Llevo años escuchando eso de que la fotografía está acabada. Mientras se sigan realizando fotos no se acabará la fotografía, la IA no puede sustituir el que una persona documente las fiestas del pueblo en ese mismo momento (a menos que algún multimillonario cree un robot con IA se presente en el lugar y trasmita en directo, y si puede llegar a pasar si lo piensas). En cuanto a las redes usando la propia IA para analizar las redes la conclusión es que las mejores redes para fotógrafos son Flickr, 500px y Behance (Oh sorpresa). :__)
Per Doug Lowell above, yup, so many arts and art movements have been called dead, yet they continue on. Because we are all still alive and sensing and seeing and feeling and . . .
So continue to be alive and sensing and seeing and feeling and . . . do it your way and share the results. That is all anyone has to share. Sharing your vision is showing others that you are alive.
Let the vision shape the format and how you share. The best laid plans of mice and men . . . well, plans are not always going to come to fruition, and that, too, is just living.
Glad to have found you here. I followed you on IG and enjoyed your feed. I have been photographing for 35 years, both as an artist and professional. Began investigating AI recently and I am fascinated by the potential. Having lots of fun creating and experimenting. I'm also fascinated by the amazing opposition so many artists have to the new medium.
So I wander over to this photography substack and see photos created in Midjourney. A photography blog, with curent article about the future of photoraphy, expressing a commitment to photography.
Why are you using stolen creative?
Ignorance is not possible here(?) As a photographer, you surely understand copyright, creative work, and the way AI utilizes published work to extract fundamental components to "mimic" in ways that bypass the creative process, and (very) effectively replace photography?
Perhaps it's a lack of awareness of the legitimate meaning of "derivitive work"?
Credibility lost within a minute of visiting... I don't see any disclaimer of irony or other, and certainly not readily evident in the captions. I just see someone avoiding paying a photographer, or doing the work, but chosing to accept the benefits of publication. While claiming to advocate for photography/photographers.
I understand your scepticism regarding my article and use of imagery. My intention was exclusively to show how far Midjourney/AI had come in terms of making realistic “photographs”.
I am and will always be an advocate of real photography, of the human behind the camera and the proces that goes into photographing. I love real photography and as much as I hate the coming of AI, I am also deeply fascinated by it. And I think its healthy to keep and open mind.
I hope you will stick around my universe that I have built over the last 5 years, using most of my energy telling human stories of human photographers alike.
Besides being a photographer, I also collect photography. I have a limited budget, but once a year buy something by Alec Soth or Nan Golden the past couple years. I make a purchase based upon an image, but also upon knowing where this image fits in the artist's history. What they are doing lately, their direction, what they are struggling with. Not simply the photo. Otherwise I would just put up my own works, or cut photos out of books. The intent of the photographer is primary in my choices. While the photo of the young woman seems perfectly done....have you ever seen the work of Judith Joy Ross? Her portraits of young people leave you startled. Her book Portraits of the Hazelton Public Schools is joyous, leaves to feeling proud to be a human being for a change. These stories, and background information might be something some reject as unimportant, but the artists struggle to see and know the less than obvious is critical to moving art forward. Could art move forward if it were created by machines? And would we any longer care what it has to say?
Kim, the demise of photography, as with painting and reading, has been announced in the past and yet still all three things live on. What is art cannot be replaced, no matter how distracted its audience might be by other things. And so, we persist. As do you--and thank you for that.
I don't find them anymore soul-less then most IG posts I desperately want to know the prompts you used to get these. That is a level of artistry that we should not discount I can wait till we get this level of prompt manipulation in the editing process. What beautiful surreal masterpieces( or disasters) will we be able to create?
I appreciate your AI concerns, Kim. And yet, these images are quite beautiful. I had noticed that you'd gone quiet and I'm happy to see you resurfacing after tending to the necessary elements of your offline life. Perhaps we could Zoom sometime? I would love to hear more about where you're heading with Nowhere Diary. If there's ever a way we might collaborate, I'm all ears. Welcome back!
I agree, Andy. The images are beautiful and strange. At the end of the day we have the image. Does it work or not? In this case, yes. They have a Diane Arbus mystery to them. You know something is not quite right, but not sure what. I think that when one knows the image is AI that it is judged differently.
