Photographer finds a handy mirror at the hat store.
Commenter and VSL V.I.P., Stephen Biro kindly sent me a link to a Wall Street Journal article about the dire human effects of A.I. content creation and how the consolidation of online media into the hands of Amazon, Google and Meta is quickly and profoundly affecting professionals throughout the advertising industry. It's not good. And it's getting worse. The big three are bundling royalty free, A.I. derived images, video and writing along with very precise and accurate consumer targeting. It's very effective packaging. As a result traditional advertising agencies are already hemorrhaging employees and casting off freelancers at a record pace. And it's not going to get prettier as time goes by.
If you've been paying attention you've probably also heard about an actress named, "Tilly Norwood" who is currently roiling the creatives and actors in Hollywood. It's not the entry level people only who are afraid that "Tilly" and her crew are coming for their jobs; their livelihoods, but also "A" list movie and television stars. What's causing this panic? Well, "Tilly" is not a real human, she's an A.I. construct who has been constructed to be indistinguishable from a human actor. She is currently being shopped around for various movie and TV roles and will probably soon "break into" print and web advertising as well. She's a construct. A virtual human. A chatbot who happens to be, on screen, gorgeous, and better yet, she never flubs her lines. Well, I guess unless she's programmed to flub her lines.
This time around technology is once again coming for people's jobs but in this instance it's not affecting every demographic evenly. This time around it's the well paid, professional content creators, marketers, photographers, writers, cinematographers, illustrators, and even actors who are metaphorically taking it on the chin. Or, in reality, getting hit in their wallets. Big time.
Once lifelike A.I. actors take over the marketing world as we know it is gone. Everything becomes royalty free and efficient beyond return. I think I may have stumbled into the perfect year in which to retire and leave the field of content creation. Maybe just in time... Or something like that.
If you aren't working in the creative services industry and aren't watching this tsunami first hand you'll probably fall back on the usual arguments. That everyone will be able to tell the real from the wholly fabricated. That human ingenuity will win out. That clients will want the authenticity of real models or real products or real locations. But you would be wrong and you are probably even now seeing video advertising with virtual casts. Ads with virtual backgrounds. Print materials like brochures filled with skinned CAD car renderings and "talents" who are completely digital. You just aren't inside the content factory and didn't notice the new technologies hit the point at which they equalled or exceeded traditional, actual, processes. But the idea that we'll know better, or not be fooled by fabricated "models" and "actors" is just plain hubris. You mostly just don't have a front row seat in the factory, watching how the "sausage" is being made...
So, where does that leave photographers? Well, if you are a hobbyist you'll be just fine. You'll keep on making images that please you and, hopefully, delight your family, friends and fans. But if you are working as a full time, professional photographer I think the future is plainly unknowable. Hope for the best but plan for the worst. And, maybe have a backup plan...
The inflection point that led me to understand how cataclysmic this change will be was when my friend, James, did a deep dive into A.I. image generation and brought with him his 40 years of experience as a video director, editor and photographer. He created a series of photographs that made fun of social media. The images were on very realistic locations, with very, very realistic humans engaged in very real looking actions. I was totally convinced that he'd found a client with deep pockets who facilitated an ongoing project to go around the country and set up photo shoots to illustrate the concepts. Only it was all done with generative A.I. tools. I've been into Photoshop for nearly three decades and had toyed with A.I. constructs for client and I was completely fooled by James's constructions. And that was nearly a year ago.... Go here, see 80 images and see what you think: https://jameswebb.smugmug.com/GenAI-Images
As a reformed advertising creative director and former agency head I'm conflicted. I know clients will want to have agencies make images from scratch which do not require: model releases, royalties, time limited licensing, stock images that might be used by other clients in similar industries, re-use fees, budgets for exotic travel, budgets for any travel, expensive prop rentals, pushy photographers who want to get paid: right now. Copyright issues. And so much more. Chat GPT, Gemini and other programs are here now. They are working. They are enough (to quote Ken from the Barbie movie). To think that agencies and their clients demand perfection is ludicrous. They demand perfect enough. And no matter how big or profitable a company might be they are all demonically obsessed with spending as little as humanly possible for the actual production of creative work. It's just the way of the capitalist world order.
So, if you are lucky enough to have turned 65, grabbed onto Medicare, and Social Security and done a good job with your SEP investment accounts you don't need to worry in the short run. Sit back and enjoy the programming. Crack open that beer and be fascinated by how much crazier the action scenes in movies are getting and how butch Optimus Prime is in the Transformer movies. And how lifelike the reconstruction of Princess Leia via CGI is. But if you aren't quite ready to retire it's time to come up with a strategy for battling the virtual competition.
So, how was your week?
I spent too much time this week working on everything else but photography. By the time today rolled around I was ready to get out of the house and make photographs. I've been going back and forth between three cameras recently. They are: the Sigma fp, the Leica SLS-2 and the Leica M240. Most often used with 28, 35 and 50mm lenses. These days mostly shot in a raw format.
Earlier in the week I headed to a favorite, independent bookstore across town. I took the Sigma fp and the Voigtlander 35mm Nocton with me. The last seven images in today's gallery are from that combination. The rest are from this afternoon when I went out to shoot with the Leica M240 and the Voigtlander 50mm APO lens. I recently decided that casual photography, if you enjoy it, is a lot like golf. You hit some great shots and you hit some into the rough, but if you are doing it correctly what you really accomplish is pleasant time out walking and improving your game for "next time." That was me today. No caddy, no cart, just a camera, a couple bucks in my pocket and an extra battery. Oh, and all the time in the world. That works.
funny to me that Kendra Scott, a fashion and jewelry designer of note, decided to name her shop on South Congress Ave. "Yellow Rose." Why? Because that was the name of a very big and very successful gentleman's club (strip club, exotic/erotic dance club, lap dance club, etc.) here in Austin back in the 1980s and 1990s. Weird.
