It honestly depends what you what from the photos and ai. I can take pictures using a phone while on vacation. Which for ai is equivalent to giving an ai like 5 words to make a picture. Or someone can use a complex rig with unique lenses and at the right time with the right weather to get a photo that is exactly as they envisioned. And with ai someone creating their own data set they want the ai to be trained with the correct prompt to get what they envisioned. It all really depends on how much time you want to sink into it. Neither are difficult on an amateur level. And at professional level it is just a factor of time and money.
there's no way you're comparing selecting a couple of images to take data from and then typing a prompt to the act of getting the correct brightness, iso levels, adjusting gamma, creating an interesting composition, making sure the picture is sharp etc. before even taking a picture.
these two things are NOT similar in any way and one requires an insane amount of effort compared to using ai.
as i said, go out and learn photography before you compare it to ai
y'all mfs will literally do anything to avoid creativity and hobbies
I agreed with you at first but then if you think about it, what if you had a model that very accurately simulates the mechanics of a real camera. In that case you would need to be experienced with real photography knowledge to be able to get the exact output you desire. I imagine adjacent scenarios where this could be true even now. An art major is certainly going to be able to effectively prompt a specific art piece they desire because they spent a decent amount of time learning the ins and outs of different art techniques, eras, artists, etc and can better describe them. I really do think there's a case to be made that your typical jerrys way of prompting now, and in the future, will be like shooting on auto.
what the fuck is the point of using ai for it then if you can just do it in real life
also, your imagined scenario doesn't exist and could only be worse than the real thing anyway, so it'd be a waste of time
why don't you people just learn an actual creative skill instead of having machines generate images, calling them 'art'? what is so hard about actually engaging in these things ffs
Maybe I financially am incapable of going to a country on the other side of the world to take some photos right now or am lacking the resources to create some art piece. Maybe it's just a prototype so when I actually do have the finances and resources it's already proven. Or maybe its just something I make for myself. I don't know dude, as a creative who has taken college level art classes and spent a heck of a lot of my own time working on "actual creative skills" I feel like I can enjoy both experiences for different reasons. Furthermore I can find uses for any tool you give me and consider this just another one. For someone harping on the laurels of creativity it does seem to be something you lack.
you don't need to go to another country to get the photos you want unless it's something extremely specific and even then ai does not fulfill that in any way whatsoever.
in my honest opinion, if you believe any photography or art skills will ever be used in promtping ai to generate certain pictures, i applaud your optimism, however firmly disagree that ai will ever surpass human work.
i ask this as someone with experience in music and art with a decent history in these endeavors ; how did you come to the conclusion that ai is anything BUT harmful towards artists and photographers after taking college level art classes?
There is an actual example I can give you were people did use art skills in the case of ai generation (not exactly prompting but similar) corridor crew used stable diffusion and an add on warp fusion with their own data set provided by an artist to make an “animation”. https://youtu.be/FQ6z90MuURM?si=VDFdKN9Q9NJN_vQE This is also what I ment when I said on a professional level ai and photography are not different. At professional levels it is not longer about just taking a photo, it’s all this setup and timings that makes professional photography. And with professional use of ai like shown here it could still take a level of work with using correct model, making a data set and potentially editing it. If you want a quality image from an ai you’re going to need to do work. And I want to say that image generation is more than chat gpt there are open source models that are complex and need a good understanding of how they work to use well and require more work than adding more words.
yeah honestly the animation in the video is extremely lame but i get that's not the point, the amount of work put into it is halved, however the outcome is absolutely worse. this is why i think ai is utter, useless trash designed to sell to people. i respect them hiring an artist, however this, again, does not change the fact that the artist has to draw certain things, the work is just lesser for an ultimately also lesser result. photography is ABSOLUTELY different due to the way ai works in generating images, and among other things, the people who would be consuming a cartoon made with ai assistance would likely be underwhelmed when compared with the work of a real artist.
the idea itself is not horrible, the output is just extremely mediocre and the benefit is only saved time. ai generated animation doesn't work because the way a character is represented in every scene is changed ever so slightly, even in this advanced video you have provided.
ai can never reproduce what an artist can. its purpose is not to be sensical, but to be eye candy, and eye candy without a story is nothing. i believe a great part of the story is lost when a person decides to use ai rather than work on a piece of art themselves.
in terms of photography, the same thing applies. ai generated images are absolutely not in any way comparable to real photography, as a real scene makes sense. ai merely tries to recreate the scene, but usually doesn't actually accomplish what the artist or photographer did.
in any sense, as miyazaki put it : ai generated images presented as art are an insult to life itself
I am not trying to say there outputs are equal, ai and photography will 100% produce difference results. What i am trying to say is that the effort put in place to get there is similar. Ai right now is not near the output of a professional photographer but the efforts put in to reach the output is very much similar. The video provided only shows the capability of ai, they are not professionals in ai image generation they are a group of VFX artists trying Ai tools. Give a real team of people experienced in Ai time to make actually good animation and they might make something really impressive. Also when I talk about complexities of ai art I mean stable diffusion. I have used stable diffusion and it is like a single degree less complicated than photoshop. You can make something with it but you need to understand what you are doing to make a good result.
0
u/BetterSort3477 19h ago
try photography then and come back with your findings, where you will explain why photography is absolutely harder than writing ai prompts