I Asked an A.I. Image Generator to Show me Pipe Smoking...
- Thread starter mikethompson
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Sooooo... no one is going to say anything about his huge ugly scar on his face? Looks like he lost a fight with a bear.
Heh. At first I thought it half of a major handle bar 'stache. Yes, there are many errors in the composting of a few images.
Well, I wrote "compositing", but spil chukker had its own idea.
Well, I wrote "compositing", but spil chukker had its own idea.
Last edited:
I'm confused. Did you ask AI to show a picture of YOU pipe smoking ? or to show you a picture of someone smoking a pipe ? The answer could explain a great deal.
I hope everyone understands, AI didn't really "generate" or actually create any of this image. It steels images from real artists and composes them together. Someone out there had a photo or create an image of a guy sitting in his tux, and then the program just hodge-podged some things together.
Scum bags who consider themselves "AI artists" are merely using this program that steels works from real artists and submits it as original. The tear in the face was just the program making a mistake in fitting the pipe into the face. But really, AI artists are just high tech thieves.
Scum bags who consider themselves "AI artists" are merely using this program that steels works from real artists and submits it as original. The tear in the face was just the program making a mistake in fitting the pipe into the face. But really, AI artists are just high tech thieves.
Did that make him a Pipe Fitter??
Aren't they "borrowing" rather than stealing? Actually, I don't care. Some are thieves, a few are artists.
It would have been easy enough to find an image of folks smoking pipes just with a simple google search.
Aren't they "borrowing" rather than stealing? Actually, I don't care. Some are thieves, a few are artists.
It would have been easy enough to find an image of folks smoking pipes just with a simple google search.
I have mixed feelings about the sea change in photography over the past 25 years or so. On the one hand, I think that it’s phenomenal that people without deep technical abilities can now make good photos, easily. While that has eliminated the entire bottom half of what was my business, it has also shown people the dichotomy of equipment versus content. Craft vs aesthetics. So clients have a much deeper appreciation for what I do in my work. So I now do a lot more work that is more challenging and ultimately much more fulfilling. It’s no different than writing, car repair, orthpedics or plumbing. Anyone can buy the tools, but who wants to let their coworker’s teenage daughter set their leg?
Did that make him a Pipe Fitter??
Aren't they "borrowing" rather than stealing? Actually, I don't care. Some are thieves, a few are artists.
It would have been easy enough to find an image of folks smoking pipes just with a simple google search.
The thieves are the ones who use AI to take creative jobs. No one is making any money just posting things on here.
Yeh, the last 25 years many photo jobs get replaced with a boss telling his secretary to use her phone to go take a picture of... whatever. My issue is going to an art fair or gallery and someone is selling $800-5000 pictures that they snapped and sent off to have giclee prints made for them. They merely snapped a picture, had 200 prints made for $12 a piece and are asking for the same print prices that printmakers are asking.
But, I also have issues with painters who paint one pic, snap a pic and do the same.
As a printmaker, we all spend 90% of our time explaining that what we do is very different from them. In my collective we still have photographers who take pictures and use negatives to make lithography, etchings, or screen prints. So, photography as an art is still alive. For me, it's the use of a computer printer that kills the value. An actual real print pulled from a press is so much more alive and valuable.
T
Of course, that isn’t the attraction for Ai users. The attraction is a free lunch (that artists are paying for).
As for what output media is used, and how many copies are made, I give that a big “Meh”. Almost all of my work never gets printed. It exists only in pixels, viewed hundreds and thousands of times on phones and other screens around the world. Does that diminish it’s value?
The theives are those using copyrighted content to construct new work. I can definitely see an artist inputting a catalog of their work and using AI to create derivatives. Not very creative, but certainly morally acceptable.
Of course, that isn’t the attraction for Ai users. The attraction is a free lunch (that artists are paying for).
As for what output media is used, and how many copies are made, I give that a big “Meh”. Almost all of my work never gets printed. It exists only in pixels, viewed hundreds and thousands of times on phones and other screens around the world. Does that diminish it’s value?
You are a different kind of professional photographer. I am thinking more of the guy who snaps a skyline of a cityscape, or an old barn, and sends it off to be made into giclees, and then sets up a tent next to mine. I know that painters have to eat, so they make these giclees also. But, I wish they would stop numbering them like editions and calling them prints. We all know that once they run out of prints, they can just call and get more made. Whereas in printmaking, we actually cancel the plates.
Do people really make their own pool of work for ai? That just seems silly. Why not just do the editing themselves then?
This part right here. So many extreme metal bands now are making album art with AI. Album art is part of the packaging to attract people to the album as well as part of buying the physical media as opposed to just a digital download. So it does have a direct influence on their profits.
The AI image generators just make amalgamations of other actual artists' works. If you used a song without paying rights to it in order to promote something you're doing for profit, these same artists would take huge issue with that, and using the AI image generation is no different than that, but they apparently see no issue with it.
I have no issue with AI generation for making memes or not using the images for profit. I can't draw imaginatively worth a damn (if I can see something physically with my eye, I can draw it pretty well, but if it's something in my imagination, forget about it). If I were to do anything with AI, it would simply be to generate a model from which I could draw... that or to generate the idea I have as a base model to help illustrate to an artist what it is that I'm thinking of for something (with the understanding of them having some creative freedom and that the AI image is just a reference model and that I'm not looking for an exact re-creation of what the AI spat out).
Yes.
There is an AI program called Aftershoot that ingests a data set of your images, and the accompanying .xmp files. You can then feed it your .raw files, and it does all of the post processing in seconds, based on your post work in the images you fed it. You can reduce the time spent in post by an order of magnitude, like minutes instead of hours. I'm VERY skeptical that it would work for me, but I am going to try it.
As for creating new work from old work, it's pretty much the same thing. Ingest a body of work, let the algorithm digest it, then it spits out similar images.
It's really going to fuck with us, and not in a good way. At all.
I would practice film photography as an art if I had access to a photolab where I could process my own film and make my own prints.
If you get as much enjoyment out of the process as you do from the finished product, then by all means, go with wet. My priority is the end product, and there is simply no way that I could achieve the same level of quality and quantity shooting film as I do with digital. I shot film for decades, really enjoyed printing (my personal work), but having to do darkroom work for clients sucks.
Could you not do so, starting with a hi Rez digital file? Photoshop and Lightroom offer all that a genius with darkroom experience can do. Of course, missing is the wonder of a print in developer, the peace and sanctity of the darkroom....
Both the above apps can go far beyond what a wet process offers, but you can limit yourself to just the basics are if you wish.
And if you get that perfect black and white that needs paper with plenty of silver, I believe there are those who can process that from a file.
