Jump to content
cpaulfell

Maths, Algorithms and the future of photography

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cpaulfell said:

I made up the title to this thread, but I think this article is non the less very interesting...

Scientists Create An Algorithm That Removes Color Distortion From Underwater Photos

https://www.boredpanda.com/before-after-underwater-algorithm-photo/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

 

And... A company called Icons8 has just released “a massive free resource of 100k faces generated from scratch” using an AI algorithm trained on tens of thousands of real-life portraits. The resulting headshots can be used by anybody, royalty free, without worrying about model releases or other stock photo issues, since a fake person can’t exactly sue you.

https://generated.photos/

Before anyone gets interested, not for commercial use, and if you look through them, people have holes in their face, hands growing out of their head, deformed heads or faces. But besides all that, there are some pretty amazing fake people there.

That's much worse than doing color corrections? 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

And... A company called Icons8 has just released “a massive free resource of 100k faces generated from scratch” using an AI algorithm trained on tens of thousands of real-life portraits. The resulting headshots can be used by anybody, royalty free, without worrying about model releases or other stock photo issues, since a fake person can’t exactly sue you.

https://generated.photos/

Before anyone gets interested, not for commercial use, and if you look through them, people have holes in their face, hands growing out of their head, deformed heads or faces. But besides all that, there are some pretty amazing fake people there.

That's much worse than doing color corrections? 😉

And there the model industry has just been put out of business too.

Checkout Microsoft's drawing bot https://drawingbot.azurewebsites.net/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, cpaulfell said:

The world is going to experience "future shock" like never seen or imagined before.

Yet supposedly some 60% or so of the World's population never made a phone call in their life! How is that possible? Dunno. Don't ask me. But there were "statistics" like that kicking around a few years ago. Have not checked if there is any truth to it I must admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Istvan Balogh said:

Yet supposedly some 60% or so of the World's population never made a phone call in their life! How is that possible? Dunno. Don't ask me. But there were "statistics" like that kicking around a few years ago. Have not checked if there is any truth to it I must admit.

Someone misplaced a decimal point, that's how shocking facts like this get repeated on the web. 🙂

Majority of these people are too young and don't understand what a phone is. Out of the remaining, a lot of people live in very poor countries and can't afford a phone. Some of these people are old and can't use a phone. So the percentage of people who have never made or received a telephone call will be about 6.5-7% of the world population.

2 hours ago, cpaulfell said:

I think it is probably much less than that.

So do I. 😎

We used to play live trivia, for prizes, actually an excuse to get together, drinks and socialize, but anyway (no phones or tablets, books, notes Etc. allowed, only human brains) One of the questions was shocking, something like, when you sneeze your car travels the length of a football field. I said, that's wrong, misplaced decimal point error. At 60MPH the car is traveling 88 feet per second. Your eyes aren't closed for over 4 seconds! The guy running it showed me some last page interesting facts in Time Magazine.

Just shows that no one  proof reading and no editor had the sense or science background, which not much is needed, to know that the interesting fact was in fact, wrong.

Unless of course, someone does close their eyes for 4 seconds when they sneeze, I don't?

Ever look for something on the Internet and find one page copies another, and that one copies the first and soon, there are many pages, with the same wrong information, being copied and repeated, without any one of them questioning or doing some self research or trying to look at the factoid, logically? Thus the current situation, The Internet is an infinite echo chamber of Disinformation.

just-one-more-thing.jpg

Forums are on the Internet...

popcorn2.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpaulfell said:

I think it is probably much less than that.

All right. Thanks for the clarification. I can live with the 6.5 to 7%. Still shockingly high. But how about this?? And again, I didn't go to India and knocked on a billion doors to verify this either, but I seem to recall seeing some ducumentary on National Geography that some 40% (!) of households in India don't have electricity! If I am not mistaken (saw it years ago) Morgan Freeman was narrating it and he was traveling around to remote parts of the "peninsula". If that's not shocking, than what is? In other words I am not overly "optimistic" that starting tomorrow robots will steal all the jobs from us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:

Ever look for something on the Internet and find one page copies another, and that one copies the first and soon, there are many pages, with the same wrong information, being copied and repeated, without any one of them questioning or doing some self research or trying to look at the factoid, logically?

Can we all say....."Fake News"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 10:54 PM, cpaulfell said:

And there the model industry has just been put out of business too.

