Like painters who were phased out by the invention of the photography, now niche. DSLRs were phased out, now niche. It’s an evolution. Just how much of the physically perceived reality you want to see in what you’re looking at.
AI photographer packages will replace IRL photoshoots.
AI models are getting so good at creating realistic photographs with just some selfies. So why do we need human photgraphers? iPhone photos + AI seems to do the trick for most.
Thhink professional headshots, graduation photos, weddings, family portraits...
My fear is that will result in real photos/books/code being only available to the wealthy. Sort of like how only the wealthy can afford decently made clothing & other products; everyone else gets mass manufactured crap.
yes, but the thing that moves the world is the percentage.
if lets say before it was 100% done by human.
now it's just 20%.
that will drastically impact everyone's decision making.
if you were learning photography. would you still?
if you / your kid's in college trying to pick a career. what would you choose?
the information available, which includes how *most* of the world choose to get their photos / software / books made, will have a big impact on our decisions.
> if you were learning photography. would you still?
First of all, photography was never a profession I would have recommended a kid get in to lol.
I think it's likely we'll see fewer photography jobs, but the jobs that do exist will require more networking, higher skill, and come with better pay.
For example, in my area there's a surge of demand for weddings shot on film - durable physical memories of reality. Some folks even do daguerreotypes. Or in the other direction, we see "cinematic" weddings with video production teams.
Oh cinematic weddings would be so cool! My friends' wedding in NJ had drone shots and that was a great idea. Although I suspect it wouldn't be hard for Sora 2 / Veo 3 of the world to make.
That said, photography will probably remain a hobby for many. And people at the highest skill level will still be fine.
We need more authentic stuff hand-crafted to perfection.
AI can enhance the photo quality of your existing photos, not just make stuff up.
If you had imperfect makeup/weather/pose/background/lighting or were using a cheap camera with incorrect focal setup. All of that can be turned into 10/10 photos with AI.
Why would people want AI pictures of their wedding? What's the point of "perfect" if it's not real? Oh, I got it, you are the creator of the linked platform. That explains your comments
I mean, career photography is itself just an automation of a manual creative task, that of portraiture painting. A thing that replaced the careers of a large number of professional artists with faster, more efficient, machines; and a smaller number of professionals operating those machines.
Yes and no. For portraiture, sure. But photography also made it possible to capture images that would be totally impractical to do with painting or drawing. Sports action, as one example. Photojournalism in general, though in certain niches drawing/painting is still done (e.g. in some courtrooms).
And there was still a lot of human skill involved in film photography: timing the shot, framing the shot, selecting the proper lens, exposure time, focus, depth of field, film speed. And then processing the film, and making the prints.
Current photography has removed almost all skill requirements. AI can remove distracting background elements, crop, enhance, blur, whatever you want. Therefore as art, it's not very interesting.
That's a good historical perspective. What's different though is the profession is replaced by ONLY machines, no humans.
Even vibe coding requires human engineers to oversee otherwise there is no point. But photography is different, since the customer can bypass the producer and get the final output directly.
This is astro turfing, OP owns the website.
Like painters who were phased out by the invention of the photography, now niche. DSLRs were phased out, now niche. It’s an evolution. Just how much of the physically perceived reality you want to see in what you’re looking at.
AI photographer packages will replace IRL photoshoots.
AI models are getting so good at creating realistic photographs with just some selfies. So why do we need human photgraphers? iPhone photos + AI seems to do the trick for most.
Thhink professional headshots, graduation photos, weddings, family portraits...
The entire photography profession is disrupted.
The irony of calling selfies not realistic photographs until processed by AI
Pieter Levels has already done this and it's scary!
See this link https://photoai.com/ and this link https://interiorai.com/
Yeah man, i saw that too. It's crazy how we used to hire professional photographers for full day events. Throwback to my college graduation shots.
Now it's just selfies and AI.
my guess it will always be "some"
some photos made by AI
some books written by AI
some code written by AI
not all
My fear is that will result in real photos/books/code being only available to the wealthy. Sort of like how only the wealthy can afford decently made clothing & other products; everyone else gets mass manufactured crap.
yes, but the thing that moves the world is the percentage.
if lets say before it was 100% done by human.
now it's just 20%.
that will drastically impact everyone's decision making.
if you were learning photography. would you still?
if you / your kid's in college trying to pick a career. what would you choose?
the information available, which includes how *most* of the world choose to get their photos / software / books made, will have a big impact on our decisions.
> if you were learning photography. would you still?
First of all, photography was never a profession I would have recommended a kid get in to lol.
I think it's likely we'll see fewer photography jobs, but the jobs that do exist will require more networking, higher skill, and come with better pay.
For example, in my area there's a surge of demand for weddings shot on film - durable physical memories of reality. Some folks even do daguerreotypes. Or in the other direction, we see "cinematic" weddings with video production teams.
Oh cinematic weddings would be so cool! My friends' wedding in NJ had drone shots and that was a great idea. Although I suspect it wouldn't be hard for Sora 2 / Veo 3 of the world to make.
That said, photography will probably remain a hobby for many. And people at the highest skill level will still be fine.
We need more authentic stuff hand-crafted to perfection.
IPhone photos were definitely not as good as the pro photographer we hired for our wedding.
Why would I want an Ai photo of my wedding anyway?
You can have a wedding without having a wedding! No need to waste brain capacity on pesky memories and it's healthy for your wallet!
AI can enhance the photo quality of your existing photos, not just make stuff up.
If you had imperfect makeup/weather/pose/background/lighting or were using a cheap camera with incorrect focal setup. All of that can be turned into 10/10 photos with AI.
Why would people want AI pictures of their wedding? What's the point of "perfect" if it's not real? Oh, I got it, you are the creator of the linked platform. That explains your comments
I mean, career photography is itself just an automation of a manual creative task, that of portraiture painting. A thing that replaced the careers of a large number of professional artists with faster, more efficient, machines; and a smaller number of professionals operating those machines.
Yes and no. For portraiture, sure. But photography also made it possible to capture images that would be totally impractical to do with painting or drawing. Sports action, as one example. Photojournalism in general, though in certain niches drawing/painting is still done (e.g. in some courtrooms).
And there was still a lot of human skill involved in film photography: timing the shot, framing the shot, selecting the proper lens, exposure time, focus, depth of field, film speed. And then processing the film, and making the prints.
Current photography has removed almost all skill requirements. AI can remove distracting background elements, crop, enhance, blur, whatever you want. Therefore as art, it's not very interesting.
That's a good historical perspective. What's different though is the profession is replaced by ONLY machines, no humans.
Even vibe coding requires human engineers to oversee otherwise there is no point. But photography is different, since the customer can bypass the producer and get the final output directly.