this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
24 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Funny, I was discussing with friends the other day about how adobe has partnered up with Leica and Nikon to add authenticity details to their photos. Friend was saying there isn’t a market for that, but it looks like we’ll soon be in the age of, “guilty until proven innocent”. So far as, pics are fake unless proof of it being genuine is there.
I suspect it will be somewhat like Champagne. You can only call it Champagne if it comes from Champagne region of France. It used to matter a lot until as good or better sparkling white was available from elsewhere. Today there is a certain extravagance and authenticity having Champagne, and some people try to pass their sparkling white off as the real thing, most people can't tell the difference.
Photography will be protected eventually, but once AI models can do as good a job in most cases it will become a lot like Champagne. There will always be some need for photography, but once they don't need it for most things it will need that authenticity signing Leica and Nikon are adding so it can be proven that it isn't cheap sparkling AI.
I mostly disagree, though the future may prove me wrong. What I think differentiates photography from other art forms, in this case, is that photography necessitates real world context in a way that other art forms don't.
Wedding photography is probably the best example of this - I don't think most people can imagine a world where AI generated art would be sufficient to replace a wedding photographer who's actually present at a real wedding, because the real world context of the wedding is what makes those photos significant, not just the quality of the photography itself. This is true of photography in general - people tend to care about photography the most when it connects to their reality. Contrast this with, say, a drawing: most people expect that a wedding photo will be of a real moment that actually occurred at their wedding, but people purchasing a drawing of their wedding wouldn't necessarily have the same expectation, and care more about the end result than the process or context of its creation.
Now, obviously this only applies to certain types of photography. I think things like stock photography are likely to go completely extinct in the near future. But photography as an art form will hold its value in a very different way from other art forms, imo
No, but I can imagine a world where almost no wedding photographers exist anymore because most people will just take 10000 cell phone pictures, and run them through a style plagiarizer, and end up with 10000 "photos" in the style of some wedding photos they liked the look of.