chiron wrote:
Usually when there is a new technology, some forms fade but other new forms arise. With the rise of printing, illuminated manuscripts gave way to the novel. I think in an era when photographs and cameras are ubiquitous and easily used, the aesthetics of images changes, as you suggest. "Staged" photographs become less interesting; photographs made from the viewer's rather than the photographer's perspective have more emotional impact and authenticity and are preferred. Thus your son's camera-at-every-table at his wedding. But professional photographers who, like Jeffrey Ascough, can create a record of the experience of a wedding or other event, rather than a sequence of staged photos that are the same for every wedding, will find work. They are more like photojournalists than like the traditional conception of a wedding photographer. ...Show more →
Capturing the moment is what it’s all about. At my son’s wedding, you had at least a dozen people’s perspective of what that moment is which gives a totally different perspective than one guy walking around with his fancy camera. The images from the compact digital cameras were definitely good enough for social media as well as a small photo book. Too boot, there were hundreds of images submitted by attendees that used their phones. Overall, I was impressed with the result that was created.
shadow9d9 wrote:
They also simply don't care, and don't have the money. And if they do, they don't want to waste it on that.
That’s the bottom line. They don’t value the expense of a wedding photographer when there are much cheaper and in my opinion better way to capture the day.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well it will have to be AI or amateur photographers since:
Save it.
Go tell all the people that had to get out of photography that digital didn't kill pro photography. I'm sure they'd love to hear your arguments over semantics
Some people seem to have issues with change. Sure, things are going to change. The issue is whether the new tech actually improves whatever it seeks to improve. That’s where my issue with AI comes from: I believe it has enormous potential but it’s too often used for the wrong things and it’s too often, way too often, crap, whether it’s bogus information or stupid images.
And I say this as someone who studied newspaper journalism, then had to make the pivot to the internet and saw his profession decimated by that internet. Change happens.
I remember when I first started coming here, I was amazed how good some of the photos that were posted were. Then I started to realize that most of what I saw that had amazed me were probably average photos but were improved by very talented people with post processing skills. I'm not trying to take away their skills as a pro photographer, but you have to admit learning photoshop and others has allowed the photos that would have been deleted because of poor technique can now be saved. As for me I never enjoyed the post processing part of photography so most of my photos are "oh that's a nice picture" kind of photo. I still like and use Picassa for jpg's. I also like to shoot b&w film and to me it takes much more talent to get great photos from that than it does using digital cameras and processing software. The old wedding photographers that shot film didn't have the luxury of taking a couple of thousand shots and picking 25 for a book. What digital did to film, AI will do to professional photographers. I am not the type of person that would take credit for a photo that AI corrected and made it into a stunning photo. To me it's like hitting a golf shot close to the pin and hitting a golf shot that was wide left but hit the mound perfectly and bounced right and put the ball 3 feet from pin. It's just not the same feeling.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
It's coming, it's going to be worse than you think, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. It's going to impact every corner of the world, and in my opinion, decimate MUCH of the professional photography industry. Hobbyist will be fine, if companies survive the fallout from the professional side.
I believe within the next 2 years (honestly sooner probably) for my line of work (senior portraits, sport portraits, pro team / college / high school media days) people will be taking 2 or 3 photos with their cell phones (as source material for AI) and generating whatever they want, however they want, for pennies on the dollar. Hell, the apps will be free and ad space sold. I bet 85% of the industry will be gutted.
Of course there will be some people that want "the real thing", but the average Joe and businesses with the bottom line in mind won't give give a damn. Wedding industry? Decimated. 85% of wedding photogs will be replaced with an app. People are already having guests take pics with their cell phones and upload them to a wedding gallery, instead of hiring a photographer. There is your source material for AI.
I think for many people the value in photography is in its realism, it depicts real people in real moments and AI-generated fake photos will no doubt spread in social media but the will be considered worthless since everyone will be so tired of fake things. Yes, photographs are retouched in many cases but the degree of deviation of that from images of moments that never happened is huge.
If everything becomes free (because of low cost of production) then no one will be paid salaries and people won't have money to buy anything so society collapses. This won't happen as people realize what is going on and will value gen AI output at its true value which is zero. Hopefully the AI companies will be sued for copyright infringment and be ordered to pay compensation for the original creators of all the real images they took to train the AI models with, resulting in bankruptcies of the AI companies and then we can get back to making real things that benefit real people instead of hijacking the output of all skilled workers and replacing them with AI models to benefit broligarchs and broligarchs alone.
AmbientMike wrote:
Go tell all the people that had to get out of photography that digital didn't kill pro photography. I'm sure they'd love to hear your arguments over semantics
Maybe you should tell all the people that did NOT get out of photography, and those that are still in it, that despite digital they are lucky to have survived your death claim. Oh right, it was just your semantics.
Maybe you can understand these semantics. The introduction of digital versus film brought millions of more people into photography. That is a fact. If you can't figure out the advantages that both pro and amateurs found by using digital instead of film, you know nothing about the history of photography. Which Pro Sports Photographer do you think got the most assignments, the one that could forward his digital images that he just took to his editor in a few minutes, or the photographer that had to send his film to his editor to be developed before the editor could even see the images
Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe you should tell all the people that did NOT get out of photography, and those that are still in it, that despite digital they are lucky to have survived your death claim. Oh right, it was just your semantics.
