Banning AI art on PP

HorrifyMeUK said

Westend Portfolios said

HorrifyMeUK said

Westend Portfolios said

lets ban photoshopping while we are at it..

Why? 

isnt it kind of the same.. all you have is a photo of a model.then you can add objects, change backgrounds and completely change the original photo..and end up with something you never took a photofraph off.. 

ive never used photoshop..because i dont know how to ..and wont be learning

Absolute nonsense. The point here is where the creativity comes from. This isn’t about pure photography vs artificial images, it’s about whether the creative process was done by a human or computer. Even the most heavily Photoshopped images have still had a lot of skill, creative judgement and human involvement. AI art has NO human involvement in the creative process whatsoever.

This with knobs on! 

PP has not banned AI for the use of backgrounds etc, so it's not a blanket ban of anything AI, it's simply banned images that are completely AI generated which are created by some numpty, typing a few tag words into a software programme then claiming it's their own work. 

I must admit though, it does get a little grey when a digital artist may start off with an AI creation and then edits it how they want it to become.  Then it has human input and creativity entered into it but still stretching things a little.

Mao Zhu 毛 猪 said

Westend Portfolios said

HorrifyMeUK said

Westend Portfolios said

lets ban photoshopping while we are at it..

Why? 

isnt it kind of the same.. all you have is a photo of a model.then you can add objects, change backgrounds and completely change the original photo..and end up with something you never took a photofraph off.. 

ive never used photoshop..because i dont know how to ..and wont be learning

Its comments like this that make me realize that there are a lot of people that just do not understand photography. If they want to ban photoshop, let's also ban the dark room processes that go on. There is no difference between what goes on, or went on, in a dark room and what photoshop does. Okay, photoshop makes it easier and saves you from working in a hot chemical full room. But the basic processes are the same. Oh, and whilst we are at it, let's ban portraits of kings and queens as they are and all were manipulated. Henry VIII definitely did not look like he did in the paintings of him. Going down this road, perhaps we should ban imagery all together because all imagery is manipulated. An awful lot is done in the camera itself. Whilst we are at it, don't even think that what you see with your eye is the same as what I see with mine. The human brain processes what information it gets through the eye and creates an image. So on that point to those that say photoshop shop should be banned because it manipulates images should ban their own brains as they manipulate images as well.

Agreed.  However don't overlook the possibility that those who are anti stuff like Photoshop are perhaps mimicking that fox in Aesop's famed fable who decided the grapes were sour anyway?

We are not banning the use of photoshop. 

Russ Freeman said

We are not banning the use of photoshop. 

Oh.....Go on......Just for shits and giggles?

Bob @ Fatbloke said

Russ Freeman said

We are not banning the use of photoshop. 

Oh.....Go on......Just for shits and giggles?

My life is already so full of joy that I don't need any more.

Scenario.....

Use AI to generate "The Perfect Image for X", then print it, and use it as inspiration (copy it closely), to shoot it in the human world.

Who owns the "concept"? 

I’m actually amazed that this topic is even mildly controversial. This is a creative community full of creative people and the AI art apps remove all creativity from image making. I’m baffled to my bones why anyone here would even feel the need to ponder the issue. Are we a community of creatives, artists, photographers, models and crafts folk, willing to work with skill and patience to achieve a result, or a bunch of lazy talentless app freaks hell bent on the quick fix and instant gratification of the new AI age? Photoshop editing and digital manipulation is so far out of any comparison that even this is leaving me baffled. These creative processes require our skill and judgement. AI requires absolute zero from us.

I see the work this community produces every day, the FPI images, the competitions, the share-a-shoot stuff. PP is packed with talent and awesome skilled people. I see the artistry from the models, the makeup artists, the skilled poses, the fantastic use of light and shadow from photographers, the choice of lens, the compositions, not to mention the years of practice and development that sits behind all this wonderful work.

I feel that this is what we are giving up if we support AI art systems. Just handing all the creative choices over to a fucking soulless algorithm that deserves no respect for its creative output because it has none. I’m a lifelong creative professional and working artist and I have never felt so passionate about anything in my life. I truly hope that humanity rejects this new AI art bullshit and sees it for the cynical, talent-robbing piece of digital scum that it truly is. It’s so depressing to think this might catch on.

HorrifyMeUK agreed!

