I have to add a few words to defend AI technique of generating images.

[Mrrrky]

Let me add a few words in favor of AI images.  

 

When it comes to creating art, many people still cling to traditional techniques like photography and I really respect it, and love photography, but the only reason to short towards the AI is the cost of making images with a camera. To produce quality images I need to invest a few hundreds or thousands of dollars into my shoots and to pray it will sell, and to be into a plus at the end of the month, well that's hard. It's hard to see our images not selling even though we invested o lot of effort into it.
However, using AI in art has several benefits over traditional methods. With AI, artists can create unique and innovative images that are not constrained by the limitations of photography. It's important to note that working with AI is not just about clicking buttons - it requires a lot of work and skill to achieve a desired result. Please try to make a realistic image of 10 people to look professional, it simply wont be sufficient just to generate it. You have to put a lot of hours into that one images to correct the mistakes of an AI.

I will again emphasize the advantage of using AI. Traditional photography can be expensive, with the cost of cameras, lenses, and equipment adding up quickly. AI can be a cost-effective alternative that allows artists to create stunning works of art without breaking the bank.
Also this a lot of reminds my of a battle between painters and photographers earlier in history when photography started to develop as a technique. Traditional painters hated the new technique since it was a lot easier and quicker to produce a portrait that the just paint with a brush. It's similar how photographers nowadays look at AI. You just input  a text, and you have an image. But that is precisely one of the advantages. 
I really don't have the time to write all of this, but since people are somewhat banning AI art from Midjourney in saying, that in that way we are stealing other people images, I don't know what to say. Maybe precisely some of my images were used to create someones art, and I don't object to that. I for a fact know that people can quite easily steal in another way my images, and maybe they are doing that just because they cannot afford them, not because they want to harm me ad that is also ok. They haven't physically harmed me and no matter what we do, people will find a way to pirate our images no matter what we do. So saying that Midjourney is not ethical, maybe it isn't completely, but it is a lot more cost effective for us contributors.
That's it, thanks for reading, I will try to reply to all of your thoughts. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Mrrrky

[Martin L]

What a load of sh*t

You don't want to shell out the time and money on taking pics with a camera but quite happy to license images based on the hard work of other photographers without any suitable attribution or compensation.

Good on you sir, keep up the good work.

 

[Robert M Estall]

I think I'm losing the will to live! I do hope photography survives this but I do wonder.

 

[Mr Standfast]

It's average intelligence I fear for...

[Jill Morgan]

As someone who buys as well as sells and creates AI images, I like to think I see things from all the perspectives.

 

I only use AI for very arty images, never for realistic photography, If I want a realistic looking photograph, I will buy a photographic image.  These days, cheap as chips (I am sorry to say). Because I know AI scrapes from everything out there, it is also scraping from incorrectly keyworded images, so your results cannot be guaranteed as true.  I have battled with AI trying to get certain images and AI has failed me, even in the arty stuff. As most of what I buy and create is based on pedigreed dogs, it is shameful on some of the stuff AI comes up with.  And I have used some of the images to be berated by pedigreed dog owners on the flaws in my artwork. Last weekend I was basically humiliated on the long ears that were on my Shar Pei artwork. The last thing I want is to look like an idiot in front of my customers.

 

And let's face it, I don't think any government agency is going to give copyright to the prompt creator of AI images, I am pretty sure they will all end up as Public Domain.  Already that way in the US.  I can go in Midjourney and download anybody's creations and use it on a product.  I don't, but I could.

 

As a buyer, I want to be sure that I am getting exactly what I want, and only a true photograph will do that for me. I am fairly well versed on all the different dog breeds out there, but lots of photo editors would not be.  Would they want to trust an AI image that it got it right? Better to go with the photo, then you know.

 

Jill

[AM Chang]

Photography is the art of capturing light with a camera.
Images generated by AI and photography are not comparable.
The first tries to be "realistic", the second its name says, it is "artificial".

[wilkopix]

I guess imaging AI is much like 'sampling' in the music industry. The biggest problem in the very near future for photographers is making sure that they can monitise that useage. It sounds like Alamy are going to use those images in the 'Novel Use' bracket for AI. Another big problem is a lot of our images when put on the internet have the metadata removed which includes embedded copyright information and they become 'orphan works' and the likes of MidJourney etc will harvest from these. Expect to see a lot of court cases in the future. Somehow we really need to fight to keep the rights to our images and especially fair payment for their use.

[M.Chapman]

I think the huge problem with AI machine learning is "garbage in" gives "garbage out". Unless the data sets used to train the AI engines are validated then the results (output) will be unreliable. Unfortunately a significant amount of the data used for learning is indiscriminately sampled from data that's already online. Much of which is already unreliable, and some of it will also be AI generated. Take keywording for example - Whilst it's wonderful how AI can come up with a list of keywords for a photo, many of them are wrong/irrelevant and the problem is getting worse as the errors introduced by one auto-keywording program are now online and used as input data for the next iteration, and so on. Some AI engines are brilliant, but the end result will only be as good as the quality of data used to train them.

