As someone who has always leaned towards documentary photography, I try to reflect reality in the photo. But I’ve come to realize that is just one category of photography and there are thousands of other purposes that photography can serve and doesn’t always have to be real to tell a story
Yep - paint can be utilized to create both photo realistic and impressionistic images. A digital file has the same range of possibilities as every other medium. Just be honest about the process employed.
can't stand people who say they don't want to ''photoshop'' their pictures because they want it to be real, but have no problem moving objects to make them look better on the photo. It's the SAME THING!
Very insightful, Can we mark this as the answer? 🙃 I believe visual communication is essential to any form of art. Its needs to be telling, reflecting or communicating, that were the creativity lies.
yea..... good luck eating your enjoyment for breakfast ow wait.... 0 nutritional value, 0 calories, 0 sustainabillity.... how so? hmmmm, what wisdom am I missing here....?
All I can really say is that after 35 years as a working photographer, I’m really glad I retired during Covid. It’s going to be a rough transition for many who can’t won’t embrace the new norm. I have nothing against the new tech. But it’s not photography. It’s digital art or something else. If you’re not even capturing all the elements in the scene and making a composite then is it really even your work? SO many questions and not a lot of answers yet. We’re going to have to have a way of distinguishing between this new form of creative expression and photography. We’ve already seen examples of real photographs being accused of being AI generated. People are assuming everything might be fake on line and that’s a real shame. There’s some really cool stuff out there that’s absolutely real. IMHO this will be a bigger shift than the transition from film to digital. And that freaked out a bunch of working shooters when I was getting paid for the craft.
i completely agree, i think in recent years its become more digital art than photography, for me photography has always been more "documentary" to capture the moment as it was, seeing a brilliant capture used to make me think of the work that went into it, ie famous shot of kingfisher swooping to catch a fish, now a days I just think all these great shots are all ai and heavy editing, which a large amount are
Perhaps we will see a move back to film, figuratively if not literally, from photorealistic to hyperrealism so to speak. Don't sell humans short, AI has no soul or passion, it can only imitate.
I completely agree. BUT, i want to adress that we are all doing this to create cool images. Is it cheating when i buy a huge Sony just to get more Dynamic Range because i want to pull the levers even more? Is it cheating when i use photoshop for a retouch? I don't think so. But you're right, if you don't adapt in this game these days, you will definetely not stay competitive. Sorry Peter, i had a very good image, but i just saw this video today :(
If photography is a product for you, at the very least that business model is on life support. But photography as an actual experience out in the world...no computer will ever replace that.
In fact, 2 years experience photographer can replace 10 years experience easier. Then this industry will swipe out many real photographers. The capitalist always calm down people that AI won’t replace human because people will create the new jobs but its not true. The machine can’t only cut a tree faster and sharper than human, but now it also think and list out idea faster than human. Who know how AI will take their advance so far in near future?, competitor will be harder.
I think certain photography specialties will die. A lot of marketing photography will go AI in my opinion. But when it comes to photography that captures memories, like weddings, events, journalism, sports, etc, I don't think AI kill those industries.
In the future: AI driven drones attached with various lenses looking for perfect compositions and churning out perfect moments. All trained on some of the best wedding photographers in history. You just sit back and make sure the battery packs are ready. Who the f--- needs creativity.
Photography can be many things but for me, a non photographer, it's always been about capturing a place or moment that I won't ever see or experience. We've reached a time in photography where we can create amazing images that have been modified, added too, with software. However it's got to the point where whenever I see an incredible vista or location I wonder what it's actually like because I know it's probably been modified. This is a sad thing. Photography that's heavyly ''changed'' is closer to art than it is a moment in time.
The new developments create mistrust. People start questioning if what they see is real or not. With the technological development, think about the consequences for let's say News media and propaganda. They can just show us anything, which doesn't exist and make us believe it's reality. I totally hate it. (ok, I didn't believe anything the media says anyway anymore since I read Edward Bernay's "propaganda") I unfollow people who start adding main elements into their photos without mentioning it. Replacing a sky was already a no go for me, if it's not mentioned anywhere. This is like lying to your audience and that's not what I am interested in. I can enjoy AI art which is clearly labelled as such, or digital composings (which are obviously unreal), but if people try to sell a fake for reality, I have little patience with that.
I can say as a darkroom printer, we manipulate our photos all the time. We crop our image, dodge and burn, manipulate contrast, tone the print, etc. Historically, manipulating an image has been a part of the photographic process. I think there is a balance in using these tools to create our vision in a way that feels honest and authentic to us. That balance will be different for every artist. What we need to do most of all is support, encourage, and lift each other up. :-)
Dodging and burning is not even remotely the same thing as a computer constructing an image out of whole cloth. AI image generation is not a “process.” It will lead to manipulation, obfuscation, and theft. AI tools used to improve an actual photograph is not the same thing. These tools can be utilized without lying to the viewer.
this is more editing or manipulating what is already in the photo. while i think that can go too far, i see it as vastly different than adding or removing subject matter in post....
My photography is meant to act as a snapshot of a memory, 'I went here', 'I did this', 'I witnessed this'. The pictures I take are for me first and foremost, so the editing I do is minimal because that's what *I* want. I dehaze, make the colours a bit more vibrant, crop a little and fix any issues. It's minimal, because I want it to be minimal. If I were a professional, I would be producing art for the masses. Something that would have a good chance to sell. I would likely be drawn to using more editing in that case. (I would also probably know more about HOW to edit, but I'm just going to ignore this bit).
That “professional” comment on using more editing is why I think everything is going to shit. Original will always sell. Some people might not see it but a lot of people will and people respect real. Let’s not give up the hope!
I agree. That's why I try to make it as close to reality my eyes see as possible. I avoid editing at all costs. The results are way less appealing for the masses, but just by knowing they are actually real makes me happy.
Photography will always hold its place with capturing the most important thing. Capturing our lives of us, our families, and friends. Even if they just sit on your phone to look at when the time comes.
Last night I went out with my camera, it was Saturday, October 28. People were hanging out drinking with their friends, all in halloween costumes. I had my x100v because i wanted to challange myself in low light instead of bringing my A7s3. I met about 15 people, posed and took pictures of them. Got back home with a story about each picture, you can see real emotio in those pictures. Laughter and fun was the entire atmosphere. My edits were correcting the exposure while remembering the funny stuff and at the same time, a answering DMs from some of them who asked for the pictures. AI will never kill the memories and social interactions you create when you put youself out there and seek to live life. So yeah, AI can be good but it will never generate memories.