Mao Zhu 毛 猪 said

Its comments like this that make me realize that there are a lot of people that just do not understand photography. If they want to ban photoshop, let's also ban the dark room processes that go on. There is no difference between what goes on, or went on, in a dark room and what photoshop does. Okay, photoshop makes it easier and saves you from working in a hot chemical full room. But the basic processes are the same. Oh, and whilst we are at it, let's ban portraits of kings and queens as they are and all were manipulated. Henry VIII definitely did not look like he did in the paintings of him. Going down this road, perhaps we should ban imagery all together because all imagery is manipulated. An awful lot is done in the camera itself. Whilst we are at it, don't even think that what you see with your eye is the same as what I see with mine. The human brain processes what information it gets through the eye and creates an image. So on that point to those that say photoshop shop should be banned because it manipulates images should ban their own brains as they manipulate images as well.

Kevin Connery said

Mao Zhu 毛 猪 said

Its comments like this that make me realize that there are a lot of people that just do not understand photography. If they want to ban photoshop, let's also ban the dark room processes that go on. There is no difference between what goes on, or went on, in a dark room and what photoshop does. Okay, photoshop makes it easier and saves you from working in a hot chemical full room. But the basic processes are the same. Oh, and whilst we are at it, let's ban portraits of kings and queens as they are and all were manipulated. Henry VIII definitely did not look like he did in the paintings of him. Going down this road, perhaps we should ban imagery all together because all imagery is manipulated. An awful lot is done in the camera itself. Whilst we are at it, don't even think that what you see with your eye is the same as what I see with mine. The human brain processes what information it gets through the eye and creates an image. So on that point to those that say photoshop shop should be banned because it manipulates images should ban their own brains as they manipulate images as well.

A good one. Exactly my point, whatever image we produce whether it is using a camera, photoshop, a paint brush or whatever, is a creation of the human mind and is manipulated by the human mind to get whatever that mind wants. With AI the human mind, apart from writing the original algorithms, is basically taken out of the creation process. Photoshop is a human driven creative tool, so is fundamentally different to AI

Mao Zhu 毛 猪 said

Kevin Connery said

Mao Zhu 毛 猪 said

Its comments like this that make me realize that there are a lot of people that just do not understand photography. If they want to ban photoshop, let's also ban the dark room processes that go on. There is no difference between what goes on, or went on, in a dark room and what photoshop does. Okay, photoshop makes it easier and saves you from working in a hot chemical full room. But the basic processes are the same. Oh, and whilst we are at it, let's ban portraits of kings and queens as they are and all were manipulated. Henry VIII definitely did not look like he did in the paintings of him. Going down this road, perhaps we should ban imagery all together because all imagery is manipulated. An awful lot is done in the camera itself. Whilst we are at it, don't even think that what you see with your eye is the same as what I see with mine. The human brain processes what information it gets through the eye and creates an image. So on that point to those that say photoshop shop should be banned because it manipulates images should ban their own brains as they manipulate images as well.

A good one. Exactly my point, whatever image we produce whether it is using a camera, photoshop, a paint brush or whatever, is a creation of the human mind and is manipulated by the human mind to get whatever that mind wants. With AI the human mind, apart from writing the original algorithms, is basically taken out of the creation process. Photoshop is a human driven creative tool, so is fundamentally different to AI

I’m so glad some people get it 

Gothic Image said

These AIs train on a very large data set from across the 'net, but what would happen if in the future those AIs were available to individuals such that you could train them purely on your own images? 

Yours is a rather better example than mine.

As you know, pretty much everything I ever taken, plus any edits all reside on my Linux Media Server - which is also a fully fledged LAMP server. About 550,000 SOOC and around 50,000 edits live there. Many of these are tagged and/or captioned, using a local installation of Piwigo, with the corresponding metadata stored in a MySQL (MariaDB) database - mostly so I can find stuff again.

However, this also means that most, if not all my images and their meta are already in a form that is easily digested and assimilated by AI. So, a system based say on OpenAI could be trained with a pool of my own work in the way you describe. Moreover, it would not merely know my model's names and images, but also photographic style and preferences, and my editing skills or (lack of them) as well.

Assuming it all works as expected, I could submit a plain English request:-

"Create a picture of Chiara, 28 years old, wind in her hair, posed like Bettie Page, sitting on the bonnet of a Lotus 7, on Miu Wo beach, at sunset."