Custom hat includes small art artifacts as well as a crystal. Nice.
Me? I like the color combinations. I stopped the woman wearing the hat and asked for permission to photograph. She turned to face me but I explained that I wanted just the hat.
She was understanding.
I think I finally found a hat even I think is ugly. At Maufrais, the tony hat shop on S. Congress.
Motel mural embarrassingly intersects with holiday decor.
Seems just right for a hipster motel in South Austin...
Ah.... bokeh. I think. Maybe it's just punctum.
Supervisory Mannequin. Keeping a close eye on the photo riff-raff.
Window art at the local Hermés shop. Home of the $1200 camera strap. Now that's Veblen!!!
Time out. Savoring a mocha poolside.
Everything below the bike gears I found in an alley is from the Sigma fp and the
version II of the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton Classic MC lens. Fun to see the differences
between the Sigma and the Leica...
Christmas is in less than a week.
I have no idea of what I want Santa to bring me.
I've already shopped for family.
Now just cruising until we run out of pool hours.
Not evil pool. Swimming pool.
Cue up the outrage.
13 comments:
Well, the “supervisory mannequin” doesn’t look worried. I suspect she and her ilk figure it will be a while before store-window-sized video screens displaying generative mannequins will become a less expensive option than they are. (By the way, did you use Adobe’s reflection removal on that snap? If you did, I wonder if the AI Man Behind the Curtain was holding back because he didn’t approve of your post.)
In the meantime, welcome to the rank of carefree amateurs. I’m sure there are neural networks that can make better pictures than I can, but when you’re shooting for your own amusement you don’t need to please anybody but yourself.
So commercial photography is dead except for live events like weddings and sports. But if a young person thinks of themselves as an image creator and rides the technology, wouldn't there be a future in that? I was out walking with a camera today. Took a few picts. Mostly the same old, but I enjoyed it anyway.
Creators in the music industry are in the same boat. Last month an AI generated song (Walk My Walk) hit #1 on Billboard's Country Digital Song Sales chart. Kirk, wouldn't you be stoked if a new Janis Joplin album was released? ;-)
FB et al may be squeezing out the traditional marketing industries, that's what monopolies do, but is what they are delivering as effective? Are there metrics that demonstrate this? I read/hear that there are growing questions about whether they actually deliver what they promise. Customers have to more or less take their word for it that they delivered the ads to the intended targeted audience. Back in the day when you bought a print ad, the publication would give you a tear sheet so you know the ad made it to print. I don't know how to do the equivalent now, I hope there is a way.
I worked in high-tech most of my life and none of my former colleagues and I have any faith that these technologies will improve our lives in real ways. People keep saying that we carry around powerful computers in our pockets now as if that was an indicator of progress. To my mind it's another form of TV with ads but that gives people the illusion of agency. But I admit to being a curmudgeon on this, I don't understand why anyone would think that being accessible 24/7 is a good thing.
As for Hollywood using fake actors, does it matter for most movies?
Robert, according to the WSJ article the results are between 17 and 34% more effective. And the results are much more data driven (measured for effect) than from conventional ad agencies. Sorry.
No need to be sorry. In one sense, I hope that's true because it means someone is getting something for what we've given up. I have no oar in this lake, mostly just curious. But I do admit to being skeptical, I don't believe we benefit from monopolies, although someone does.
Traditionally, economists have talked about “creative destruction.” That is, while the transition to new technology may be quite painful for affected industries, the rule is that more jobs are created than lost over the medium-to-long term. To me, AI represents the first case in which I can see no eventual upside for employment. For medical research and weather forecasting? Sure. But jobs for the masses? I just don’t see it. The thing is, many people in charge are concerned as well. That’s why concepts like universal basic income have been tossed around. Of course, none of this means that I’m right. But I recently wrapped up a 51-year career in broadcast journalism. I think both Kirk and myself picked the right time to retire.
On another note, I do love the colours in Austin/your photos. Here in the far North (Glasgow, Scotland) as we approach the Winter solstice everything is grey & dreary ...
Timing is everything....right Biro?
I agree with you on AI, and agree with Biro in that I also can't really see an upside to AI in terms of jobs. For nearly two decades now, I've been working for a big corp that is in the business of delivering news and information. The focus of the entire company has become all-AI, all the time - both to cut costs and increase productivity (and seemingly to eventually reduce payroll). From the top down, they've made it clear that they're willing to push out anyone who won't fully (and enthusiastically) incorporate AI into every part of their workflow. I am still about a year shy of 60, but seriously considering retiring in 2026. My wife is in a similar boat. The only thing holding us back (so far) is worrying about healthcare costs between now and Medicare, or maybe even the availability of health insurance if cheeto and his sycophantic minions in Congress have their way with ACA.
Ken
Kirk wrote: “I think I finally found a hat even I think is ugly.”
Tom Mix wore thar hat shape in silent cowboy movies. Stetson sells the Tom Mix cowboy hat for $380. I’m not in the market for one.
I think the turquoise concho on the hat is unnecessary.
—Gordon R. Brown
Kirk, I do agree that the AI generated pictures by James are among the best I've ever seen. But I think some are quite easily seen as AI. There's a plasticy smoothness that just does not look real to me. Others, yeah, it's very hard to tell. I see this type on Facebook a lot and, in my opinion, there's a perfection that is just too perfect. For example, a real human face is not perfectly symmetric as even the greatest beauties have some asymmetries and again, in my view, that's what creates interesting faces.
On my monitor they seem more just noise free than plastic-y but that doesn't mean much...
Post a Comment