7:54 To me, even small changes with things like Generative Fill have a pretty big impact on me considering it photography, and tons of edits/changes (like your example at the beginning of the video) make it feel like it's not even photography. To me, photography is _about_ the composition, time/lighting, location, lens, and basic (like Lightroom) edits, and if your photo has practically nothing of that and is all AI, I wouldn't call you the photorapher.
The windows and creek I felt were added but the other stuff definitely got me. I honestly feel you should be mandated to put a disclaimer that photo has be AI changed. Editing a photo is one thing but fully adding things that aren't there I feel should have to be disclosed. I definitely feel there is a place for all of it but if I was buying a print I feel it should be known that it is "fake".
Yeah, all the hate towards AI comes from the fact that some people out there are deceiving their audience by not mentioning that a main portion of their photo is not real anymore. For me, I drew the line already when people started sky replacements and such things. Even right back then I was not into "looking at the most beautiful sceneries", but into marvelling at the skill and level of creativity of a photographer. Or his patience to get that one perfect shot after months, or even years of patience and work. Same with people who go to the zoo and tag their photo with "wildlife", and then when people write in the comments something like "Wow, so cool you captured this lion from up close" and the other just replies like "thanks a lot", without clarifying that this was shot in a zoo... When I see such people I unfollow them directly. We have enough dishonesty in society already, I don't need to see that in photography.
Well that´s the point of the discussion. Photography is dead in the sense, that it has no value anymore. Soon it will be something easily replaceable by anyone with a smartphone. Just look at what Google is doing with it´s Pixel phones. With that there is no need for photographers anymore. No skill required anymore. And creativity is abundant. It´s not a rare skill.
@@jaymederril1610Um no. A phone camera will never be able to compete with a standalone camera. A stand-alone camera takes better quality photos in every regard, enables zooming in on subjects without loss of quality, and adds more depth.
@@eastonwilliams1722 With AI enhancements you can get even better results than from a standalone camera. And just look at the new Lytia sensors from Sony. They show us that there is still much room for better sensors in smartphones. I don´t understand why some people simply can´t accept the fact that photography as a job skill is dying out...
I’m a graphic designer and use generative fill everyday in my work. It’s been an absolute game changer in allowing me to adjust photos to suit a layout. It is scary how good it is even in beta.
As with every new advancement in photography, this is another tool in the box. People called HDR the death of photography (and it was horribly abused for awhile). People called digital the death of photography. People called cell phones the death of photography. Generative fill isn't really doing anything that photographers haven't been able to do in terms of manipulation, it's just making it much, much easier. For now, what generative fill can't replicate is an artist's eye and sense of composition and balance... and taste.
I feel as though 'the real' just became more valuable. Photography as we once knew it, may have evolved, but no 'generative fill' can recreate your memories... or for that matter, the memories and experiences of others. Enter, the photographer. If you are in the business of 'creating' fantasy, then yes, AI is the most valuable tool in your bag. If you are a photographer, you just got some really powerful editing tools... but KEEPING IT REAL is still at the core of your business. People want virtual 'copies' of the moments in their lives, so they can look back at them 50 years from now; not fantasy art.
So as a beginner, what I am getting is, it’s not about photography! It’s about editing! I don’t think I could sleep at night knowing I lied to anyone about my photos, ( What I actually saw ). Glad you achieved 😅high level status with no actual professionalism. Magic 🎉.
I consider the use of tools like this to be more towards the art side of photography. In fact, don't think of it as photography but more like painting. As long as it's used in the right context I don't have a problem
Yeah, it's not photography any longer. We have to make a clear distinction - just because something LOOKS like a photo, it doesn't mean it's a photo - think about realist painters who can paint so well that people start accusing them of being a fraud and taking photos instead of painting/drawing them. The solution for those artists have always been to post "work in progress" files to their results, or to time-lapse the creation of the artwork. AI which creates IMAGES which look like "photography" are not creating photography. They are merely imitating reality, but midjourney is not capturing physical light, so whatever this programme is creating should not be labelled photography anymore.
Nice backdrop. You should call it Pete's back alley 😂 As for AI in photos I don't mind making the existing image look better even to the point of fixing the sky or removing distractions but once you start adding things that weren't there it starts to feel deceptive. It wouldn't be so bad if there was an AI watermark or a disclosure of some sort but that's not usually the case
Totally agree with that, and: It's also totally disrespectful towards the real photographers who spent so much time and energy to get a great photo. Who would want to play chess or power with someone who is cheating? It's just unfair and dishonest.
I only focus on what I can do in the darkroom, at a basic level when I edit my photos. You are a reason why Photography is dead. Well real photography to me that is. Film forever.
Even worse - it's no longer about your editing skills, either - or even worse: It's no longer about skills anymore. At least people who were doing digital composings "manually" in software needed some skill to do this, and they took pride in their artworks, and people knew how much skill you needed to create these, so people could respect this type of work. Now, I look at stuff on the Internet and think: Yeah, someone is good with midjourney or clicking some buttons, good for them, but I won't like or comment it, because I cannot praise their skills anymore since most of the credit goes to the software/AI anyway. Are we going to comment on AI art like this in the future: "Good job, midjourney! Thanks to your great programmers." Such a comment is nonsensical, since the AI cannot appreciate praise anyway. I don't mean I cannot enjoy the results, but I won't write a comment when I don't know how much of the result is done by the human and how much is done by AI. And in many cases that cannot really be distinguished.
@@diekritischestimme No we aren't. Art has always been evolving and this is just another tool for creation and speeding up process. As for AI art it isn't always just clicking a few buttons some people go above and beyond and fuse their own drawing skills to make something good. As with photography you can do the same because these are all skills. And its not like anything is stopping us from taking photos anyways
I mainly focus on filming and I'm a little nervous and excited for whats coming in this field... i mean we already have the basic cutting on beat/insta360 app like creating films based on templates...but how far can it go? Like Color Grading based on a specific text input or finding the best fitting sound for a specific part in the editing app itself?...
I only spotted 2 of the edits. Ai is honestly terrifying. As a freelance digital artist, I've already lost work to this over the past year. Some people care more about the money saving than the "human touch" in their projects.
I caught about 2/3rds of your edits. The thing that drove most of my findings was the vibrance and sharpness of the hut compared to everything else. Edits usually struggle to be exactly how a lens would capture something. That being said I completely missed the wood planks.
I think a lot of photography niches are going to die with the increasing AI. But, the photography niches that are more more about the interaction than just the images like boudoir will still thrive.
