Camera: Panasonic S1R. Lens: Panasonic 24-105mm. Focal length 24mm.
I'm reading more and more about generative A.I. and it doesn't sound like a good thing for the vast majority of working photographers. Especially portrait photographers. It's not an existential dilemma for hobbyists, fine artists and all the folks who love the process of taking photographs but are not dependent on making money from their craft. Critics can dismiss the samples they've been shown on some websites as "fake" or "inferior" but I've seen some really convincing images and I would suggest that we're already seeing a workable quality in computer derived portraits even though these are the very early days of the new applications of A.I. in photography.
On one level I really care about the incursions into the business side because it would be nice to eke out a few more profitable years doing the kind of work I really have enjoyed over the last 40 or so years. This revolution in imaging might not affect the very highest levels (Annie Leibovitz? Platon?) of photographers but for most others it will mean a significant devaluation of hard won abilities, talents and marketable products.
On the other hand I'm somewhat insulated from the coming financial carnage by dint of being so close to exiting the commercial markets altogether. What does the generative A.I. onslaught have to do with me personally? With the exception of denting my self-identity as a portrait artist and reducing opportunities for easy billing, not much. In fact, I am so confident that taking images will continue to be fun and fulfilling that I ordered yet another lens to play around with. It should be here mid-week. It's the Nikon mount version of the Voiglander Ultron 40mm f2.0 SL IIS lens. I've been buying the DSLR/Ai Nikon mount version of some lenses like this one because the mount is so easy to adapt to any of the mirrorless cameras. And the selling price of the lenses in this mount are much less expensive than the M versions because the rangefinder coupling, which is expensive to implement well, is not needed or (obviously) included on the Nikon F mount versions. Yes, the adapter makes the lenses a bit bigger but on a relatively large Leica SL camera it hardly matters.
I had the thought this morning that when all the cost efficient, bottom line focused businesses have fully accepted A.I. assisted or created portraits of their staffs, and all the landscapes are being rendered by Mid-Journey and DALL-E, that perhaps authentic human-made images, seen and captured with human thought, might become more collectible and have more intrinsic value to collectors and appreciators of photography. Also, the theatrical act of the portrait session might become more valuable as an experiential indulgence. An elite and economically lofty investment. One never really knows that much about the future. That's why it's so hard to predict accurately.
I watched a friend create a country song using ChatGPT. He put in the usual parameters, love lost, pretty girl, trucks, dogs etc and this AI thing generated a full song with music, verses, bridges the whole thing in less than one minute. It was pretty darn good too. He then asked it to redo it in the style of Cardi B, which is did, again in less than one minute. Who gets the copyright on this?
ReplyDeleteI predict that within a generation the young people will have lost the ability to be creative in the sense we know it. Already critical thinking skills have pretty much fallen on the floor.
Eric
We are truly entering a post-reality world. No talent or effort necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWithout continued creative input from humans AI will stagnate in the future. It may in fact produce movie scripts that are complete copies of bygone epics. Wait, humans seem to have stagnated in the same way. Intelligence is an overrated human trait.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem with AI products is not the "center" stuff -- creating a basic photograph -- but the "edge" stuff. The idiosyncrasies. You could program the AI to create them, but would they be the ones that actually make a portrait? I think you'd have to specify what you wanted, and that would take more time than making an actual photo.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's wishful thinking, but I think the artists of the future will be those who learn to use AI to express their own vision. Or those who take the AI output and manipulate it to fit their vision.
ReplyDeleteBut then, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” ― Yogi Berra
Has anyone attempted to get ChatGPT to describe a photo to one of those AI image-makers to see what they can spit out?
ReplyDeleteHas anyone attempted to get one ChatGPT to phone up another ChatGPT and, well, "chat"? Might be fun listening in. Might be a good plot for a sci-fi film. The two AIs start to collaborate on ways to get rid of us but someone is listening in. Tom Cruise, maybe.
Robert, that would be a very interesting experiment!
ReplyDeleteHello HAL, it Dave, Call me back....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE
Hi Kirk,
ReplyDeleteLove VSL; read it every day. You make me think new things about my photography, which is not easy given my age (I'm in your bracket, as it were.)
But I do disagree about AIs putting pros out of business, any more or less than autofocus did. Took the liberty of quoting you and writing more about it in my little Substack; I hope you don't mind. It's here, if you're interested: https://perfectingequilibrium.substack.com/p/pro-photography-isnt-dead-it-isnt
Thanks for VSL!
Cjf