 

One of the other photo sites I work with has now introduced AI enhanced captioning. If I supply an image, keywords and a basic caption, it will "embellish" my efforts with a view to making the image more saleable. The embellished captions for my landscape photos read well and sound more "romantic" but now feature added words like "majestic" and "breathtaking" on a regular basis. Will it help my sales, perhaps in the short term, but once everyone else's photos have also been similarly embellished we'll need new words to describe landscapes that really are breathtaking and majestic.

 

Mark 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

23 hours ago, Martin L said:

...but quite happy to license images based on the hard work of other photographers...

ironically, AFAICT, the ?top? 2 PAlamy contributors income-wise

are both offering free photos en masse from Library of Congress,

maybe from elsewhere, too.  One is netting, guess, $130K/year,

the other, guess, near $80K/year..

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

ironically, AFAICT, the ?top? 2 PAlamy contributors income-wise

are both offering free photos en masse from Library of Congress,

maybe from elsewhere, too.  One is netting, guess, $130K/year,

the other, guess, near $80K/year..

You must know public domain images are totally different to nicking bits of existing photogs work as it's cheaper and easier than slogging around taking your own pics, right?

[Gervais Montacute]

8 hours ago, wilkopix said:

I guess imaging AI is much like 'sampling' in the music industry. 

You mean as in sampling some else's music and using it in another piece of music?

[IKuzmin]

23 hours ago, AM Chang said:

Photography is the art of capturing light with a camera.
Images generated by AI and photography are not comparable.
The first tries to be "realistic", the second its name says, it is "artificial".

1. I do not think that stock photography is necessarily an art, particularly when one is running circles around trying to snapshot "what sells".

2. That "artificial" is still often as good (if not better) as a photography, per purpose.

[IKuzmin]

Perhaps this forum with members by and large from the photographic "field" (myself included) is not the best place to discuss this topic. I would not comment further as I do not feel comfortable to discuss details which I am not familiar with, but will give a green arrow  to @Mrrrky.

 

[Betty LaRue]

55 minutes ago, IKuzmin said:

Perhaps this forum with members by and large from the photographic "field" (myself included) is not the best place to discuss this topic. I would not comment further as I do not feel comfortable to discuss details which I am not familiar with, but will give a green arrow  to @Mrrrky.

 

Off the subject but I had a look only of your front page & must tell you that you have some awesome images. You have more than a bird on a limb, a derogatory remark I’ve heard before. After all, smaller birds, songbirds, are most often found on a limb, aren’t they? They fly & they perch. It is very work intensive to capture the smaller birds actually doing something.  I have a fair amount of birds on a limb, but from years ago. By the time I got into photography my back was bad, and I was limited in how far I could walk & carry heavy gear.

You have gone to great lengths to make more of your birds. I love the action. My attempts at birding in the past is sorry in comparison to yours. And I understand the gear to get these images are not cheap, not the quality you have here. I never had but middling zooms.

Birding was my first photographic love, so I envy you the time & means to follow your heart. Lots of bug bites out there in the process, right?  And in south Texas, a few places you have to keep an eye out for alligators. I was there for a short few days 8-9 years ago.

I never found birds to be my best sellers, or even my mid-sellers, but then I don’t have the quality of yours. Good luck. One of these days I’ll take the time to feast my eyes on the rest of your portfolio.

Betty

Edited May 16, 2023 by Betty LaRue

[gvallee]

What Betty said. Excellent portfolio @IKuzmin 

[Mrrrky]

On 15/05/2023 at 00:24, Jill Morgan said:

As someone who buys as well as sells and creates AI images, I like to think I see things from all the perspectives.

 

I only use AI for very arty images, never for realistic photography, If I want a realistic looking photograph, I will buy a photographic image.  These days, cheap as chips (I am sorry to say). Because I know AI scrapes from everything out there, it is also scraping from incorrectly keyworded images, so your results cannot be guaranteed as true.  I have battled with AI trying to get certain images and AI has failed me, even in the arty stuff. As most of what I buy and create is based on pedigreed dogs, it is shameful on some of the stuff AI comes up with.  And I have used some of the images to be berated by pedigreed dog owners on the flaws in my artwork. Last weekend I was basically humiliated on the long ears that were on my Shar Pei artwork. The last thing I want is to look like an idiot in front of my customers.

 

And let's face it, I don't think any government agency is going to give copyright to the prompt creator of AI images, I am pretty sure they will all end up as Public Domain.  Already that way in the US.  I can go in Midjourney and download anybody's creations and use it on a product.  I don't, but I could.

 

As a buyer, I want to be sure that I am getting exactly what I want, and only a true photograph will do that for me. I am fairly well versed on all the different dog breeds out there, but lots of photo editors would not be.  Would they want to trust an AI image that it got it right? Better to go with the photo, then you know.

 

Jill

Precisely that's why as any art form AI images need to be practiced and perfected and it's never easy if you want good results.