Oh man, Im definitely going to be doing this! Going to an old abandoned mining town this weekend. Sounds like a TON of fun. Thanks for the inspiration!
Depends on your purpose for the picture I guess. Generative fill is a powerful tool and I don't think its full potential has been realized yet. Meet in the middle is probably going to be how things are. I haven't played much with the new toys because I cannot afford them. But I hope someday that I will be able to get in on the fun.
I get all of this. AI has some exciting things specially for some kind of work styles (I hope it helps me reducing my post production workflow soon which I don't heavily overdo) but when talking about the very precise excitement of photography... I am actually going back to my film cameras... and my digital (with a soul) Fuji cameras.
I wouldn’t have thought anything about that photo was off. When you asked me to look for something that was off - I leaned into my gut feeling that the lighting in the windows looked off for me. At first glance - I thought that perhaps light was the focal point, and maybe that’s why I noticed it so much. But it felt like it was potentially artificial.
I used to marvel at beautiful photography and be envious of the photographers skill and management of light, but now I look at a photo and ask if it is real or fake. Is this the real real work of a skilled photographer or is this work of a master manipulator? Bums me out that I need to ask that question.
Jai shree ram 🚩🚩 Hey Peter I just finished watching your latest video on film making and cinematography, and I must say, I'm thoroughly impressed! Your skills behind the camera and your ability to craft visually stunning shots really shine through in your work. The attention to detail and composition in your shots is remarkable. It's also great to hear about your background in creativity. It's evident that you have a natural talent for bringing ideas to life and capturing the essence of a story. Your creative vision truly sets you apart, and it's inspiring to see how you incorporate unique elements into your videos. As someone from India, I want to express how much I appreciate your channel. Despite the distance, your content has connected with me on a personal level. It's amazing how your work resonates with people from different parts of the world. Your ability to transcend borders and make an impact is truly commendable. Thank you for consistently providing such high-quality content. I'm eagerly looking forward to your future videos and witnessing your continued growth as a filmmaker and creative mind. Keep up the fantastic work!
I have been following your channel for years now, for your studio at home, to your office, to your second office to this new office, its been fun watching your videos, i started photography because of u, i wish i could forget all and start watching all over again 😅, those were good times
It's kind of funny if you think about it: remixing words has always been accepteable (thinking of Bowie cutting up sentences and newspaper-articles to generate new ideas and lyrics), and during the past 50 years we have also become very adept at repurposing and adjusting all the sounds we hear to a point where it is - if we want it to - impossible to distinguish. Yet when we now think our visual medium is about to get influenced in the same way, there's again the same hesitance and protest. As a painter, I work a lot with repurposing existing material or my own photography and imagination to create the image that is either in my head, or comes to life on the page. Reality is: it's never a direct translation and accidents happen. Some very well known photographers like Gregory Crewdson or Erwin Olaf have been manipulating the visual for years, but in ways that actually makes it seem more authentic then reality ever was. A hundred years ago this would have been Normal Rockwell: staging and painting the ultimate dream of rural, cosy America. Should we be sceptical: yes, absolutely, for that also makes us aware this is going on. But is it the end of photopgrahy - or heck: the 'end of art'? No, it's a tool, and creating proper, good work takes time, effort, thinking, judging, imagining, editing and ultimately: deciding what works and what doesn't.
What Mr. McKinnon did in the video to the photo was artography, no photography. It went way beyond normal photo manipulation to clean up a photo which has been done for many, many years. It instead became a creation which really didn't exist before. It deserves a name which has already been coined, artography.
If someone uses generative fill, I dont think it should be a question of whether the cat is out of the bag, it should be explicit and honest. I think it cheapens the art, and a photographer's own integrity to pretend they shot something they didn't.
Drive by photography is my jam. Thousands of crappy photos to show for it. :) I'm inspired, as usual. Thanks Peter. Who know how long I'm gonna be saying generative Toronto.
No, not dead for me.....I shot an artist today in front of her work...I got home, downloaded the images and saw some things I loved. I'm not removing the telephone pole or the weeds growing out of the sidewalk-the impact of a good capture will not be hurt by such things. I don't live in a sterile manicured world, so why try and create one? Imperfection gives life to an image, and I will keep searching for that life as a photographer, and not give a rat's ass to this idea that photography is dead. Maybe for others, but not for me. Really love Vero!
I feel like it'll be a double-edged sword. Clearly it's a big creative tool. A way to get the exact shot you want even if the shot itself isn't the exact way you want it. At the same time, it'll be a shortcut for many businesses and corporations who want to cheap out on things like brand photography or so. Does that mean at least partially paid gigs for photography (or any creative skill for that matter) will disappear? yes. However what I've found online is that there's still MANY people who would want to pay more money if that means they know they kept an artist in-business or that it was "actually made by someone". In a way, AI shows us who would, and who wouldn't be a client if it wasn't effectively forced upon them
I think the photography and videography are splitting roads of the real from the virtual or a.i. at the moment. It’s not a bad thing. Opens new doors and possibilities. there are many photographers who go back to analog for capturing the reality or that decisive moment. For the feel. Also cinematography is taking another huge turn (Oppenheimer). New tools, software, ai, will create new opportunities however you can almost always tell it’s added or perfected. Time will tell. Photography is more alive than ever. Great points Peter.
I tend to make a distinction between photographers and visual artists. I come from a photojournalist background and I truly appreciate the "real". The skill to sharing the "real" is something that has been lost on many photographers. I've seen a whole generation who is not used to seeing non-edited photos.. With that being said, I can appreciate the visual artistry to creating an amazing image with all the technology, but I hesitate to call it a photograph but instead visual art.
What’s interesting about what photography and film have become is they are not really anywhere near reality anymore. What inevitably happens is then people see these images created and think their mundane world offers nothing by comparison when the images they are looking at do not even exist. It’s all similar to photoshopping a group of models and creating the idea that the models look a certain way that they do not in real life, only to have a group of teenage girls who feel like crap about their own bodies and a bunch of guys who think every girls body needs to be perfect or they will not be happy. It all comes down to this mirage we are being sold and how it actually affects the psyche of people. It may seem like a stretch to some, but looking around at these perfect realities that do not exist anywhere in reality but portraying it as reality does create and have behavioral side effects. This will only lead to more disconnect from reality. I’d rather see the shittier real photo and hear the story that comes with why the door frame is in the shot vs a place that is kind of real and polished.