Checkout Microsoft's drawing bot https://drawingbot.azurewebsites.net/

 

Been running since yesterday and it still says, processing final art. Has anyone actually seen one made, or is this just a dead end?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it dependa on many variables like countries. There are countries were wedding is something really special and people still want the best photographer. The demand  is still high. And related to the AI. Many shops implemented self cashiers, but these are empty usually. People still tend to stay in que at least what I see in country I am living now. The time will show :), but I am not that skeptic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 9:38 AM, balajisrinivasan said:

That's true. First of all, there are too many photographers with good equipment who know how to take great images. It[s no longer a matter of know how. If you know the basics of the exposure triangle, the cameras are so advanced these days that they'll do the work for you.

there are too many photographers with good equipment who know how to take great images

Being OK is one thing, being very good is another thing. Not so many photographers are very good, it takes time and dedication

the cameras are so advanced these days that they'll do the work for you

Modern cameras help a lot to get a correct exposure and sharp photos, yes. Cameras don't help with composition, creative exposure, creative post processing. Cameras don't wake you up at 4 in the morning, don't ride you to this special spot to take this amazing sunrise, don't tell you at what time of the day will the light be perfect for that location, don't create original concepts to shoot and don't do the myriad of other things it takes to get a fantastic photo. I hate when people tell you that "your photo is amazing, you must have a great camera". Camera is only a small part of the equation. An important one indeed, but at the end of the day it's just a tool. The camera does not take the shot, the photographer does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ackab Photography said:

Being OK is one thing, being very good is another thing. Not so many photographers are very good, it takes time and dedication

Modern cameras help a lot to get a correct exposure and sharp photos, yes. Cameras don't help with composition, creative exposure, creative post processing. Cameras don't wake you up at 4 in the morning, don't ride you to this special spot to take this amazing sunrise, don't tell you at what time of the day will the light be perfect for that location, don't create original concepts to shoot and don't do the myriad of other things it takes to get a fantastic photo.

Still won't put food on the table.

We're talking about making a living as a photographer, not actually being a great photographer, which are two very different things. There are plenty of OK/bad photographers who make a lot more money than good/great photographers just like how bad films make more money at the box office than the great ones. And the ease with which you can take pictures today as opposed to the film/early digital era certainly has a lot to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Still won't put food on the table.

We're talking about making a living as a photographer, not actually being a great photographer, which are two very different things. There are plenty of OK/bad photographers who make a lot more money than good/great photographers just like how bad films make more money at the box office than the great ones. And the ease with which you can take pictures today as opposed to the film/early digital era certainly has a lot to do with that.

Totally agree

I have spoken to photographers in the past,  who make a living selling their work in galleries and exhibitions,  who have told me that they go round with their cameras set on full auto mode.

The reason for their success,  in my opinion,  is what they may lack in technical skills,  they more than make up for in composition and concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Still won't put food on the table.

We're talking about making a living as a photographer, not actually being a great photographer, which are two very different things. There are plenty of OK/bad photographers who make a lot more money than good/great photographers just like how bad films make more money at the box office than the great ones. And the ease with which you can take pictures today as opposed to the film/early digital era certainly has a lot to do with that.

I have to disagree. I think Ackab Photography has it right. The more I look at truly successful photographers (financially) whether it is fine art, microstock, commercial, wedding, portrait, real estate, you name it - the underlying thread I see in all of their work is their unique stamp. Call it whatever you want, style, voice, infusion of personality, whatever - there is always that certain sometimes intangible something that sets the work apart from the technically perfect snapshots today's cameras are more than capable of.  If putting food on the table solely from photography is the objective, then I think that with the advent of such readily accessible technology to be able to actually make a living with photography the photographers game has to be elevated well beyond what cameras can achieve on their own. Personally I don't know any bad photographers who are making a living with photography any more. Even "OK" photographers are hearing a lot more "No thanks, we have someone in the office who shoots all of our stuff."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Foodio said:

I have to disagree. I think Ackab Photography has it right. The more I look at truly successful photographers (financially) whether it is fine art, microstock, commercial, wedding, portrait, real estate, you name it - the underlying thread I see in all of their work is their unique stamp. Call it whatever you want, style, voice, infusion of personality, whatever - there is always that certain sometimes intangible something that sets the work apart from the technically perfect snapshots today's cameras are more than capable of.  If putting food on the table solely from photography is the objective, then I think that with the advent of such readily accessible technology to be able to actually make a living with photography the photographers game has to be elevated well beyond what cameras can achieve on their own. Personally I don't know any bad photographers who are making a living with photography any more. Even "OK" photographers are hearing a lot more "No thanks, we have someone in the office who shoots all of our stuff."

Good points, well argued. But I guess we're now getting into the very subjective topic of what constitutes good or bad photography and might have to agree to disagree. I, for one, can't stand over half the photography youtubers I've seen, a lot of whom earn serious money and give terrible advice on their channels. And then there are the instagram influencers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Good points, well argued. But I guess we're now getting into the very subjective topic of what constitutes good or bad photography and might have to agree to disagree. I, for one, can't stand over half the photography youtubers I've seen, a lot of whom earn serious money and give terrible advice on their channels. And then there are the instagram influencers...

