Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

Can we talk about photography?

How things have changed over the years, and now AI

         

explorador

1:25 pm on Jan 19, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Hi webmasters, I don't know how much the "specifics" rules would apply to this. Can we talk about photography? shall we? photography forums have changed a lot, and basically, some are just repetitive questions of what camera to buy, while others are almost desert, or keeping just the same 10-20 forum members who have become bitter, talk about the same boring things, private jokes, and even push new forum members away. I'm really surprised on how old photo forums changed (or died).

We have talked about writing, but pictures are an important part of content creation. Sometimes requiring WAY more effort. How? you can write about places you never been to, but a picture is what changes the game.

Photography basically made me begin my journey in the web world. Things were very differently then, cameras used film and you had to have some knowledge to make things work decently (image composition aside). I was still around when selling just one picture could make your monthly salary if you were good, and for some time I was absolutely shocked on what a single image (or a set) could represent in earnings, as I sold several of my pictures; then moved to stock photography. To me, that chapter meant discovery and exploration more than earnings... but good thing I didn't get used to it! because things were about to change radically.

Soon, stock photography became a thing, and I managed to adapt to this. Yet, you could feel film was falling behind and the digital stuff was changing the world, sure, I adapted pretty well. But images generally became cheap, and also generic. I saw people falling down to never recover. Getty Images and similar services killed a lot of businesses and hurt many photographers; free communities to monetize pictures also changed their policies facilitating free stuff instead of earnings via promotion; flickr was a game changer!, as you would easily find people traveling sharing their pictures stating "you can use them for free". And if that change wasn't enough, the proliferation of the cell phone cameras changed things even more.

I also witnessed pictures being stolen, or used with other people credits (appropriation), both things happened to me. I've seen how over the years people have created this idea that content should be free of use somehow. Texts can be edited, but images are harder to change for appropriation. And now, AI has been trained with pictures available all over the web (yours and mine), while also offering the users the chance to "build" new images based on their requests, no need for a photographer anymore.

I've created all the content for my websites, I have written all the articles (except for guest articles), and all the images fit this too, as I've been the one shooting the pics or making the illustrations. Now? I see tons of websites using other people images, some provide the authors credit, some do so only with a weird link (shortened and with a redirect), some won't include anything.

What's your story? can you share your journey around this context? what's your view for the future? I'm seeing more opportunities shooting for clients by request than creating content. Share your opinions.

not2easy

2:35 pm on Jan 19, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I've been in the background of the same journey, I like photography but have never considered any commercial work, it is the image creation and sharing I enjoy. My husband is a professional photographer and has found several open and sharing groups on FaceBook. These are creative groups that share techniques along with innovative ideas and DIY equipment. We're currently in the process of building a full frame wooden box camera in fact. Nearing completion of it. He wanted it to work with some old carbon-gel handmade printing techniques.

Watermarks integrated into images is about all a person can do, it would take up all your time trying to find all use of any given image anywhere. Yes, AI has trained on all images and can let folks 'create' their own but the AI images cannot be copyrighted. This has made clients prefer paying for specific images that can be copyrighted for their brands and protected to some degree.

tangor

7:12 pm on Jan 19, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I like images as much as the next person. I also know that images will be stolen. So, I keep the images limited to one (or three) per document, usually one. Always provide attribution if it is a third party image. Also tell folks the images can be used elsewhere, but only if they host them for themselves. Piggy backing on my bandwidth will get you blocked (or served an image you might not want!).

thecoalman

3:29 am on Jan 20, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I would imagine the problem today for photographers is the technology to take great photos cheaply is in the hands of just about everyone. Someone with poor technical skills can take great photos if they have the eye for it. In the SLR days you needed those technical skills first or a boat load of cash. Today you can evolve those technical skills for free if you want to invest the time. .

tangor

5:26 am on Jan 22, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



At this point and time everybody with a cell phone has "good enough" technology to take photos---AND be in the middle of current events to capture same.

All too often something bad is happening and all the "witnesses" are too busy recording or taking snaps.

Then rush to put on the web, sell to the rags, or get famous for 15 seconds on FB...

But real art, that still remains, even in photography, and what has happened is a conglomerate of sites have staked out the territory for avarice and few can break into that captive conclave by having pockets deep enough to hire attorneys to protect their intellectual property/skill.

thecoalman

6:21 am on Jan 22, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month




But real art, that still remains, even in photography,


I get that, I was at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison last fall. It was one of those days with those white puffy clouds. There was a man there with one of those older type cameras on a tripod with one shot. I struck up a conversation with him and he was explaining what he was doing. He was showing me on the rock face the shadows and he was hoping for the sun to peak out at this specific point. So he has this one or two minute window to get this photo. The clouds didn't cooperate and he packed his stuff up and left. Now that's some dedication.