Great editing job Peter. That was fun. Regardless of what our individual process is, in the end I agree with what Ansel Adams said about the process, "You don't take a photograph, you make a photograph". He did it with mathematical equations and darkroom chemicals. You did it with object arrangement and digitisation. Same result. In the end there are many types of image making and many types of photography within. Ps: Enjoying your channel bud.
In my mind, we are dealing with two distinct techniques here. The first (the actual photo) is indeed photography. The second (the edited image) is digital art or digital collage.
I'm blown away. It's not for me to spend hours editing, and resent that it's sort of expected for ones photo's to be Liked in the more discerning social media sites. It's good in another way, that those with PC skills can create on an equal footing. I am impressed.
Without being told ahead of time or knowing there was something going on there would have been no reason to think any of that image was fake LOL. Nice job!
@@josefd1997I didn't look super closely at the lights and I'm using my phone but that could have been brightened with editing and not necessarily completely fake.
I feel more and more obligated to identify my Ai augmented images, or something that is superimposed, or a composite. Not because they aren't art, art is subjective, and art is what pleases the eye, however authenticity or real is important in my book of value, and my "ego." To me, and notice I am speaking for myself, there is more value to me if the image is real, if this place and setting existed in a moment in time. I am not talking about touch-ups or lighting tweaks, but full-on "generative" additions to a photo. To me, a photo is more valuable if a person hiked 10 miles into the tundra at 4 a.m. to shoot the sun coming up over a bear and it's cub, say than a guy who typed the descriptors into a Ai engine and got a great image setting in his living room sipping a latte. ...love your work and your conversations, keep creating.
I’m a simple man. I see Pete post a video I click like. Loved the video and I think it starts some really interesting conversations. We will see where it goes from here!
Don’t know about this. So we just point our camera at anything and just go home and then create a fake image. Now understand how film photographers were forced into digital 😢
I guess this falls between intent and purpose. One of the key factors in distinguishing between photography and manipulated images is the intent behind creating the image. Photography typically aims to capture a moment or scene as it exists in the real world, while manipulated images are intentionally altered to convey a different message, artistic vision, or to deceive viewers. If the primary purpose is to deceive or significantly alter reality, it's more likely a manipulated image.
I've been an avid amateur photographer for years. During Covid I had to stop for a couple of years, and later I seriously struggled to come back to photography (no more will, no more passion..). At the beginning I thought it was due to laziness developed during Covid, but later I realized that in the mean time I had subconsciously reasoned on what is really photography now, where is the limit between photography and postprocessing, what currently makes a good photographer, if it has a sense to spend 10% of your free time with your camera and the remaining 90% in front of a monitor playing with Masks, Curves and Layers..a lot of doubts in my mind. At this point I understand much better (before I found them a bit 'eccentric') the folks that go out only with an analog camera and their imagination, even if they know that in most of the cases their results will be disappointing respect to their 'digital' colleagues. So your video is spot on. Thanks for having posted it.
I spotted the lights in the windows, and the boards near the hut - primarily because the light wasn't adjusted. Edit a little more, and I wouldn't nave noticed.
I feel like sooner or later. Raw files will have this permanent signature in it in which there is a thumbnail of it's original raw state and meta data that can't be deleted what so ever. and most artist will now record themselves doing an actual work. buying a painting will soon be required a video footage of an artist painting live.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who has always leaned towards documentary photography, I try to reflect reality in the photo. But I’ve come to realize that is just one category of photography and there are thousands of other purposes that photography can serve and doesn’t always have to be real to tell a story
Yep - paint can be utilized to create both photo realistic and impressionistic images. A digital file has the same range of possibilities as every other medium. Just be honest about the process employed.
smart attitude!
can't stand people who say they don't want to ''photoshop'' their pictures because they want it to be real, but have no problem moving objects to make them look better on the photo. It's the SAME THING!
I absolutely love your point of view
Very insightful, Can we mark this as the answer? 🙃
I believe visual communication is essential to any form of art. Its needs to be telling, reflecting or communicating, that were the creativity lies.
So long as photography is about getting out there for that shot, and enjoying it - It will never be dead and can't be replaced.
Google "Midjourney".Good luck.
You are in dreams come to reality 😂
yea..... good luck eating your enjoyment for breakfast
ow wait.... 0 nutritional value, 0 calories, 0 sustainabillity.... how so?
hmmmm, what wisdom am I missing here....?
@@user-vk8xm4vv1v lol...since when does one need nutrition from enjoying a hobby?
It can be easily replaced. We are already there in parts
All I can really say is that after 35 years as a working photographer, I’m really glad I retired during Covid. It’s going to be a rough transition for many who can’t won’t embrace the new norm. I have nothing against the new tech. But it’s not photography. It’s digital art or something else. If you’re not even capturing all the elements in the scene and making a composite then is it really even your work? SO many questions and not a lot of answers yet.
We’re going to have to have a way of distinguishing between this new form of creative expression and photography. We’ve already seen examples of real photographs being accused of being AI generated. People are assuming everything might be fake on line and that’s a real shame. There’s some really cool stuff out there that’s absolutely real.
IMHO this will be a bigger shift than the transition from film to digital. And that freaked out a bunch of working shooters when I was getting paid for the craft.
i completely agree, i think in recent years its become more digital art than photography, for me photography has always been more "documentary" to capture the moment as it was, seeing a brilliant capture used to make me think of the work that went into it, ie famous shot of kingfisher swooping to catch a fish, now a days I just think all these great shots are all ai and heavy editing, which a large amount are
Think about Wikipedia and what can done to history with this. Compare wiki pages from 10 years ago and today. The agenda is obvious.
Perhaps we will see a move back to film, figuratively if not literally, from photorealistic to hyperrealism so to speak. Don't sell humans short, AI has no soul or passion, it can only imitate.
I completely agree. BUT, i want to adress that we are all doing this to create cool images. Is it cheating when i buy a huge Sony just to get more Dynamic Range because i want to pull the levers even more? Is it cheating when i use photoshop for a retouch? I don't think so. But you're right, if you don't adapt in this game these days, you will definetely not stay competitive. Sorry Peter, i had a very good image, but i just saw this video today :(
yes
If photography is a product for you, at the very least that business model is on life support. But photography as an actual experience out in the world...no computer will ever replace that.
agree! it's something that we experience and wanted to save a moment about it
Exactly!!! My clients book me for my experience, the art they receive, how they are treated during the process, etc! Nothing is going to replace that
AND the pro photographers who have such a great experience are going to use AI to take their own work to the next level.
