Now that it is published and the AI makers don’t give a fuck about copyright laws, it will be used by AIs and those ideas won’t be „creative“ in that sense any more.
Btw. AI is a blatant misnomer, those are self learning programs based on pattern recognition either simulated neural networks. There is no intelligence involved.
I fell down a YouTube hole yesterday. Hit some music videos of Eminem singing sone old hits in a 50s style. I was amazed. It was just perfect. Then I saw the "made with AI" at the end of the title.
Like… it’s possible to get these effects with an analogue setup, it’s just real finicky. But they almost certainly used a digital camera and editing software which are all code
Not really, they definitely used the erasure tool. In the first photo: the stick disappears from behind his back, there's no light bleeding through the top of the umbrella, the bottom of the lights sticking below the umbrella lip disappear
Im a photographer and other photographers always argue over what kind of editing i do. I dont. I take the picture the way i want it to look. No post production. It is funny tho. That you can take a not so good picture and make it look amazing with computers.
I wouldn't call myself a photographer but I try to keep it as "raw" as possible. The only editing I've done is what the camera itself does and adjusting iso, aperature, shutter speed and that's only cause that all I know so far but I want my photo to be what I see and can capture like you. If I ever post a sunset, it's the sunset I saw.
I got you yo. I used to do that for work. You just photograph it with a black and white swatch in the corner and make a quick photoshop script that auto levels your black and white to that. You can get really fancy and do it with a whole color calibration sheet. Then you can just take the picture and hit a button in PS that you made and you've got color correction built in. I used to digitize to make coffee table books
I've been entertaining the thought of getting the full xrite color thing. White balancing alone absolutely does not cut it. Also some very specific shades of teal are straight up out of gamut even on Adobe 1998 so that's fun.
I'm in the anime space and I hate how AI images of art have taken over some image boards. I like technology and the art can be amazing, as technology. But I don't want to look at it interspaced with stuff from artists I follow.
I hate that GenAI has me questioning some of the art from people I haven't been following since before it existed. Even here on Imgur, the furry art dumps have so many pics that set off all sorts of AI alarm bells in my head and it's maddening.
But I hate even more that I see some people calling art "AI" from artists that have had that style for 15 years.
Hell, my daughter knits and crochets and people have called pics of her work AI because her lines are so straight.
General AI is someone telling a computer program to make a picture based on an idea. A photographer has to set up a location, direct the lighting, direct a person, take the shot using the right settings, make sure the framing is right, edit the picture using individual tools like light and color adjustment in which they set the values to make things just right.
Think of it this way. Your boss tells you to do a task. Should they get credit just because they "prompted" you?
People dont. This is like the "i like practical fx over digial fx" group. They assume they can always tell the difference. But move the goal post when shown wrong
Heavy? Maybe a couple filters. Camera basics (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) and lighting.. well and a nice selection of lenses (like the tilt shift lense) will get you pretty damn close to these results.
You're getting downvoted, but you're not wrong. They're getting most of it nailed in camera, and doing little more than a bit of cropping, some colour grading, and about of healing/cloning to hide a few crimes.
The techniques used here aren't any more advanced than what people have been doing with film for centuries - it's just easier & faster to do. We used to call it Trick Photography, and the Victorians loved it.
Exactly. My first "real" camera was a no-name 35mm SLR 40-something years ago and I still have my Photoshop 4.0 disc (7.0 remains my favorite). Software like Lightroom might make this kind of editing take seconds these days (and was integrated on the Samsung S23), but as you said, the basics of the techniques are quite old.
Things that I used to have to do ny hand "paint" in 4.0 are now automated tools in the CS series.
These have the saturation turned up to 11 and most likely the HDR setting turned on in camera. There's no way you're getting that sort of contrast between the shadows and the highlights without some heavy post processing
If you know what you're doing, your post is pretty minimal. The most I ever did was a couple notches of contrast and brightness adjustment, and got pretty close to this. No HDR back then on the Nikon D200. I'll see if I saved any decent photos from before I gave it up, and add a comment below this one if I find one or two.