Kendo

12:00 am on Jan 23, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



But real art, that still remains, even in photography


Ah! But try to define it and then distinguish which are art and which are only handcraft.

I recently saw a video posted on a friend's pottery page depicting a couple of kids mass producing small sauce dishes. Now my fiend's work is top class and well sought after for its design and uniqueness is currently exhibiting. But where is the difference between her one-off pieces and those mass produced by professionals who produce similar items so effortlessly?

I have seen this in all fields... while as a printing apprentice mass producing cardboard cutouts of Campbell soups for store display, a pop artist in the US was exhibiting very amateur looking screen prints of the same soup cans. They called that art even though the standard was amateur!

Many years later we hosted what was the very first International Art Contest online and when the contestants realised that they could not cheat by mass voting for themselves, it earned everyone's respect. It ran for many years and was most unique in that the winning entries were decided by the artist's themselves. However it was interesting to note that each artist had a different ideal of what "art" should be, ranging in mastery of techniques, uniqueness of technique, composition, originality and of course the influence of their own roots.

We catered for the categories of realism, modern art and sculpture. Sculpture grew to accept the assembly of "found things" and Digital Art was later included but went the way of photography enhanced by filters. Even Realism painting became so life like that it was difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between photography.

We had a lot of requests to have Photography included as an art category, but who can tell the difference between a fortunate snap shot and art? And before anyone tries to answer that... one day I had about 20 professional photographers on my boat, including the President of their association, and none of then could tell the difference. Oh sure, they all waffled on about this and that, but at the end of the day they all agreed that the only thing that makes a difference to their success and how much they earn is who they know and how vigorously they canvas the ad agencies.

But yes, mobile phones now take better photographs than the traditional cameras, while automatically adjusting the light to remove hotspots and flares... and with high resolution. The only trick is in holding it still :-)

Mark_A

8:41 am on Jan 23, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I do some photography myself.

We also use professionals.

Occasionally we use a smartphone pic.

The rise of free to use stock photography agencies has been a surprise for me.

engine

10:51 am on Jan 23, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



AI is becoming a new aspect of imagery for certain applications, although, much of it is still inadequate, imho.

In the past we'd use professional photographers all the time for brochures and magazines: It was always a much better result.

The professionals are able to follow a brief and create a technically better result.

There's a difference between taking snapshots on a mobile phone, and an artistic, and technically superior image. Most people are snappers, even though the phone is now far superior to that of even a few years ago. Learning to take a good picture takes skill and training, and understanding many aspects at what makes a good picture, such as lighting and composition. You don't need the most advanced equipment if you know what you're doing.

As for the future, you can't beat a great photo, it's just that many people don't appreciate it, imho.

Mark_A

1:06 pm on Jan 23, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I agree @engine, well worth getting a decent image for an article.
I know someone who swears by an advertising photographer who can make an impactful image from the most mundane items :)

engine

2:05 pm on Jan 23, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I know someone who swears by an advertising photographer who can make an impactful image from the most mundane items :)


Make that two people you know. :)

tangor

12:48 am on Jan 24, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



All in all, it is the image produced and how it is viewed/used that is important. Can be serendipity, can be planning and training. It's all about the content/intent. :)

Returning to OP's observations, however, I believe the rise of the cell phone with decent to often astonishing capability, has changed the landscape of the niche, providing Billy Bob and Bobby Sue with the "technical tools" to produce images better than a Kodak Brownie consistently, frequently, nearly always at "a professional level".

(Sitting on a pile of film cameras obtained and used over 55 years, multi-thousands of dollars, a dismantled dark room, properly disposed of odious chemicals, etc)

I miss the old days. Sigh.

Mark_A

11:30 am on Jan 24, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



@engine
Make that two people you know. :)


There definitely is a skill, which I have only partly got, I need to be more creative. :)

explorador

4:07 pm on Jan 24, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



In the past you could easily get some respect, and this is a key aspect in the thread. You would invest: a camera, lights, flash, backgrounds, tripod, etc. And it was deeper if you used film, because a good picture can end up ruined on development. Anyway you could get an assistant for a photoshoot and earn money via your work and impression/perception, and your assistant would learn too while doing some work for you. Yeah, you would look great holding the camera and adjusting the zoom while your assistant helped you with something. This changed (and so the perception), because today in many photoshoots if you hire an assistant, it will take a few minutes for this person to say "hey, this looks easy, anyone can do it!, and all I need is a smartphone". And it gets worse, because a client might not see you doing gymnastics with the camera and then will think "hey, this looks way cheaper than what I'm paying, in fact... I think I could do it myself!". I think the world is getting a lot of trash via stuff people buy and then don't use because things aren't as easy as they thought.

