Old school here. I do not shoot with a pinhole camera nor use glass plates for negatives. But

[MichaelSoE]

I have never been a big fan of all the new tech that has come my way in my life time.

I practiced my craft. Studied to improve. Bought new gear but did not utilize many of the innovations that are now common place.

Some examples: I went digital in the 90's as I was an early adopter of the WWW and had a web site for which I needed to do photos.
But I didn't go totally digital until they finally made a printer that could create an archival print that would produce an 11"x14" print as good as one from a 645 negative.

I still shoot 1 frame at a time, eschewing motor drive as I felt it was cheating. It took skill for someone to be a sport photographer. To capture the peak of action rather than shoot a bazillion frames and then cull them for the shot.

Auto exposure? Never used it. I still have my trusty light meter though I do reference the histogram on my camera just to be sure I'm not blocking my shadows or highlights.

Photoshop? I use it all the time but only to replicate what I would do in the darkroom. Sure I have played with the many filters but I personally would be embarrassed if all I did was click a mouse button and then declare myself an artist/craftsman.

The point being, I am now pissed about AI photography. Actually AI anything that is going to stifle creativity.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica
Creativity: the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form. A number of personality characteristics have been shown to be associated with creative productivity. One of these is autonomy: creative individuals tend to be independent and nonconformist in their thoughts and actions.

I am sure people will still be creative. But I fear AI will reduce the number of talented people who would consider pursuing a career in which creativity is a driving motivation.

The only thing I hope AI puts a real hurt to is stock photo agencies. I considered them a bane to working photographers many years ago when stock photography took off like gangbusters in the 80's. I can't help but wonder how AI is going to affect their pocketbooks.

Rant off.

Before I hit the post button I remember discussions I had with an artist who did paintings from my photos. I lamented that he was only limited by his imagination. If he wanted a deer drinking from the brook in his landscape painting he only had to paint it in whereas if I wanted a deer in my photograph, I 'd have to wait until one showed up.

I guess I can stick that deer into my photo now


My photo


Painting of my photo with mangos added

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I agree. My 17 yr. old granddaughter has great drawing skill and not so great grades. I

told her I would pay for her to go to the best art college that would admit her. Her dad told her she could never make a living in art because AI will be used for all illustration work in the future.

[Goonch]

2. Here I stick it to a prize winning AI.....

[MichaelSoE]

3. I applaud the photographer that revealed his image was AI generated.

It's sad that the judges were unable to determine it was not an original. So what happens in the future when somebody wins but never reveals the truth and accepts some prestigious award for something they didn't do.

[Goonch]

5. Should be a prize for letting the cat out of the bag ;-{)

[moniss]

4. I deeply appreciate

Last edited Thu Apr 20, 2023, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

what you are saying and agree wholeheartedly. I've posted recently about this AI/creativity issue with respect to music. I will never accept, call creative or use the label artist for people who largely sit at a keyboard, and without a single bit of inspiration in their own thoughts, and with no more skill than typing have a software program fill it all in for them whether it be visual or aural. They are not songwriters, composers, photographers, sculptors, painters or anything else.

I do make a distinction between the AI/auto-fill aspects of this and those who work in graphic arts and video. That distinction being if the design came from the mind of a human and if the resulting work required specialized knowledge and skill from the hands, eyes and ears of a human in order to exist. I'm not interested in the least at what lines of code think is beautiful, meaningful or touching.

Those who would watch a performance of "Swan Lake" by robots, dancing to music generated not by human beings in an orchestra but by circuits replicating notes from sheet music, are those who have little distinction from the robots themselves.

[yonder]

6. +1.