Llevo años escuchando eso de que la fotografía está acabada. Mientras se sigan realizando fotos no se acabará la fotografía, la IA no puede sustituir el que una persona documente las fiestas del pueblo en ese mismo momento (a menos que algún multimillonario cree un robot con IA se presente en el lugar y trasmita en directo, y si puede llegar a pasar si lo piensas). En cuanto a las redes usando la propia IA para analizar las redes la conclusión es que las mejores redes para fotógrafos son Flickr, 500px y Behance (Oh sorpresa). :__)
I just found you. Looking forward to more words and images.
Per Doug Lowell above, yup, so many arts and art movements have been called dead, yet they continue on. Because we are all still alive and sensing and seeing and feeling and . . .
So continue to be alive and sensing and seeing and feeling and . . . do it your way and share the results. That is all anyone has to share. Sharing your vision is showing others that you are alive.
Let the vision shape the format and how you share. The best laid plans of mice and men . . . well, plans are not always going to come to fruition, and that, too, is just living.
In those ai photos the face is clearly an accessory
Yes.
Glad to have found you here. I followed you on IG and enjoyed your feed. I have been photographing for 35 years, both as an artist and professional. Began investigating AI recently and I am fascinated by the potential. Having lots of fun creating and experimenting. I'm also fascinated by the amazing opposition so many artists have to the new medium.
So I wander over to this photography substack and see photos created in Midjourney. A photography blog, with curent article about the future of photoraphy, expressing a commitment to photography.
Why are you using stolen creative?
Ignorance is not possible here(?) As a photographer, you surely understand copyright, creative work, and the way AI utilizes published work to extract fundamental components to "mimic" in ways that bypass the creative process, and (very) effectively replace photography?
Perhaps it's a lack of awareness of the legitimate meaning of "derivitive work"?
Credibility lost within a minute of visiting... I don't see any disclaimer of irony or other, and certainly not readily evident in the captions. I just see someone avoiding paying a photographer, or doing the work, but chosing to accept the benefits of publication. While claiming to advocate for photography/photographers.
Hi John,
I understand your scepticism regarding my article and use of imagery. My intention was exclusively to show how far Midjourney/AI had come in terms of making realistic “photographs”.
I am and will always be an advocate of real photography, of the human behind the camera and the proces that goes into photographing. I love real photography and as much as I hate the coming of AI, I am also deeply fascinated by it. And I think its healthy to keep and open mind.
I hope you will stick around my universe that I have built over the last 5 years, using most of my energy telling human stories of human photographers alike.
If not I totally respect that too.
Best regards,
Kim
Besides being a photographer, I also collect photography. I have a limited budget, but once a year buy something by Alec Soth or Nan Golden the past couple years. I make a purchase based upon an image, but also upon knowing where this image fits in the artist's history. What they are doing lately, their direction, what they are struggling with. Not simply the photo. Otherwise I would just put up my own works, or cut photos out of books. The intent of the photographer is primary in my choices. While the photo of the young woman seems perfectly done....have you ever seen the work of Judith Joy Ross? Her portraits of young people leave you startled. Her book Portraits of the Hazelton Public Schools is joyous, leaves to feeling proud to be a human being for a change. These stories, and background information might be something some reject as unimportant, but the artists struggle to see and know the less than obvious is critical to moving art forward. Could art move forward if it were created by machines? And would we any longer care what it has to say?
Kim, the demise of photography, as with painting and reading, has been announced in the past and yet still all three things live on. What is art cannot be replaced, no matter how distracted its audience might be by other things. And so, we persist. As do you--and thank you for that.
I don't find them anymore soul-less then most IG posts I desperately want to know the prompts you used to get these. That is a level of artistry that we should not discount I can wait till we get this level of prompt manipulation in the editing process. What beautiful surreal masterpieces( or disasters) will we be able to create?
Good to have you back. You have been missed
Good to be back! 🙌🏻
What is Midjourney? Who are those faces? Why always the lost stupid glances?
I appreciate your AI concerns, Kim. And yet, these images are quite beautiful. I had noticed that you'd gone quiet and I'm happy to see you resurfacing after tending to the necessary elements of your offline life. Perhaps we could Zoom sometime? I would love to hear more about where you're heading with Nowhere Diary. If there's ever a way we might collaborate, I'm all ears. Welcome back!
I agree, Andy. The images are beautiful and strange. At the end of the day we have the image. Does it work or not? In this case, yes. They have a Diane Arbus mystery to them. You know something is not quite right, but not sure what. I think that when one knows the image is AI that it is judged differently.
Appreciate the mention! We are going to give it our best shot and will listen to our users.
Photography is in a really weird place right now, but I still believe in real photography long term.