@thecoalman, yes. Simple fact: in the past, not anyone could buy a decent or professional camera because they were very expensive and require commitment, learning and adopting technical skills to make something out of them. This kept some people out of the market and competition; but in a positive way, it served as a filter, because only people willing to get trained or train themselves and invest time would really get involved. In contrast, today anyone can buy a device that has an interpreting chip (AI sort of) improving the image for them, but also, almost anyone has that technology dormant, stored, or even an expensive camera without any use because "why". People can buy expensive things today anytime, even based on debt regardless of using the gear or not.

@tangor: exactly, anyone can "do it", but art remains as something not anyone can do. You can easily find people with 500 pictures of a wedding on the SD card, but this doesn't mean they would even print 15 of them, printing is not just "old fashioned", it's still expensive (for real), and most pictures don't deserve to be printed.

explorador

4:13 pm on Jan 24, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Mark_A: I know someone who swears by an advertising photographer who can make an impactful image from the most mundane items :)

This can be just bragging about something unrealistic, or it can be an absolute fact. An skilled photographer can find ways to make simple objects look cool, great, or even to become key parts of a composition (even as enlarged backgrounds).

Sometimes on the streets I see people taking selfies or just pics with their kids, in those cases I often offer myself so they can appear on the picture along with their relatives. I shoot the pic where they were standing, and then I say "allow me another one", and I do my thing, changing the composition, moving around, etc. I leave, they say thanks, and then while I'm leaving I hear "wow, this is so cool!". Why? because it's not just the camera: it's also the photographer. There was a video on YT (sorry couldn't find it for sharing) where a professional photographer went out to parks to do this exactly on purpose, he would help people with their pictures just casually, and only after they checked the picture and expressed their surprise he would explain with a smile "yeah, I'm a professional photographer". Cameras can be like swords.

tangor: however, I believe the rise of the cell phone with decent to often astonishing capability, has changed the landscape of the niche, providing Billy Bob and Bobby Sue with the "technical tools" to produce images better than a Kodak Brownie consistently, frequently, nearly always at "a professional level". (Sitting on a pile of film cameras obtained and used over 55 years, multi-thousands of dollars, a dismantled dark room, properly disposed of odious chemicals, etc)

I miss the old days. Sigh.
Yeah, I miss those days too, and yes, you are right. I think photography has been compromised :( because any Billy Bob and Bobby sue "can do it" sort of. The next frontier is VIDEO, because it demands more from the one behind the camera and the one doing the editing. I think there is good market share for this.

tangor

5:18 am on Jan 25, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Meanwhile, I do digital (not cell phones: don't have one, won't own one!).

These days it is a little Fuji "dslr" 35-70mm, macro, auto this and that and manual settings, does just fine for "in the work flow" imaging to illustrate articles and presentations. Had a much more expensive (and cantankerous) Nikon dslr that gave me too many formats, image sizes, extra "stuff" that I eventually traded with a buddy for his 1972 Les Paul Cherry Sunburst guitar and case. Both of us felt like we made out like bandits ... but the truth is, on my side:

There's only so many formats useful for the web, and a limited number of "maximum" resolution sizes that can be done! As long as I have flash floods and fills the little Fuji does everything I need---on the web and beyond.

Mark_A

8:45 am on Jan 26, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I remember a story about a product photographer who worked at home with a couple of lights and backgrounds he created. When clients visited he would book a studio, lights, and would shoot an expensive camera in front of the customer - to impress. When the client had gone he returned to shooting at home, the client was none the wiser.

engine

10:16 am on Jan 26, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



When clients visited he would book a studio, lights, and would shoot an expensive camera in front of the customer

That's deception, and perhaps was reflected in high prices. Awful. I'd like to think that is quite rare.

At one stage I was commissioning many hundreds of shots per year and used different photographers with different abilities. Some were great at "people pictures" and others were great at photographing products. Some of these images were for magazine front covers. It was a busy time.
The Web came along, with digital cameras and everyone thought they were photographers. The vast majority of the shots were poor composition, very bad lighting, and just unusable. I spent a great deal of time trying to explain that a professional photographer produces much better results. It was quite tiresome having to do that most of the time.

I appreciate the value in using a professional photographer.

tangor

5:24 am on Jan 27, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



That's deception, and perhaps was reflected in high prices. Awful. I'd like to think that is quite rare.


Actually, that seems rather common these days with every Tom, Dick and Harry promoting themselves as "professional".

The proof is in the pudding: LOOK AT THE IMAGE RESULTS to make that determination!