/a/UnFvLDw -- Don't know why but I was always best working with yellows. I don't think the monopoly one had any post whatsoever. The rest were all pretty slight tweaks. Someone better than me might've been able to do these without post at all. But I tried to be somewhat purist about it, all manual on the focus, fstop, etc.
Dracology
aw shit turns out Toy Story isn't art because its all code.
egoAristippos
Now that it is published and the AI makers don’t give a fuck about copyright laws, it will be used by AIs and those ideas won’t be „creative“ in that sense any more.
Btw. AI is a blatant misnomer, those are self learning programs based on pattern recognition either simulated neural networks. There is no intelligence involved.
thegraphiteknight
I love practical effects in both photography and movies. It's really fulfilling to capture something cool using ingenuity.
galapas
Very creative indeed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bossvoss
You: who doesn’t take things ridiculously literally for no reason https://i.imgur.com/g67epxZ
SewerRanger
The photographer is Jordi Koalitic and you can but preset digital filters from his website to mimic his style if you want.
wadatahmydamie
God. That tracks for sure
RaZorHamZteR
I fell down a YouTube hole yesterday. Hit some music videos of Eminem singing sone old hits in a 50s style. I was amazed. It was just perfect. Then I saw the "made with AI" at the end of the title.
What can I say... Good is good. AI or not.
WeHaventMet
Are the people in the comments complaining about post-processing stupid? or do they just like missing the point for kicks?
SocoFox
Feels a lot like of missing the point to be pedantic and getting dangerously close to defending GenAI.
MyBackupPhone
Oh, so photography is art? The thing where you just push a button and the digital box makes a picture for you?
SocoFox
Psssh, your film emulsion only takes 25 minutes instead of the four hours on mine? -some dude in the 1800s.
ongabonga
I wonder what's doing the post processing of his art.
TheN8
Nothing here couldn't be achieved with film.
deidyomega
Yeah, those RAW images didn't process themselves lol
ForTheBestReally
Like… it’s possible to get these effects with an analogue setup, it’s just real finicky. But they almost certainly used a digital camera and editing software which are all code
SewerRanger
Not really, they definitely used the erasure tool. In the first photo: the stick disappears from behind his back, there's no light bleeding through the top of the umbrella, the bottom of the lights sticking below the umbrella lip disappear
Second: the torch on the snow disappears
Third: the string pulling the paper boat is gone
TheN8
All of which can be done with film...
spict
The dog and the road don't align the same way, seems to me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
pareidoliaperson
Cliche monotonous art made for social media clicks.
somethingstupidandclever
Im a photographer and other photographers always argue over what kind of editing i do. I dont. I take the picture the way i want it to look. No post production. It is funny tho. That you can take a not so good picture and make it look amazing with computers.
Ryebread91
I wouldn't call myself a photographer but I try to keep it as "raw" as possible. The only editing I've done is what the camera itself does and adjusting iso, aperature, shutter speed and that's only cause that all I know so far but I want my photo to be what I see and can capture like you. If I ever post a sunset, it's the sunset I saw.
Deshalope
As an artist who needs to digitize paintings - *angry, overly picky rant about color accuracy of photos*
somethingstupidandclever
I got you yo. I used to do that for work. You just photograph it with a black and white swatch in the corner and make a quick photoshop script that auto levels your black and white to that. You can get really fancy and do it with a whole color calibration sheet. Then you can just take the picture and hit a button in PS that you made and you've got color correction built in. I used to digitize to make coffee table books
Deshalope
I've been entertaining the thought of getting the full xrite color thing. White balancing alone absolutely does not cut it. Also some very specific shades of teal are straight up out of gamut even on Adobe 1998 so that's fun.
rdewalt
Taken with a digital camera that autofocused and more...
