| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2025 03:17:37 PM · #1 |
AI-Powered Photography Redefined with the Launch of the AI HONOR Image Engine
This makes me depressed and sad at the same time...I think I might as well stop taking photographs as now camera's are obsolete. The fun of taking photographs is gone for ever..you don't need any skills or artistic talent any more...all you need is a phone like this one in the article. And this is only the start...I am going to give up photography now that this has happened and focus on other things in life that require certain skills and give enjoyment and satisfaction...like fishing with very light tackle for instance....life becomes more clinical and cold and uncaring all the time...AI and robots are taking over and love and caring are on the way out. The world is becoming a shithole!
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/industrynews/587639-ai-powered-photography-redefined-with-the-launch-of-the-ai-honor-image-engine.html
https://www.honor.com/za/phones/honor-magic7-pro/
Message edited by author 2025-03-19 15:18:14. |
|
|
|
03/19/2025 04:04:11 PM · #2 |
Just because there's an easier way to do something doesn't detract from the skill & satisfaction that comes with doing it old-school... If it even makes any sense to define Photoshop as old-school, LOL. If one's goal is to "have the image" then it shouldn't matter how it was created, just the fact of its creation/possession would be enough. Contrariwise, if one's satisfaction derives from the *creation* of the image within a particular set of constraints, then that should remain a viable goal and one worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2025 04:45:57 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just because there's an easier way to do something doesn't detract from the skill & satisfaction that comes with doing it old-school... If it even makes any sense to define Photoshop as old-school, LOL. If one's goal is to "have the image" then it shouldn't matter how it was created, just the fact of its creation/possession would be enough. Contrariwise, if one's satisfaction derives from the *creation* of the image within a particular set of constraints, then that should remain a viable goal and one worth pursuing. |
Yes quite true Robert...as long as DPC keeps to those principles and stays "Old School" |
|
|
|
03/19/2025 04:51:11 PM · #4 |
You should of course choose yourself which activities you like to do and go for it, but for me this would never be a reason to give up photography.
If I would be a professional and would have to make my living from photography and I would be competing against others with advanced AI capabilities that maybe would be beyond my reach, then this could cause frustration, but not as long as it is a hobby.
I also like running. Not to get somewhere but just to do it as an activity. So the fact that bicycles, cars, planes etc were invented does not frustrate me in my running. I still like doing it even though to get somewhere it might not be the easiest way.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2025 09:19:57 AM · #5 |
I couldn't tell anything from those links, but I do understand how AI is challenging the arts.
You mention two things, "skill" and "artistic talent"
Technology has been replacing skill for thousands of years. Photography "replaced" painting. But people still paint.
The more complicated question is whether AI is replacing artistry. I've had to question my own ideas about art. AI poems are also getting better.
If art is purely emotional, if it's only about stimulating the right neurons to create a pleasurable response, then AI will figure it out. I want more than that from art. i want to be challenged in some way. That doesn't mean I can't be fooled by AI. It happens now and then. maybe I shouldn't care. Or maybe I should care more about the human story behind each piece of art. I can already feel a shift in my aesthetics to wanting to know how a piece of art was made, and why. Actually, it's similar to the shift you feel when you find out photojournalist photos are staged. You realize that context matters.
It's all very interesting to me, unresolved, ideas still being juggled.
But yeah, ribbon hog photos are a dime a dozen now. :)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2025 12:19:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
..
It's all very interesting to me, unresolved, ideas still being juggled.
But yeah, ribbon hog photos are a dime a dozen now. :) |
Exactly! ;) That's one of the reasons I lost my passion for photography .
I personally think that AI generated art will become a new form of artistic expression. To me the process of guiding and selecting from the infinite number of answers that AI can provide, requires human direction. An artist would impose their style that could only be associated with that specific artist.
On the other hand, maybe art is so poorly understood that for majority of people what AI produces randomly is art. |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 01:28:57 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Originally posted by posthumous:
..
It's all very interesting to me, unresolved, ideas still being juggled.
But yeah, ribbon hog photos are a dime a dozen now. :) |
Exactly! ;) That's one of the reasons I lost my passion for photography .
I personally think that AI generated art will become a new form of artistic expression. To me the process of guiding and selecting from the infinite number of answers that AI can provide, requires human direction. An artist would impose their style that could only be associated with that specific artist.
On the other hand, maybe art is so poorly understood that for majority of people what AI produces randomly is art. |
It won't require human direction for very much longer... Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil has predicted that by the 2030s, AI will have achieved human levels of intelligence, and that it will be possible to have AI that goes inside the human brain to boost memory, turning users into human-machine hybrids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
Can AI generated art truly be considered a form of creativity, or is it merely a reflection of algorithms and data?
How can it be anything other than algorithms and data when that is all it is?
All the data it has memorized comes from the creativity of humans so there is already a real conflict of misappropriation of intellectual property. Stealing someone else's ideas is not art but a criminal offense.
And what about the traceability and transparency of the AI process? What are the core sources and inspirations? Where do the end results come from?
Creativity is firmly in the human domain, it is a result of the sentient human mind, AI is incapable of being sentient and it has none of the parallel processing required for creativity.
So no, AI is just algorithms and look up tables of data. Is that intelligence? That is dubious.
And it is nowhere near the true human creative intellect. Instead of being biomimetic in nature it is a completely alien and artificial imposter for creativity.
It would appear that the more fruitful and appropriate applications for AI is where creativity is not required, for example analysing human tissue scans for cancer. Tasks that have one correct answer is the domain of AI algorithms.
Message edited by author 2025-03-20 13:53:57. |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 01:32:41 PM · #8 |
| For an excellent (and hopefully entertaining) exposition on this topic check out the 1951 story "With These Hands" by Cyril M. Kornbluth ... he largely anticipates both the issues and technologies affecting "art" ... |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 01:47:29 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
On the other hand, maybe art is so poorly understood that for majority of people what AI produces randomly is art. |
I don't think "understanding" has any particular meaning when applied to "art". After all, we can easily see two distinct stances re: "understanding" -- Folks who look at, say, a Motherwell or a Rothko and say "I don't get it, what does it MEAN?" (they want their art packaged for easy consumption, I suppose) balanced out by folks who look at "great art" and feel good because they have an education in Art History and can ferret out all the obscure references encoded into the canvas whilst they can dismiss not-so-great "art" for being formulaic and shallow no matter how popular it may be.
I'm ranting, sorry. "Understanding Art" is pretty much a dead end and I'm not interested :-) |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 02:22:23 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 02:40:59 PM · #11 |
I have no issue with that which you stated above Paul.
Message edited by author 2025-03-20 14:53:27. |
|
|
|
03/20/2025 03:28:54 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MargaretNet:
On the other hand, maybe art is so poorly understood that for majority of people what AI produces randomly is art. |
I don't think "understanding" has any particular meaning when applied to "art". After all, we can easily see two distinct stances re: "understanding" -- Folks who look at, say, a Motherwell or a Rothko and say "I don't get it, what does it MEAN?" (they want their art packaged for easy consumption, I suppose) balanced out by folks who look at "great art" and feel good because they have an education in Art History and can ferret out all the obscure references encoded into the canvas whilst they can dismiss not-so-great "art" for being formulaic and shallow no matter how popular it may be.
I'm ranting, sorry. "Understanding Art" is pretty much a dead end and I'm not interested :-) |
So what do you want to do with art?
PS Appreciate? Whatever that means.
Message edited by author 2025-03-22 09:36:27. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2025 02:53:41 PM EDT.