[Mrrrky]

On 14/05/2023 at 19:19, Martin L said:

What a load of sh*t

You don't want to shell out the time and money on taking pics with a camera but quite happy to license images based on the hard work of other photographers without any suitable attribution or compensation.

Good on you sir, keep up the good work.

 

Since you lack the manners in communicating politely and like a civilized person I will do that instead and I will respond to you as a human being, not just writing in an angry manner.

By looking at your portfolio, I will suggest you something. 

Try this year to shoot professionally and in a way the the people I know are successful in stock photography.

That means,

1. produce at least 30 images par day.

2. Shoot 2 sessions per week. The sessions should be photographed during the weekend, that is about 4 hours per session.

3. Pay the models their share. That is about 400 $ per week where I live.
4. Edit your photos so they will be perfect. That is about 10 hours per day during the week.
5. Open a company and be a photographer that is paying taxes in two countries. So that is about 30 % of your revenue goes to the state where the stock company is located and then about 20 % to the state where you live. 50 percent goes to Alamy...
6. Invest in the latest gear. Monitor, computer, drone, camera, lens...
7. Try to be better then the others. Only Yuri Arcus is producing about 2000 images per month.

The list goes on. An please be civil, I haven't come here to argue with anyone, and please use normal language when communicating with people online. 
 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mrrrky

[Gervais Montacute]

1 hour ago, Mrrrky said:

50 percent goes to Alamy...
 

60%.

[IKuzmin]

7 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Off the subject but I had a look only of your front page & must tell you that you have some awesome images.

 

7 hours ago, gvallee said:

What Betty said. Excellent portfolio @IKuzmin 

Thank you. I do not photograph "for stock" or "what sells". I photograph what I like. And try to publish these and get some refund for the associated expenses from the stock. It is after all just a weekend and vacation hobby for me, I was never good enough to live and pay bills from this 🙂 

 

As for the topic, alas, I feel that my photographs are likely just good enough to feed AI programs/models which will then generate something better, perhaps not only for illustrative/editorial purposes. That what the progress is, I guess...

Edited May 16, 2023 by IKuzmin

[Lynchpics]

At the end of the day photography is photography and Ai generated art is illustration.  I can see why Alamy is putting the brakes on accepting Ai generated image's, can they trust contributors to label Ai images correctly? 

[Martin L]

3 hours ago, Mrrrky said:

Since you lack the manners in communicating politely and like a civilized person I will do that instead and I will respond to you as a human being, not just writing in an angry manner.

By looking at your portfolio, I will suggest you something. 

Try this year to shoot professionally and in a way the the people I know are successful in stock photography.

That means,

1. produce at least 30 images par day.

2. Shoot 2 sessions per week. The sessions should be photographed during the weekend, that is about 4 hours per session.

3. Pay the models their share. That is about 400 $ per week where I live.
4. Edit your photos so they will be perfect. That is about 10 hours per day during the week.
5. Open a company and be a photographer that is paying taxes in two countries. So that is about 30 % of your revenue goes to the state where the stock company is located and then about 20 % to the state where you live. 50 percent goes to Alamy...
6. Invest in the latest gear. Monitor, computer, drone, camera, lens...
7. Try to be better then the others. Only Yuri Arcus is producing about 2000 images per month.

The list goes on. An please be civil, I haven't come here to argue with anyone, and please use normal language when communicating with people online. 
 

......or alternatively I can just leave that to other people as is your intention.

Does that seem right to you?

 

[AM Chang]

In my humble understanding, photography as "the art of capturing light" comes from: 

Photos by:
Analog film cameras; then, by digital cameras with sensor and memory card; smartphones with sensor and lens.

Different instruments/devices to capture/store images.

Is art: Because those processes involve creativity, technical skills, etc.

 

Beyond that, such as AI, it generates images, maybe trained and learned, from real photographs.

Is the "essence of capturing" vs "generating from;" "real" vs "fake."

 

It seems unfair to me that due to the purpose and advancement of technology, the merit of the essence of photography is taken away from it. 

Just a clarification.

 

Cheers,

 

andre

[mickfly]

19 hours ago, Gervais Montacute said:

You mean as in sampling some else's music and using it in another piece of music?

Using samples from other peoples music usually includes a fee being paid... or a court case.

[Rebecca Ore]

One of the problems was illustrated in the Amnesty International artificial illustration of a woman being arrested, used to generate donations.  I've seen enough abuse of Photoshop with tanks dropped onto streets they were never in in reality, mislabeling photos from one country as happening in another.   Given the false claims that Nicaragua has no toilet paper and the digital fake images of how starved the political prisoners were, I'm expecting a fake of empty toilet paper shelves.   We're descending into an era where photos can't be trusted.  This won't be fun, but I don't know how to put this genie back in the lamp.

[IKuzmin]

37 minutes ago, mickfly said:

Using samples from other peoples music usually includes a fee being paid...

yes, and they offer pennies for that! And from the beginning, music is created by someone whereas most of photographs are just a reflection of the reality (take this as you wish, but I do not see where is "art" in 99.99% of stock photographs). Those AI-training folks can take the same from free sources which are plenty, but the final result will be the same.