies might be different since a suspension of disbelief is an inherent requirement for the medium.
It never used to be like that…just like prints have changed when digital came around ( has that been photoshopped ) they will once again morph with AI’s help. Pottery used to be all handmade until machinery replaced the hands and now the vast majority are not touched by human hands.
p.3 #7 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
chez wrote:
It never used to be like that…just like prints have changed when digital came around ( has that been photoshopped ) they will once again morph with AI’s help.
Consider older movies like the original Superman, Star Wars, etc.. It's all fantasy. The only difference between then and now is how the illusion was created... older movies used models, puppets, stop motion, etc... Now it's done with CGI. But it's all effectively "fake"
p.3 #9 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
I’m amazed how Facebook is full of AI generated images suddenly and receive tens of thousands of likes with hundreds of shares. It’s funny reading the comments people saying “wow, so beautiful” so something is fake looking but they believe it’s real.
p.3 #10 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
ArizonaImage wrote:
I’m amazed how Facebook is full of AI generated images suddenly and receive tens of thousands of likes with hundreds of shares. It’s funny reading the comments people saying “wow, so beautiful” so something is fake looking but they believe it’s real.
Maybe they are just enjoying the image. Paintings are not real yet people can enjoy them.
p.3 #11 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
philip_pj wrote:
It will become much more personal, as indeed 'social' media may also. Internally consistent memberships and closed access.
In an imaging world of relentless gross deceipt, this is the future of many things - the localisation (or regionalisation) of cultural forms.
That could be a good thing. Or it could be a bad thing, depending on how far people go. Clubs are an example of groups that have internally consistent memberships, common interests, and serve a constructive purpose. But too much isolation, too much internal consistency and closed access could lead to bad outcomes, especially when social media corrals people into an "us" vs "them" mindset on controversial topics.
At the extreme end we've already seen people using places like FB selecting friends to create a closed-loop feedback system to sequester themselves into a bubble of like minded people who share a common viewpoint and reinforce one another's beliefs. It's commonly observed in politics. It's possible for a group to become so convinced that they are right that they begin to suffer from groupthink. As members of a group with consensus of opinion they can become so convinced that they are right and that any people who don't agree with them are wrong, that they spar with anyone who comes from a different bubble. That kind of isolationism can lead to toxicity and fighting, which kind of spoils the benefit of closed access groups with internally consistent memberships, which otherwise might be a really good thing.
I'm seeing a trend where social media outlets deliberately manipulate people via the "us" vs "them" technique to divide and conquer people. In a world of relentless gross deceit and propaganda I think that localization, regionalization, compartmentalization (or whatever you want to call it) is likely to become more prevalent as people try to tune out the noise.
p.3 #12 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
snapsy wrote:
I think movies might be different since a suspension of disbelief is an inherent requirement for the medium.
Somebody would have to be more than a bit gullible to believe what they see in CGI generated movies. Things like Rocky the talking raccoon that pilots a space ship (Guardians of the Galaxy), Harry Potter, Star Wars, John Wick, etc., are all so far from being believable that anyone watching them should know better. And even if someone doesn't know better, the movies are very good about providing disclaimers. At the beginning of every film you're told that the movie is based upon a screenplay by a writer. Unless you are told that the events of the movie are factual, you're obliged to know that a screenplay is a work of fiction. There are also disclaimers at the end of the movie that state that any resemblance of the characters to real people, living or dead, is unintentional and coincidental. It's not only that suspension of belief is an inherent requirement for the medium -- the medium also provides explicit disclaimers to deny reality.
We don't see such discloses with AI generated imagery, so the comparison to CGI movies isn't quite apples to apples.
p.3 #13 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
ArizonaImage wrote:
I’m amazed how Facebook is full of AI generated images suddenly and receive tens of thousands of likes with hundreds of shares. It’s funny reading the comments people saying “wow, so beautiful” so something is fake looking but they believe it’s real.
There's an old joke that could apply here -- that you can't take people that you meet seriously because 50% of the people you meet are going to be below average in intelligence.
The real question to ask is not whether the gullible comments come from people who actually believe that the fake images are real. The real question to ask is whether those 10,000 likes came from real people or from fake robot accounts. Chances are that the user accounts that generated those 10,000 likes were fake 'bots. Facebook has lots of fake accounts that are nothing more than 'bots controlled by 'the algorithm', trying to push an agenda on the users to manipulate opinions. Twitter did the same thing.
It's no surprise then, that when FB publishes a fake image, they supply it with 10,000 fake likes. It's nothing but manipulation.
p.3 #14 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
coralnut wrote:
Somebody would have to be more than a bit gullible to believe what they see in CGI generated movies. Things like Rocky the talking raccoon that pilots a space ship (Guardians of the Galaxy), Harry Potter, Star Wars, John Wick, etc., are all so far from being believable that anyone watching them should know better. And even if someone doesn't know better, the movies are very good about providing disclaimers. At the beginning of every film you're told that the movie is based upon a screenplay by a writer. Unless you are told that the events of the movie are factual, you're obliged to know that a screenplay is a work of fiction. There are also disclaimers at the end of the movie that state that any resemblance of the characters to real people, living or dead, is unintentional and coincidental. It's not only that suspension of belief is an inherent requirement for the medium -- the medium also provides explicit disclaimers to deny reality.
We don't see such discloses with AI generated imagery, so the comparison to CGI movies isn't quite apples to apples....Show more →
What about movies that claim they are based on true events. That’s a very grey area. What parts are actual and what parts are enhanced or generated for drama? The same goes with creating scenes using things like cgi that portray environments that are fictitious. Shooting a New York scene on a Vancouver set, is there a disclaimer of such things?