In fact, 2 years experience photographer can replace 10 years experience easier. Then this industry will swipe out many real photographers. The capitalist always calm down people that AI won’t replace human because people will create the new jobs but its not true. The machine can’t only cut a tree faster and sharper than human, but now it also think and list out idea faster than human. Who know how AI will take their advance so far in near future?, competitor will be harder.
@@alexsawyer2060 in Disneyland maybe, in the real world doesnt work like that
I think certain photography specialties will die. A lot of marketing photography will go AI in my opinion. But when it comes to photography that captures memories, like weddings, events, journalism, sports, etc, I don't think AI kill those industries.
yeap, still.. it's about the stories and memories, not just the final product
@@MeidyantiNurul for you not clients
when we mention photography i think they mean as a job
I wish you hadn't mentioned weddings. A bride today wanting 'amazing' pictures of herself at her 'amazing wedding generated by AI? Absolutely...
In the future: AI driven drones attached with various lenses looking for perfect compositions and churning out perfect moments. All trained on some of the best wedding photographers in history. You just sit back and make sure the battery packs are ready.
Who the f--- needs creativity.
Photography can be many things but for me, a non photographer, it's always been about capturing a place or moment that I won't ever see or experience. We've reached a time in photography where we can create amazing images that have been modified, added too, with software. However it's got to the point where whenever I see an incredible vista or location I wonder what it's actually like because I know it's probably been modified. This is a sad thing. Photography that's heavyly ''changed'' is closer to art than it is a moment in time.
The new developments create mistrust. People start questioning if what they see is real or not. With the technological development, think about the consequences for let's say News media and propaganda. They can just show us anything, which doesn't exist and make us believe it's reality. I totally hate it. (ok, I didn't believe anything the media says anyway anymore since I read Edward Bernay's "propaganda")
I unfollow people who start adding main elements into their photos without mentioning it. Replacing a sky was already a no go for me, if it's not mentioned anywhere. This is like lying to your audience and that's not what I am interested in. I can enjoy AI art which is clearly labelled as such, or digital composings (which are obviously unreal), but if people try to sell a fake for reality, I have little patience with that.
I can say as a darkroom printer, we manipulate our photos all the time. We crop our image, dodge and burn, manipulate contrast, tone the print, etc.
Historically, manipulating an image has been a part of the photographic process.
I think there is a balance in using these tools to create our vision in a way that feels honest and authentic to us. That balance will be different for every artist. What we need to do most of all is support, encourage, and lift each other up. :-)
Dodging and burning is not even remotely the same thing as a computer constructing an image out of whole cloth.
AI image generation is not a “process.” It will lead to manipulation, obfuscation, and theft.
AI tools used to improve an actual photograph is not the same thing. These tools can be utilized without lying to the viewer.
These are not the same thing and a master darkroom printer would never say what you just said
@@NotAnotherChannel_Channel Joseph Stalin's Darkroom Printer would say otherwise.
this is more editing or manipulating what is already in the photo. while i think that can go too far, i see it as vastly different than adding or removing subject matter in post....
Yes we are manipulating the pictures since begining BUT manipulation going more and more as tech is going forward...
My photography is meant to act as a snapshot of a memory, 'I went here', 'I did this', 'I witnessed this'. The pictures I take are for me first and foremost, so the editing I do is minimal because that's what *I* want. I dehaze, make the colours a bit more vibrant, crop a little and fix any issues. It's minimal, because I want it to be minimal.
If I were a professional, I would be producing art for the masses. Something that would have a good chance to sell. I would likely be drawn to using more editing in that case. (I would also probably know more about HOW to edit, but I'm just going to ignore this bit).
This is how I view photography too. I am not editing it or filtering it in any way as it's a snapshot of a memory like you said. 🙌
That “professional” comment on using more editing is why I think everything is going to shit. Original will always sell. Some people might not see it but a lot of people will and people respect real. Let’s not give up the hope!
I agree. That's why I try to make it as close to reality my eyes see as possible.
I avoid editing at all costs. The results are way less appealing for the masses, but just by knowing they are actually real makes me happy.
Photography will always hold its place with capturing the most important thing. Capturing our lives of us, our families, and friends. Even if they just sit on your phone to look at when the time comes.
Last night I went out with my camera, it was Saturday, October 28. People were hanging out drinking with their friends, all in halloween costumes. I had my x100v because i wanted to challange myself in low light instead of bringing my A7s3.
I met about 15 people, posed and took pictures of them. Got back home with a story about each picture, you can see real emotio in those pictures. Laughter and fun was the entire atmosphere. My edits were correcting the exposure while remembering the funny stuff and at the same time, a answering DMs from some of them who asked for the pictures.
AI will never kill the memories and social interactions you create when you put youself out there and seek to live life. So yeah, AI can be good but it will never generate memories.
7:54 To me, even small changes with things like Generative Fill have a pretty big impact on me considering it photography, and tons of edits/changes (like your example at the beginning of the video) make it feel like it's not even photography. To me, photography is _about_ the composition, time/lighting, location, lens, and basic (like Lightroom) edits, and if your photo has practically nothing of that and is all AI, I wouldn't call you the photorapher.
The windows and creek I felt were added but the other stuff definitely got me. I honestly feel you should be mandated to put a disclaimer that photo has be AI changed. Editing a photo is one thing but fully adding things that aren't there I feel should have to be disclosed. I definitely feel there is a place for all of it but if I was buying a print I feel it should be known that it is "fake".
Yeah, all the hate towards AI comes from the fact that some people out there are deceiving their audience by not mentioning that a main portion of their photo is not real anymore.
For me, I drew the line already when people started sky replacements and such things. Even right back then I was not into "looking at the most beautiful sceneries", but into marvelling at the skill and level of creativity of a photographer. Or his patience to get that one perfect shot after months, or even years of patience and work.
Same with people who go to the zoo and tag their photo with "wildlife", and then when people write in the comments something like "Wow, so cool you captured this lion from up close" and the other just replies like "thanks a lot", without clarifying that this was shot in a zoo... When I see such people I unfollow them directly. We have enough dishonesty in society already, I don't need to see that in photography.
Photography will never die and If you think AI will kill photography then you are not a photographer, you are just a content creator
Well that´s the point of the discussion. Photography is dead in the sense, that it has no value anymore. Soon it will be something easily replaceable by anyone with a smartphone. Just look at what Google is doing with it´s Pixel phones. With that there is no need for photographers anymore. No skill required anymore.
And creativity is abundant. It´s not a rare skill.
@@jaymederril1610Um no. A phone camera will never be able to compete with a standalone camera. A stand-alone camera takes better quality photos in every regard, enables zooming in on subjects without loss of quality, and adds more depth.
