Dec 26, 2023·edited Dec 27, 2023Liked by Don Giannatti
Spot on response to this NYT article asking if photography is dead because of AI. AI will never do what photography does. But, I keep thinking to myself, to the untrained eye there are two issues I still see, people think AI is real photography and people like AI images.
Loved this Don, super on point. I am not worried about AI endangering photography in any way (except maybe product photography) because it's not the same in anyway. I have no problem with AI, but like you I see no need or purpose to try to shoehorn AI into the concept of photography. Let it be its own thing, call it its own thing. No one tried to call photography "glass-based chemical painting" either.
Dec 27, 2023·edited Dec 27, 2023Liked by Don Giannatti
Just a point of interest . . . have you had a close look at the violinist images? Look at the hands, and the bows. Where did these images come from? . . . and can they be sent back? . . .
Painting was dead. Then books were dead. Now photography is dead. It’s always the end of something. But never the end of the idiots being idiots. I have met more than my fair share of folks contributing to the news. Can’t really take them seriously. If you do... at your own peril!! Especially op-eds...
Agree, of course it’s not photography, it’s a collage of other people’s work. As you say, the uproar at the birth of photography was that painting was dead but no, it found it’s place. The photorealism of the Dutch Golden Age took a hit but hey, what are we seeing all over social media, photorealistic painting.
AI is not the question. Like in every murder investigation you have to ask yourself, who has the most to gain with or because of AI. Now if you can answer that question, a lot more will be revealed.
This is the techbro bag. They want to own everything and this play will put them - eventually - in the driver's seat of owning all the visuals in existence. Like Blackrock wanting to own every home in the world, the techbros want to own all the art. They play a long game, and they make money at every turn. It is amazing to me how many photographers are willing to savage their own art in compliance to the techbros. I don't care if AI becomes a new form of creating visuals. What I am angry about is telling photographers that they have changed the meaning of the distinction of photography to include something totally different.
It's like deciding that stamp collecting is now photography and everyone needs to STFU about it. Pure crazy.
AI is fine, but it should be its own thing, not be shoehorned into an existing art genre.
But I know why they are doing it.
"Autogenerating digital Illustration" doesn't have the sexy history of photography, and they want instant recognition for doing something that requires absolutely no craft, skill, or practice. Hence, the moniker of photography gives it a false and unearned legitimacy.
Spot on response to this NYT article asking if photography is dead because of AI. AI will never do what photography does. But, I keep thinking to myself, to the untrained eye there are two issues I still see, people think AI is real photography and people like AI images.
Thank you.
AI annoys me!
Loved this Don, super on point. I am not worried about AI endangering photography in any way (except maybe product photography) because it's not the same in anyway. I have no problem with AI, but like you I see no need or purpose to try to shoehorn AI into the concept of photography. Let it be its own thing, call it its own thing. No one tried to call photography "glass-based chemical painting" either.
"Glass-based chemical painting"... well, yeah.
I am so glad they stayed away from that... heh.
Just a point of interest . . . have you had a close look at the violinist images? Look at the hands, and the bows. Where did these images come from? . . . and can they be sent back? . . .
They are AI crap.
Noted in the description.
I used them to make a point.
-- don
Painting was dead. Then books were dead. Now photography is dead. It’s always the end of something. But never the end of the idiots being idiots. I have met more than my fair share of folks contributing to the news. Can’t really take them seriously. If you do... at your own peril!! Especially op-eds...
I wish I could like this a hundred times.
"But never the end of the idiots being idiots."
I am a bit of a photography history buff.
The death of photography has been foretold since before Kodak sent out their first Brownie.
Medium format was going to kill photography.
35mm was going to kill photography.
Meters were going to kill photography.
Meters in cameras (Eegads!) was going to kill photography.
A motor drive was going to kill photography.
Too many film choices were going to kill photography.
Autofocus was going to kill photography.
Digital was going to kill photography.
Photoshop was going to kill photography.
But then, it is the NYT, so I take what they say with my own set of critical reviews.
Thanks for the comment.
Agree, of course it’s not photography, it’s a collage of other people’s work. As you say, the uproar at the birth of photography was that painting was dead but no, it found it’s place. The photorealism of the Dutch Golden Age took a hit but hey, what are we seeing all over social media, photorealistic painting.
Right as rain, Rita.
Thanks for the comment.
AI is not the question. Like in every murder investigation you have to ask yourself, who has the most to gain with or because of AI. Now if you can answer that question, a lot more will be revealed.
This is the techbro bag. They want to own everything and this play will put them - eventually - in the driver's seat of owning all the visuals in existence. Like Blackrock wanting to own every home in the world, the techbros want to own all the art. They play a long game, and they make money at every turn. It is amazing to me how many photographers are willing to savage their own art in compliance to the techbros. I don't care if AI becomes a new form of creating visuals. What I am angry about is telling photographers that they have changed the meaning of the distinction of photography to include something totally different.
It's like deciding that stamp collecting is now photography and everyone needs to STFU about it. Pure crazy.
One more example of how AI is similar to a painter: painters are capable of doing work that resembles photographs.
I'm not getting worked up about AI, but I'll be damned if I'll let them call AI art "photography." It's just photorealistic art.
I am the same.
AI is fine, but it should be its own thing, not be shoehorned into an existing art genre.
But I know why they are doing it.
"Autogenerating digital Illustration" doesn't have the sexy history of photography, and they want instant recognition for doing something that requires absolutely no craft, skill, or practice. Hence, the moniker of photography gives it a false and unearned legitimacy.
I'm OK with calling it AI art. That's even easier to say than AI photography.
BTW, at the bottom of your article, you added a link, but it doesn't seem to go anyplace.
Yes. I don't care what they call it. As long as it relates to what it is, that is fine.
Link fixed.
I have posed my question to at least a dozen photographers who go on and on about AI photography.
The question is: "Give me one single thing that AI and photography have in common?"
Not one has made the attempt to answer that.
I do not care about AI imaging or whatever they want to call it; I have a huge problem calling it photography. It is not.
Thanks for the comment.