Bottom line movies have been doing cgi / vfx and other forms of duping for years and we are ok with it. Some movies like Star Wars much more than others, but I’d venture to say a vast majority of movies these days use cgi somewhere within their scenes.
p.3 #15 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
chez wrote:
What about movies that claim they are based on true events. That’s a very grey area. What parts are actual and what parts are enhanced or generated for drama? The same goes with creating scenes using things like cgi that portray environments that are fictitious. Shooting a New York scene on a Vancouver set, is there a disclaimer of such things?
Movies are pretty good about disclosing the 'filmed on location in Vancouver' type of information in the credits. They commonly thank the people of various cities and countries in the credits, so it's not as if the location information is undisclosed. And it goes without saying that movies are filmed on sets and soundstages, not always in the original story environment.
Movies based on true events? Good point. The first one that comes to mind is Oliver Stone's JFK starring Kevin Costner. I think that most people would say that it was a work of fiction based on fact, where the facts provided little more than a framework for writing a work of fiction.
Even films that are sold as "documentaries" by people like Ken Burns, that are well-respected for their factual content, contain their fair share of non-factual misrepresentations. If you pay close attention there are all sorts of mistakes in Burns' pan-and-scan photographs. I remember watching an episode of The Roosevelts and seeing a photograph of a hardtop coupe being displayed onscreen while Peter Coyote narrated about Elanor Roosevelt's affair with Lorena Hickok as they traveled to Quebec in a Buick roadster. The people at the Burns studio just used a picture of a period-correct vehicle that wasn't the Roosevelt's car, wasn't a Buick and wasn't a convertible. Someone just grabbed a photo of an old car and used it for the movie. Even documentary films get the facts wrong sometimes.
p.3 #16 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
Love those old move tricks. They're very well executed deceptions.
Buster Keaton kept it real in the famous falling house scene. (He did it more than once.)
?t=30
Harold Lloyd cheated when it came to doing his stunts for Safety Last! Although some of the stunts really had a co-star free-climbing many of the tall LA buildings, Lloyed actually did the clock scene hanging only a few feet above a trampoline. He used deceptive camera angles and never wanted anyone to know how the scenes were faked.
p.3 #17 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
I will say, I have been impressed with the AI functions in PS. I really just use it to remove people from my landscape photos right now and I must say, I am impressed. Saving me a bunch of time editing which is great. Also had some images that I could just never “get right” in my editing. I tried again with the AI and I rescued at least 2 photos and looking forward to working with more.
p.3 #18 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
coralnut wrote:
There's an old joke that could apply here -- that you can't take people that you meet seriously because 50% of the people you meet are going to be below average in intelligence.
The real question to ask is not whether the gullible comments come from people who actually believe that the fake images are real. The real question to ask is whether those 10,000 likes came from real people or from fake robot accounts. Chances are that the user accounts that generated those 10,000 likes were fake 'bots. Facebook has lots of fake accounts that are nothing more than 'bots controlled by 'the algorithm', trying to push an agenda on the users to manipulate opinions. Twitter did the same thing.
It's no surprise then, that when FB publishes a fake image, they supply it with 10,000 fake likes. It's nothing but manipulation. ...Show more →
p.3 #19 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
mikekeating wrote:
I will say, I have been impressed with the AI functions in PS. I really just use it to remove people from my landscape photos right now and I must say, I am impressed. Saving me a bunch of time editing which is great. Also had some images that I could just never “get right” in my editing. I tried again with the AI and I rescued at least 2 photos and looking forward to working with more.
I think there's a bit of hysteria involved with AI nowadays. I did some compositing for an animatic for a filmmaking course at UCLA last year, and the professor was immediately critical, assuming I used AI to merge the background with the actor.
I don't use AI tools or generative fill on client photo work, but the "neural filters" in PS helped rescue a mangled photo of my partner's grandmother that I was having trouble saving because of a crease right across her face! Otherwise, for commercial jobs where I'm delivering 100s of images, it's generally much easier to just get it right in camera.
p.3 #20 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
The masses are largely non-savvy consumers with increasingly low attention spans. Bright colors and loud sounds in quickly edited short form videos are the way to earn their extremely limited focus.
Photography doesn't fit into this in any regard. We are seeing the era of "traditional photography" dissolve in front of our eyes.
AI is slashing marketing budgets to squeeze every drop of extra profit out of these late stage capitalism stones. Just look around and pay attention to how low quality mass market ads have gotten for large corporations...everyone is getting on this train.
AI has been able to make human sounding voices for at least a year now. Soon, AI created videos will be indistinguishable from actual video. If you don't see the traditional imaging and marketing systems dying in front of you, you aren't paying any attention.
All that said, if you want to make money in this realm, you're going to either have to adapt or die. The niche market for "real" art will likely leave photography behind and go even deeper into handmade objects like oil paintings, wood carvings, etc, as practical craftsmanship skills rapidly evaporate from the population in this age of digitalization.
None of this is "doom and gloom", it simply is what it is. There is no longer a need for large marketing departments to do in-house content creation when AI can throw flashing lights and loud sounds at the vast swaths of NPC consumers for pennies on the dollar.
And of course none of this matters when we're hit by a new age Carrington event, the bombs fall, or the EMP attacks knock our grids out for good That's not even accounting for the AI enslavement of humanity, but most of us probably won't live to see that, luckily.
. good one.
That's not even accounting for the AI enslavement of humanity, but most of us probably won't live to see that, luckily.