teresayvonne
The Crossing
My nephew is a painter, a mural artist primarily and has been telling me about the exceptional pieces he has been generating using AI. So I stuck a tiny toe into the water without much success.
Yes, I have a subscription to MidJourney but am not proficient enough to produce anything yet.
After seeing what is happening on flickr, I am both interested and terrified and wondering what the future holds for photography, especially as it applies to art.
I decided to follow the photostream of a photographer here who has made the leap from 100% photography to 100% AI over about 10 months. The images he produces are creatively and technically jaw-dropping. Ditto for another photographer I follow who appears to have made the transition as well.
My photography would never stand up against these images as wall art. Would anyone's?
Of course it immediately brings up the issue of disclosure. For one of these photographers, it is 100% disclosed as AI. The other does not disclose and simply calls it "art". So, are there elements that are real with his photographs with the rest being partially enhanced by AI? Only the photographer knows.
I am returning to flickr after a hiatus and there are many changes. Is the responsibility of the photographer to disclose AI images outlined somewhere.. or are there no standards?
For the record (and my own personal disclosure standards) this image is partially AI. I took the photo of the red columbine at a local lake. The bee was added by using generative fill in Photoshop.
The implications are staggering and way beyond a flickr post, but the camera companies have to be reeling. Will photography only be used for journalism in the future.. if even that?
What is your take on this whole new realm?
The Crossing
My nephew is a painter, a mural artist primarily and has been telling me about the exceptional pieces he has been generating using AI. So I stuck a tiny toe into the water without much success.
Yes, I have a subscription to MidJourney but am not proficient enough to produce anything yet.
After seeing what is happening on flickr, I am both interested and terrified and wondering what the future holds for photography, especially as it applies to art.
I decided to follow the photostream of a photographer here who has made the leap from 100% photography to 100% AI over about 10 months. The images he produces are creatively and technically jaw-dropping. Ditto for another photographer I follow who appears to have made the transition as well.
My photography would never stand up against these images as wall art. Would anyone's?
Of course it immediately brings up the issue of disclosure. For one of these photographers, it is 100% disclosed as AI. The other does not disclose and simply calls it "art". So, are there elements that are real with his photographs with the rest being partially enhanced by AI? Only the photographer knows.
I am returning to flickr after a hiatus and there are many changes. Is the responsibility of the photographer to disclose AI images outlined somewhere.. or are there no standards?
For the record (and my own personal disclosure standards) this image is partially AI. I took the photo of the red columbine at a local lake. The bee was added by using generative fill in Photoshop.
The implications are staggering and way beyond a flickr post, but the camera companies have to be reeling. Will photography only be used for journalism in the future.. if even that?
What is your take on this whole new realm?