@@eastonwilliams1722 With AI enhancements you can get even better results than from a standalone camera. And just look at the new Lytia sensors from Sony. They show us that there is still much room for better sensors in smartphones. I don´t understand why some people simply can´t accept the fact that photography as a job skill is dying out...
it is dead in the sense that ai can generate high resolution photos that look like it directly came out of a camera.
@@eastonwilliams1722cope harder
I’m a graphic designer and use generative fill everyday in my work. It’s been an absolute game changer in allowing me to adjust photos to suit a layout. It is scary how good it is even in beta.
So you are basically a fake graphic designer? A con artist some would say
You're aware you're not allowed to use generative fill commercially, right? You agree to that when you download the beta.
"Graphic Designer" whom just admitted to letting the AI do the work for him lol. Get ready to be phased out and find a new career path bub.
@@alexandermasters7827Some clients allow Adobe's Generative fill to be used since they state that Adobe got their art legally
@@alexandermasters7827they will never know, you can use it for whatever and even Monetize it
AI is definitely getting scary good , what a time to be alive
Perfect words for my feelings
As with every new advancement in photography, this is another tool in the box. People called HDR the death of photography (and it was horribly abused for awhile). People called digital the death of photography. People called cell phones the death of photography. Generative fill isn't really doing anything that photographers haven't been able to do in terms of manipulation, it's just making it much, much easier. For now, what generative fill can't replicate is an artist's eye and sense of composition and balance... and taste.
Photography won't die but it's crazy how much it has changed though!
Totally agreed, for me photography is personal collecting memories and there's no need to brush up our memories.
And that's what the helicopter pilot and camera crew said before drones became a thing...
@@momesh9107Did the landscape and portrait painters say the same thing with the invention of the camera?
Love the little shooting nook. Feels alot better than the clean and minimal aesthetic from office 1.0.
No way. Photography and especially Film will never die!!
In my opinion, photography will never die. Do you know why? Because people LIKE taking pictures.
I feel as though 'the real' just became more valuable. Photography as we once knew it, may have evolved, but no 'generative fill' can recreate your memories... or for that matter, the memories and experiences of others. Enter, the photographer. If you are in the business of 'creating' fantasy, then yes, AI is the most valuable tool in your bag. If you are a photographer, you just got some really powerful editing tools... but KEEPING IT REAL is still at the core of your business. People want virtual 'copies' of the moments in their lives, so they can look back at them 50 years from now; not fantasy art.
So as a beginner, what I am getting is, it’s not about photography! It’s about editing! I don’t think I could sleep at night knowing I lied to anyone about my photos, ( What I actually saw ). Glad you achieved 😅high level status with no actual professionalism. Magic 🎉.
I consider the use of tools like this to be more towards the art side of photography. In fact, don't think of it as photography but more like painting. As long as it's used in the right context I don't have a problem
Yeah, it's not photography any longer. We have to make a clear distinction - just because something LOOKS like a photo, it doesn't mean it's a photo - think about realist painters who can paint so well that people start accusing them of being a fraud and taking photos instead of painting/drawing them. The solution for those artists have always been to post "work in progress" files to their results, or to time-lapse the creation of the artwork.
AI which creates IMAGES which look like "photography" are not creating photography. They are merely imitating reality, but midjourney is not capturing physical light, so whatever this programme is creating should not be labelled photography anymore.
Nice backdrop. You should call it Pete's back alley 😂
As for AI in photos I don't mind making the existing image look better even to the point of fixing the sky or removing distractions but once you start adding things that weren't there it starts to feel deceptive. It wouldn't be so bad if there was an AI watermark or a disclosure of some sort but that's not usually the case
Totally agree with that, and: It's also totally disrespectful towards the real photographers who spent so much time and energy to get a great photo. Who would want to play chess or power with someone who is cheating? It's just unfair and dishonest.
I vote for Pete's back alley 🤣
At this point I don't know if that backdrop is real or AI created... it makes me feel sad
I only focus on what I can do in the darkroom, at a basic level when I edit my photos. You are a reason why Photography is dead. Well real photography to me that is. Film forever.
Oh that sounds like a great project! Computer art will never replace handmade art whatever your medium
Its not about how good of a photographer you are anymore
Its about how good you are using editing tools
Sad
Even worse - it's no longer about your editing skills, either - or even worse: It's no longer about skills anymore.
At least people who were doing digital composings "manually" in software needed some skill to do this, and they took pride in their artworks, and people knew how much skill you needed to create these, so people could respect this type of work. Now, I look at stuff on the Internet and think: Yeah, someone is good with midjourney or clicking some buttons, good for them, but I won't like or comment it, because I cannot praise their skills anymore since most of the credit goes to the software/AI anyway.
Are we going to comment on AI art like this in the future: "Good job, midjourney! Thanks to your great programmers." Such a comment is nonsensical, since the AI cannot appreciate praise anyway. I don't mean I cannot enjoy the results, but I won't write a comment when I don't know how much of the result is done by the human and how much is done by AI. And in many cases that cannot really be distinguished.
@@diekritischestimme well said
Always has been. Camera can be considered an editing tool, a rudimentary one.
@@diekritischestimme No we aren't. Art has always been evolving and this is just another tool for creation and speeding up process. As for AI art it isn't always just clicking a few buttons some people go above and beyond and fuse their own drawing skills to make something good. As with photography you can do the same because these are all skills. And its not like anything is stopping us from taking photos anyways
I mainly focus on filming and I'm a little nervous and excited for whats coming in this field... i mean we already have the basic cutting on beat/insta360 app like creating films based on templates...but how far can it go? Like Color Grading based on a specific text input or finding the best fitting sound for a specific part in the editing app itself?...
I got 0. But that duck sound was hilarious.
I only spotted 2 of the edits. Ai is honestly terrifying. As a freelance digital artist, I've already lost work to this over the past year. Some people care more about the money saving than the "human touch" in their projects.
Of course. I work at Home Depot and people will go for the cheaper option every time, even if the cheaper option will have to be replaced much sooner.
I caught about 2/3rds of your edits.
The thing that drove most of my findings was the vibrance and sharpness of the hut compared to everything else.
Edits usually struggle to be exactly how a lens would capture something.
That being said I completely missed the wood planks.
also the resolution of generative fill is low
I think a lot of photography niches are going to die with the increasing AI. But, the photography niches that are more more about the interaction than just the images like boudoir will still thrive.
Well Onlyfans have been using Ai to do boudoir type shots without ever taking off their clothes
I'm glad we are getting more videos, it brings me joy everytime I see it in my inbox.