As long as the photographer didn't say "hey chat, make my images awesome" and used tools themselves? That's fine.
AI "art" sucks. Fuck that.
jlist
I'm in the anime space and I hate how AI images of art have taken over some image boards. I like technology and the art can be amazing, as technology. But I don't want to look at it interspaced with stuff from artists I follow.
SocoFox
I hate that GenAI has me questioning some of the art from people I haven't been following since before it existed. Even here on Imgur, the furry art dumps have so many pics that set off all sorts of AI alarm bells in my head and it's maddening.
But I hate even more that I see some people calling art "AI" from artists that have had that style for 15 years.
Hell, my daughter knits and crochets and people have called pics of her work AI because her lines are so straight.
Waidonut
I don't quite understand the issue here. digital editing takes skill and time too
SocoFox
And digital editing is just the same basics as doing it the old fashioned way, just automated.
Still not GenAI.
AllTheKitties
I'm not sure I understand the difference. Can you explain it to me?
skysailor93
General AI is someone telling a computer program to make a picture based on an idea. A photographer has to set up a location, direct the lighting, direct a person, take the shot using the right settings, make sure the framing is right, edit the picture using individual tools like light and color adjustment in which they set the values to make things just right.
Think of it this way. Your boss tells you to do a task. Should they get credit just because they "prompted" you?
AllMaktAtTengilVarBefriare
Video say "not with code", digital editing is code.
SocoFox
Isn't that being a little too pedantic? The point is that it's not GenAI.
AllMaktAtTengilVarBefriare
Then why not say AI instead of code? Sounds more like people just don't know the difference.
SocoFox
Personally, I would have used alliteration (like 'built not bought') and said something like "Soul not Stolen".
Misteree8
People dont. This is like the "i like practical fx over digial fx" group. They assume they can always tell the difference. But move the goal post when shown wrong
SocoFox
Heavy? Maybe a couple filters. Camera basics (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) and lighting.. well and a nice selection of lenses (like the tilt shift lense) will get you pretty damn close to these results.
ExistentialDreadlocks
Also: removing the light shining through the umbrella, the fire on the ground etc
TheN8
You're getting downvoted, but you're not wrong. They're getting most of it nailed in camera, and doing little more than a bit of cropping, some colour grading, and about of healing/cloning to hide a few crimes.
The techniques used here aren't any more advanced than what people have been doing with film for centuries - it's just easier & faster to do. We used to call it Trick Photography, and the Victorians loved it.
SocoFox
Exactly. My first "real" camera was a no-name 35mm SLR 40-something years ago and I still have my Photoshop 4.0 disc (7.0 remains my favorite). Software like Lightroom might make this kind of editing take seconds these days (and was integrated on the Samsung S23), but as you said, the basics of the techniques are quite old.
Things that I used to have to do ny hand "paint" in 4.0 are now automated tools in the CS series.
SocoFox
Some people have never taken a photo using a candle and ISO 1000 film and it shows.
SewerRanger
These have the saturation turned up to 11 and most likely the HDR setting turned on in camera. There's no way you're getting that sort of contrast between the shadows and the highlights without some heavy post processing
SocoFox
And yet, still not AI.
SocoFox
Again, heavy? Not really.
serleth
If you know what you're doing, your post is pretty minimal. The most I ever did was a couple notches of contrast and brightness adjustment, and got pretty close to this. No HDR back then on the Nikon D200. I'll see if I saved any decent photos from before I gave it up, and add a comment below this one if I find one or two.
serleth
/a/UnFvLDw -- Don't know why but I was always best working with yellows. I don't think the monopoly one had any post whatsoever. The rest were all pretty slight tweaks. Someone better than me might've been able to do these without post at all. But I tried to be somewhat purist about it, all manual on the focus, fstop, etc.
SocoFox
I'm glad to see that some get where I'm coming from. Cool photos!