I might use professional techniques and training, but I have never claimed to be a professional photographer: because I ain't: webmaster! :)

explorador

2:41 pm on Jan 27, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Mark_A +: I remember a story about a product photographer who worked at home with a couple of lights and backgrounds he created. When clients visited he would book a studio, lights, and would shoot an expensive camera in front of the customer - to impress. When the client had gone he returned to shooting at home, the client was none the wiser.
So true, I know about these things and I can't say "it works", the right expression is "that's they way it works for some people/clients", the problem consist on the fact that some people (clients), at certain stages can't look at the son, but instead they keep looking to the finger pointing to the sun (it can be a pen, or pencil).

As someone with years of background in photography I can't stress enough how true this is (and sometimes sad). It's like a thread I opened here about clients failing to value a software solution because in their head they been hearing "NodeJS + React + SOAP + headless", and it doesn't matter how much you tell them a set of scripts made on PHP do the job, even if you prove it, no no no, they keep thinking about AWS + microservices + REACT, etc. They will even tell you "I think I need React so the website achieves high rankings on search engines", wow, it's such an expression of ignorance!

engine: That's (1) deception, and perhaps was (2) reflected in high prices. Awful. I'd like to think that is quite rare.
(1) Yes and NO, it depends, it can be the case, but... not so fast cowboy!; (2) again, yes and no, it depends. Some people charge things they don't even use, things they show only to impact the clients, but others charge THE RESULTS.

On some professions like drawing and painting, in front of the clients: it's about the skills. But on other professions like security, self defense, and technology (and others), sadly, some clients will judge even your shoes, or the tablet you use to show your portfolio during a meeting. In some cases (I disagree with this, but can't disagree with aligning to their perception) you just have to understand the client interpretation and adapt, because in their heads what you OWN represents a measure of your knowledge and success.

Photography: on a discussion exactly about this (gear), I proposed to debate these issues, and sure, you can buy a VERY expensive camera let's say US$1,200, but if it looks like a pocket camera and the client can't recognize it as the latest tech, the client will tend to believe you are in fact using a CHEAP pocket camera, and many will judge you for this. So, sometimes you need to use cameras that not only do the job, but also impact the client perception. This was discussed on a photography forum. You know, there is a reason why on action films martial artist move as if they were dancing, or channeling earth gravity field before a punch, instead of just punching. It's what some people understand.

Graphic design: this is a sad experience. During some specific tasks at some big company they decided to hire an external graphic designer for some project, and it was very sad to see how the board was impacted and PREFERRED to hire designers who looked like characters from a film, they looked crazy, dirty, hipster, and their whole look was a made up character. You don't understand this the first time, you get it when you see the trend. They were not interested on hiring very capable designers who looked clean and neat, or looked like a coder, or writer. They needed to see colors on their outfits, weird shoes, long hair, etc.

Nobody has to agree or disagree with this, it's just how some people work.

engine

2:33 pm on Feb 12, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I'm starting to see lots more AI-generated images, and it's difficult to judge whether that is taking business away from a photographer, or whether the publisher would be taking images themselves. Some are quite obvious, and most are obfuscated by being thumbnails.

tangor

5:03 pm on Feb 12, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



More frequently we see that AI generated images can't be copyrighted. If this continues to grow it will both cheapen the value of images, or drive up the cost of HUMAN images to astronomical prices!

Mark_A

3:55 pm on Feb 13, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I haven't yet had a play with AI images.
What I have seen is interesting, but I enjoy photography so I can't see me putting my camera away just yet.

thecoalman

11:48 pm on Feb 14, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



This kept some people out of the market and competition; but in a positive way, it served as a filter, because only people willing to get trained or train themselves and invest time would really get involved.


That's a two way filter. I knew someone that went to school for photography and she understood how to use a camera quite well. Unless she was doing portraits her pictures were horrible because she had no artistic talent. On the opposite side one of my old GF's took phenomenal pictures and she did it with a half decent point and shoot.

tangor

1:48 am on Feb 15, 2024 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



All of us know these differences ... yet, it is pretty simple:

Artists CAN be technically trained but if they have a lousy eye or vision junk will be produced.

Some folks just have a knack for being in the right place, right time, right lighting, right frame fill and right instant on pressing the shutter.

I just look at the results. It is the image that counts, not all the stuff used to produce it. The image.

That said, MOST folks can take relatively good pics these days since the devices used are that much better than the old days, more inexpensive (mostly), and have assisting algos that provide quite a bit of assistance. In that case it is having the eye to frame properly and get 'er done.

COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish and will never be confused with "art", "news", "action", "nature", "family", "human", or "scientific." It is a breed apart and what most webmasters with ecommerce rely on to sell their wares.