Oh man, Im definitely going to be doing this! Going to an old abandoned mining town this weekend. Sounds like a TON of fun.
Thanks for the inspiration!
Depends on your purpose for the picture I guess. Generative fill is a powerful tool and I don't think its full potential has been realized yet. Meet in the middle is probably going to be how things are. I haven't played much with the new toys because I cannot afford them. But I hope someday that I will be able to get in on the fun.
I get all of this. AI has some exciting things specially for some kind of work styles (I hope it helps me reducing my post production workflow soon which I don't heavily overdo) but when talking about the very precise excitement of photography... I am actually going back to my film cameras... and my digital (with a soul) Fuji cameras.
I legitimately only got two of the edits, the second mountain, and the removal of the gravel. That was it.
I wouldn’t have thought anything about that photo was off. When you asked me to look for something that was off - I leaned into my gut feeling that the lighting in the windows looked off for me. At first glance - I thought that perhaps light was the focal point, and maybe that’s why I noticed it so much. But it felt like it was potentially artificial.
Photography is evolving. Simply sloughing off the old ways. We have more time and creativity still stands.
As a photojournalist, I believe, in my sector, AI won't be enough to show what is happening out there.
I used to marvel at beautiful photography and be envious of the photographers skill and management of light, but now I look at a photo and ask if it is real or fake. Is this the real real work of a skilled photographer or is this work of a master manipulator? Bums me out that I need to ask that question.
All I knew was you boosted the red. I'm happy with that.
Jai shree ram 🚩🚩
Hey Peter
I just finished watching your latest video on film making and cinematography, and I must say, I'm thoroughly impressed! Your skills behind the camera and your ability to craft visually stunning shots really shine through in your work. The attention to detail and composition in your shots is remarkable.
It's also great to hear about your background in creativity. It's evident that you have a natural talent for bringing ideas to life and capturing the essence of a story. Your creative vision truly sets you apart, and it's inspiring to see how you incorporate unique elements into your videos.
As someone from India, I want to express how much I appreciate your channel. Despite the distance, your content has connected with me on a personal level. It's amazing how your work resonates with people from different parts of the world. Your ability to transcend borders and make an impact is truly commendable.
Thank you for consistently providing such high-quality content. I'm eagerly looking forward to your future videos and witnessing your continued growth as a filmmaker and creative mind. Keep up the fantastic work!
Got the light, the snow, and the blend on the mountain on the right. Everything else blew me away as well.
I have been following your channel for years now, for your studio at home, to your office, to your second office to this new office, its been fun watching your videos, i started photography because of u, i wish i could forget all and start watching all over again 😅, those were good times
It's kind of funny if you think about it: remixing words has always been accepteable (thinking of Bowie cutting up sentences and newspaper-articles to generate new ideas and lyrics), and during the past 50 years we have also become very adept at repurposing and adjusting all the sounds we hear to a point where it is - if we want it to - impossible to distinguish. Yet when we now think our visual medium is about to get influenced in the same way, there's again the same hesitance and protest. As a painter, I work a lot with repurposing existing material or my own photography and imagination to create the image that is either in my head, or comes to life on the page. Reality is: it's never a direct translation and accidents happen. Some very well known photographers like Gregory Crewdson or Erwin Olaf have been manipulating the visual for years, but in ways that actually makes it seem more authentic then reality ever was. A hundred years ago this would have been Normal Rockwell: staging and painting the ultimate dream of rural, cosy America.
Should we be sceptical: yes, absolutely, for that also makes us aware this is going on. But is it the end of photopgrahy - or heck: the 'end of art'? No, it's a tool, and creating proper, good work takes time, effort, thinking, judging, imagining, editing and ultimately: deciding what works and what doesn't.
Hat over the lens ending again. Nice. Been awhile since we've seen that. Also need a "What's in my" fridge episode!
Personally I believe a photo is only what a camera takes, no post or editing. But that's only my opinion.
What Mr. McKinnon did in the video to the photo was artography, no photography. It went way beyond normal photo manipulation to clean up a photo which has been done for many, many years. It instead became a creation which really didn't exist before. It deserves a name which has already been coined, artography.
I hope your day is filled with marvellous wishes and glorious lessons.
If someone uses generative fill, I dont think it should be a question of whether the cat is out of the bag, it should be explicit and honest. I think it cheapens the art, and a photographer's own integrity to pretend they shot something they didn't.
I'm not even a photographer and all this new wave is making me want to shoot film.
Drive by photography is my jam. Thousands of crappy photos to show for it. :) I'm inspired, as usual. Thanks Peter. Who know how long I'm gonna be saying generative Toronto.
Love the neon shooting corner. Slightly jealous of the western poster 👀
No, not dead for me.....I shot an artist today in front of her work...I got home, downloaded the images and saw some things I loved. I'm not removing the telephone pole or the weeds growing out of the sidewalk-the impact of a good capture will not be hurt by such things.
I don't live in a sterile manicured world, so why try and create one? Imperfection gives life to an image, and I will keep searching for that life as a photographer, and not give a rat's ass to this idea that photography is dead. Maybe for others, but not for me.
Really love Vero!
I feel like it'll be a double-edged sword. Clearly it's a big creative tool. A way to get the exact shot you want even if the shot itself isn't the exact way you want it. At the same time, it'll be a shortcut for many businesses and corporations who want to cheap out on things like brand photography or so. Does that mean at least partially paid gigs for photography (or any creative skill for that matter) will disappear? yes. However what I've found online is that there's still MANY people who would want to pay more money if that means they know they kept an artist in-business or that it was "actually made by someone". In a way, AI shows us who would, and who wouldn't be a client if it wasn't effectively forced upon them
I think the photography and videography are splitting roads of the real from the virtual or a.i. at the moment. It’s not a bad thing. Opens new doors and possibilities. there are many photographers who go back to analog for capturing the reality or that decisive moment. For the feel. Also cinematography is taking another huge turn (Oppenheimer).
New tools, software, ai, will create new opportunities however you can almost always tell it’s added or perfected. Time will tell. Photography is more alive than ever. Great points Peter.
So glad you added a mountain in the background :)
I tend to make a distinction between photographers and visual artists. I come from a photojournalist background and I truly appreciate the "real". The skill to sharing the "real" is something that has been lost on many photographers. I've seen a whole generation who is not used to seeing non-edited photos.. With that being said, I can appreciate the visual artistry to creating an amazing image with all the technology, but I hesitate to call it a photograph but instead visual art.