Maybe you can understand these semantics. The introduction of digital versus film brought millions of more people into photography. That is a fact. If you can't figure out the advantages that both pro and amateurs found by using digital instead of film, you know nothing about the history of photography. Which Pro Sports Photographer do you think got the most assignments, the one that could forward his digital images that he just took to his editor in a few minutes, or the photographer that had to send his film to his editor to be developed before the editor could even see the images
Yeah, digital really killed pro photography. ...Show more →
Your point is so idiotic I don't see the point in arguing with you
But go apply for one of the newspaper jobs that doesn't exist anymore, or open a portrait studio when the millions of people that you're so glad they got into photography are using their cellphones to take their own portraits
It wasn't just "digital cameras," the "alchemy" went out of general photography for many people. The "guy with the good camera" also was the source of prints, beyond just running one of (or the only) the local drop off/pick up points. Mini-labs showed up everywhere and the specialized prints, the 8x10s of the classes, the sports teams, the scout troops, the "weddings," all the non pass-around twofers twin prints, became a more narrowed set of the business. Scanned film or prints were available to the masses, and printing became a "computer" process, not a dark room miracle.
Artists and presentation geniuses were still valuable but when button pushing replaced dark room chemistry, thyere were big changes. Much like when desk tops, etc., changed the world of the secretaries and data entry clerks. I stopped red-lining the report for someone else to retype, etc.
AmbientMike wrote:
Your point is so idiotic I don't see the point in arguing with you
Only an idiot would not understand, and here you are arguing. Semantics again?
But go apply for one of the newspaper jobs that doesn't exist anymore, or open a portrait studio when the millions of people that you're so glad they got into photography are using their cellphones to take their own portraits
Well whoopee, you point out some examples to try and defend your universal claim that Digital photography killed professional photography.
I guess all those pro photographers you saw at the Super Bowl, Australian Open, and the Olympics did not get killed by their digital gear. Get someone else to explain it to you, as I don't have the right semantics.
Try repeating this to yourself Digital photography did NOT kill professional photography, just some of it. Digital photography did NOT kill professional photography, just some of it. Digital photography did NOT kill professional photography, just some of it.
Not doubt my friends! You should sell all your new Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad and Zeiss equipment to me at $0.05 on dollar. I'm also buying lighting gear! </sarcasm>
Seriously though I've subscribed to a few AI software based systems for portrait photography and they can select the best pics and adjust them in real time while shooting. They don't replace the subject or the photographer they just make post so much easier and more precise. But they cost $$$
Obviously AI tools like denoising is helping us out. I've got some other art production type software that is improving with AI, etc.
But I look at my dads photos of Japan post-WWII. He flew over the signing of the treaty as a navel fighter pilot in a Hellcat and landed and documented everything in post-war Japan. How does AI even begin to impact that
And I look at my great uncle's photos who was a physics professor at Berkeley during WWII which are of a very personal and abstract nature - a true light warrior... can AI do that? Possibly one day, I'm not sure. Not yet.
I believe we stand to benefit. I think general AI LLMs are so far poor in non-quantitative things. Even in quantitative things and expert areas of focus general models are poor. But if trained for a specific purpose they can deliver (ex. radiology). But the point of my rambling is that specific tools can help us but they don't replace documentation of what is occurring around us or the abstract. Two-bit-adverts for "Mo's furniture store" are done and gone. Rest in peace!
The Tibetans create art and then destroy it only to create better art.
The Chinese book of changes the "I Ching" informs us that all things are in flux and all that is real is in flux.
My grandfathers last words to me on his deathbed was a "you will see much change during your life - don't be fearful - embrace it!" Indeed he saw the transition from the horse and buggy to the jet powered airplane and the first moon landing. God speed Grandfather!
In the context of this post, I think it is fair to say that the transition from analog to digital photography had a largely negative impact on the profession overall. We can see this in the following areas:
1) Collapse of the film industry resulting in the almost total loss of jobs in manufacturing and secondary industries such as film development.
2) Eventual loss of the consumer grade (snap shot) camera industry. This loss of market has a secondary impact on corporate reinvestment dollars that fuel innovation.
3) The collapse of the private darkroom and art print industry. - This one is particularly painful as pre-digital I often sold art prints for thousands. Now try selling a fine art digital print for the same value.
4) Severe reduction in darkroom support staff and retouching as digital tools are more efficient and less staff is required.
5) Reduction in print publication based image management for same reason. (Just imagine the main plot line in Ben Stillers' the Secret Life of Walter Mitty in today's digital world)
Overall, there are far fewer professionals and staff involved in photography as a career. We also see far fewer outlets for the development and advancement of photography as a creative art. Even though more photographs are being taken today, the digital transformation has radically remade the field.
Imagemaster wrote:
Only an idiot would not understand, and here you are arguing. Semantics again?
Well whoopee, you point out some examples to try and defend your universal claim that
I guess all those pro photographers you saw at the Super Bowl, Australian Open, and the Olympics did not get killed by their digital gear. Get someone else to explain it to you, as I don't have the right semantics.
Try repeating this to yourself
Didn't really want to join a cult today, but you do you.
Mike_5D wrote:
It's tough to remain optimistic and embrace a change whose own creators promise will make 99% of humanity unemployable effectively overnight.
Well I will let you know tomorrow if their promise was correct, or they were just using AmbientMilke's semantics and they really did not mean 99%.