Would near-zero-effort images generated like this be acceptable for modelling sites?

waist.it said

Gothic Image said

These AIs train on a very large data set from across the 'net, but what would happen if in the future those AIs were available to individuals such that you could train them purely on your own images? 

Yours is a rather better example than mine.

As you know, pretty much everything I ever taken, plus any edits all reside on my Linux Media Server - which is also a fully fledged LAMP server. About 550,000 SOOC and around 50,000 edits live there. Many of these are tagged and/or captioned, using a local installation of Piwigo, with the corresponding metadata stored in a MySQL (MariaDB) database - mostly so I can find stuff again.

However, this also means that most, if not all my images and their meta are already in a form that is easily digested and assimilated by AI. So, a system based say on OpenAI could be trained with a pool of my own work in the way you describe. Moreover, it would not merely know my model's names and images, but also photographic style and preferences, and my editing skills or (lack of them) as well.

Assuming it all works as expected, I could submit a plain English request:-

"Create a picture of Chiara, 28 years old, wind in her hair, posed like Bettie Page, sitting on the bonnet of a Lotus 7, on Miu Wo beach, at sunset."

Would near-zero-effort images generated like this be acceptable for modelling sites?

Not anymore on this site, no.

Russ Freeman said

waist.it said

Gothic Image said

These AIs train on a very large data set from across the 'net, but what would happen if in the future those AIs were available to individuals such that you could train them purely on your own images? 

Yours is a rather better example than mine.

As you know, pretty much everything I ever taken, plus any edits all reside on my Linux Media Server - which is also a fully fledged LAMP server. About 550,000 SOOC and around 50,000 edits live there. Many of these are tagged and/or captioned, using a local installation of Piwigo, with the corresponding metadata stored in a MySQL (MariaDB) database - mostly so I can find stuff again.

However, this also means that most, if not all my images and their meta are already in a form that is easily digested and assimilated by AI. So, a system based say on OpenAI could be trained with a pool of my own work in the way you describe. Moreover, it would not merely know my model's names and images, but also photographic style and preferences, and my editing skills or (lack of them) as well.

Assuming it all works as expected, I could submit a plain English request:-

"Create a picture of Chiara, 28 years old, wind in her hair, posed like Bettie Page, sitting on the bonnet of a Lotus 7, on Miu Wo beach, at sunset."

Would near-zero-effort images generated like this be acceptable for modelling sites?

Not anymore on this site, no.

And I'm guessing that arguments such as:-

• "Thirty years of massive effort to make it 'zero effort'."

And:-

• "All the component pieces are mine."

Wouldn't cut much proverbial ice?

waist.it said

Russ Freeman said

waist.it said

Gothic Image said

These AIs train on a very large data set from across the 'net, but what would happen if in the future those AIs were available to individuals such that you could train them purely on your own images? 

Yours is a rather better example than mine.

As you know, pretty much everything I ever taken, plus any edits all reside on my Linux Media Server - which is also a fully fledged LAMP server. About 550,000 SOOC and around 50,000 edits live there. Many of these are tagged and/or captioned, using a local installation of Piwigo, with the corresponding metadata stored in a MySQL (MariaDB) database - mostly so I can find stuff again.

However, this also means that most, if not all my images and their meta are already in a form that is easily digested and assimilated by AI. So, a system based say on OpenAI could be trained with a pool of my own work in the way you describe. Moreover, it would not merely know my model's names and images, but also photographic style and preferences, and my editing skills or (lack of them) as well.

Assuming it all works as expected, I could submit a plain English request:-

"Create a picture of Chiara, 28 years old, wind in her hair, posed like Bettie Page, sitting on the bonnet of a Lotus 7, on Miu Wo beach, at sunset."

Would near-zero-effort images generated like this be acceptable for modelling sites?

Not anymore on this site, no.

And I'm guessing that arguments such as:-

• "Thirty years of massive effort to make it 'zero effort'."

And:-

• "All the component pieces are mine."

Wouldn't cut much proverbial ice?

Of the dozen or so reports so far, the offer of "delete the photo if it's machine-generated, or send us a copy of the unedited" all have resulted in the photo being deleted by the uploader.

If the answer to "did you take this photo?" isn't yes, or "Please send us the unedited original in high resolution" cannot be fulfilled, then the image will be deleted.

I'm sure there are complexities, but I have tried to use language and rules such that complexities are minimised, and being the adaptable human I am, I will, of course, change things to adapt as new things arise.