I got 3, but should have had 5 knowing that you edited it. Never would have guessed the creek though!
I drive past that abandoned shelter pretty much every week so I knew exactly what was added to that 😅
got the stream, wood pallet, light inside, the canvas extension on each side.. but the rest honestly fooled me, nicely done!
Dig the background! I pumped gas while going through college and the pump handle brings that all back. Great viewpoinits on AI. Thanks!
What’s interesting about what photography and film have become is they are not really anywhere near reality anymore. What inevitably happens is then people see these images created and think their mundane world offers nothing by comparison when the images they are looking at do not even exist. It’s all similar to photoshopping a group of models and creating the idea that the models look a certain way that they do not in real life, only to have a group of teenage girls who feel like crap about their own bodies and a bunch of guys who think every girls body needs to be perfect or they will not be happy. It all comes down to this mirage we are being sold and how it actually affects the psyche of people. It may seem like a stretch to some, but looking around at these perfect realities that do not exist anywhere in reality but portraying it as reality does create and have behavioral side effects. This will only lead to more disconnect from reality. I’d rather see the shittier real photo and hear the story that comes with why the door frame is in the shot vs a place that is kind of real and polished.
Surely the new set should be called ‘Pete’s Pub’ for the alliteration 👌🍻
Great editing job Peter. That was fun. Regardless of what our individual process is, in the end I agree with what Ansel Adams said about the process, "You don't take a photograph, you make a photograph". He did it with mathematical equations and darkroom chemicals. You did it with object arrangement and digitisation. Same result. In the end there are many types of image making and many types of photography within. Ps: Enjoying your channel bud.
In my mind, we are dealing with two distinct techniques here. The first (the actual photo) is indeed photography. The second (the edited image) is digital art or digital collage.
only got 3 things
-The lighting in the window
-The 2 sides, you can see the "seam"
-The mountain backdrop
The classical music is SOOOOO satisfying! Then the duck quack. LOL
I caught the stream and the more intense snowfall. My vote for a name for the backdrop is The Back Alley. Thanks for keeping us all inspired!
I'm blown away. It's not for me to spend hours editing, and resent that it's sort of expected for ones photo's to be Liked in the more discerning social media sites. It's good in another way, that those with PC skills can create on an equal footing. I am impressed.
Aww yes back to old times. ❤️ Super pumped for next week's video!
Without being told ahead of time or knowing there was something going on there would have been no reason to think any of that image was fake LOL. Nice job!
Haha pretty wild eh?
Hardly, the lights in the window were an immediate giveaway.
@@josefd1997I didn't look super closely at the lights and I'm using my phone but that could have been brightened with editing and not necessarily completely fake.
I feel this bro, stay human 🖤
I wonder if painters said "painting is dead" when the first cameras came out.
I thought it was going to be a picture of your red truck instead 😂 but that’s crazy!
I won't be using generative fill, but I respect everyone's right to use what they want to.
I feel more and more obligated to identify my Ai augmented images, or something that is superimposed, or a composite. Not because they aren't art, art is subjective, and art is what pleases the eye, however authenticity or real is important in my book of value, and my "ego." To me, and notice I am speaking for myself, there is more value to me if the image is real, if this place and setting existed in a moment in time. I am not talking about touch-ups or lighting tweaks, but full-on "generative" additions to a photo. To me, a photo is more valuable if a person hiked 10 miles into the tundra at 4 a.m. to shoot the sun coming up over a bear and it's cub, say than a guy who typed the descriptors into a Ai engine and got a great image setting in his living room sipping a latte.
...love your work and your conversations, keep creating.
That shirt and hat combination is 🔥 Peter!
Wait what you made a lame picture look amazing. I couldn’t tell from the photo what you added. Epic man.
That quack always kills me. 😂
I’ll be honest, I got them all wrong. It’s scary how good AI is 😅
So, a couple of suggestions for your place…Pete’s Place, Pete’s Wunderland, Pete’s Stash
Photographer: check out this dope photo....
A.I: hold my coffee!
the most obvious to me was the extensions on the side because they just lack so much detail and the additional falling snow
You gotta name it Pete's Pit Stop. Neon gas station theme for the win
PHOTOGRWPHY IS NOT DEAD, it's just easier to fake the photos now.
This is not a photograph, this is a photo-montage. Photography is not dead
I know most of us would have trashed that photo. Yet here we all are commenting on a video with a sexy thumbnail. Ai is your friend today Pete. 👏
I’m a simple man. I see Pete post a video I click like. Loved the video and I think it starts some really interesting conversations. We will see where it goes from here!
Don’t know about this. So we just point our camera at anything and just go home and then create a fake image. Now understand how film photographers were forced into digital 😢
@username_The_PeterMcKinnon-- SCAMMERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Stop it
Something so so soothing about Pete talking photography. Love it🖤🖤
I guess this falls between intent and purpose. One of the key factors in distinguishing between photography and manipulated images is the intent behind creating the image. Photography typically aims to capture a moment or scene as it exists in the real world, while manipulated images are intentionally altered to convey a different message, artistic vision, or to deceive viewers. If the primary purpose is to deceive or significantly alter reality, it's more likely a manipulated image.
Bro... Glad that youre back with amazing videos, like before... I know your creativity went downhill recently, but glad its back with a punch
I've been an avid amateur photographer for years. During Covid I had to stop for a couple of years, and later I seriously struggled to come back to photography (no more will, no more passion..). At the beginning I thought it was due to laziness developed during Covid, but later I realized that in the mean time I had subconsciously reasoned on what is really photography now, where is the limit between photography and postprocessing, what currently makes a good photographer, if it has a sense to spend 10% of your free time with your camera and the remaining 90% in front of a monitor playing with Masks, Curves and Layers..a lot of doubts in my mind. At this point I understand much better (before I found them a bit 'eccentric') the folks that go out only with an analog camera and their imagination, even if they know that in most of the cases their results will be disappointing respect to their 'digital' colleagues. So your video is spot on. Thanks for having posted it.
I knew the lights in the window were added. That was it though. this blew my mind.
That. Was. Awesome. 👏🏻 So many use-cases for generative fill!
I really don’t see how this is photography, it’s just pure editing
I spotted the lights in the windows, and the boards near the hut - primarily because the light wasn't adjusted. Edit a little more, and I wouldn't nave noticed.
I feel like sooner or later. Raw files will have this permanent signature in it in which there is a thumbnail of it's original raw state and meta data that can't be deleted what so ever.
and most artist will now record themselves doing an actual work. buying a painting will soon be required a video footage of an artist painting live.