Your points also taken. And I agree about quite a few of the so called social media influencers...but the question is are they making money as photographers or rather from the business of photography? Selling presets or luts and garnering ad revenue from channel monetization as opposed to selling their actual photographs or photographic services? I think there is a distinction there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the "making a living" chestnut again.

Anyone want to define "making a living" in actual monetary terms?   I have spoken to people who have defined "making a living"  as more than £15,000 ($23000).  My entire income (and no it is not all from photography) is less than £12,000 ($15,505).  I have adequate food, clothing, shelter.  I have much better than adequate actually. So if a person is making say £13,000 ($16,800) a year from photography are they making a living?

Maybe to many people on here the answer is no - and this is evidence that "you can no longer make a living from photograph".  However to many others, including myself, it is a living.  I am in the UK which is a developed country - those coming from developing countries are going to consider even less money "making a living". 

So how about we stop making the statement "people will no longer be able to make a living from photography" and change it to "people will not be able to earn the amount of money they want to from photography" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:


Maybe to many people on here the answer is no - and this is evidence that "you can no longer make a living from photograph".  However to many others, including myself, it is a living.  I am in the UK which is a developed country - those coming from developing countries are going to consider even less money "making a living". 
 

By "making a living", I meant basic needs, food, shelter, clothing, not profit, overheads or business. I am from a "developing country" (India, if you're curious) and have worked in the film/television industry here for close to 20 years (thankfully as a video editor and not a photographer). Yes, it is not as expensive here as it is in the first world. But it's not easier because you get paid significantly less amount of money for gigs and you have tens of millions of photographers to compete with (I'm not exaggerating). I know the photography industry here very well and know plenty of photographers because of my close association with TV/news/media. I know for a fact that many of them struggle to make ends meet and by that, I mean, paying rent and sending kids to school. Many of them who had a thriving business working in a studio until the early 00s have had to shut shop because it is just not viable anymore. Work, too, is hard to come by because, with every year, the no. of "photographers" grows exponentially and the no. of clients shrinks (because, like I said before, more people think they don't need pro photographers than ever before). So, yeah, the smart ones jumped ship and began doing other things to make money (video, television, workshops, online courses etc.) because with every passing year, photography pays less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

Ah the "making a living" chestnut again.

Anyone want to define "making a living" in actual monetary terms?   I have spoken to people who have defined "making a living"  as more than £15,000 ($23000).  My entire income (and no it is not all from photography) is less than £12,000 ($15,505).  I have adequate food, clothing, shelter.  I have much better than adequate actually. So if a person is making say £13,000 ($16,800) a year from photography are they making a living?

Maybe to many people on here the answer is no - and this is evidence that "you can no longer make a living from photograph".  However to many others, including myself, it is a living.  I am in the UK which is a developed country - those coming from developing countries are going to consider even less money "making a living". 

So how about we stop making the statement "people will no longer be able to make a living from photography" and change it to "people will not be able to earn the amount of money they want to from photography" 

Obviously we all have our own concept of what making a living means. I think what we are discussing is making a living solely from photography for which my own definition happens to be at minimum paying all of the bills associated with my daily life. Obviously too my cost of living will not be the same or perhaps even remotely similar to others so if you are looking for a hard and fast one size fits all figure then I doubt you will find one.

I know I will never earn the amount of money I want from photography because what my daily life looks like will inevitably change based on my income. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 6:16 PM, HodagMedia said:

Been running since yesterday and it still says, processing final art. Has anyone actually seen one made, or is this just a dead end?

 

Ha and I thought it was just me with my connections in the sandpit 😂🤣😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

By "making a living", I meant basic needs, food, shelter, clothing, not profit, overheads or business. I am from a "developing country" (India, if you're curious) and have worked in the film/television industry here for close to 20 years (thankfully as a video editor and not a photographer). Yes, it is not as expensive here as it is in the first world. But it's not easier because you get paid significantly less amount of money for gigs and you have tens of millions of photographers to compete with (I'm not exaggerating). I know the photography industry here very well and know plenty of photographers because of my close association with TV/news/media. I know for a fact that many of them struggle to make ends meet and by that, I mean, paying rent and sending kids to school. Many of them who had a thriving business working in a studio until the early 00s have had to shut shop because it is just not viable anymore. Work, too, is hard to come by because, with every year, the no. of "photographers" grows exponentially and the no. of clients shrinks (because, like I said before, more people think they don't need pro photographers than ever before). So, yeah, the smart ones jumped ship and began doing other things to make money (video, television, workshops, online courses etc.) because with every passing year, photography pays less.

It still comes down to "not as much money as before".  I know I sound bloody harsh - but the thing is slightly over 15 years ago life threw me a banana skin in the form of buggered health.  I have had no alternative but to learn to live with less.  I had to learn the hard way that actually it is possible to live - and be happy - on amounts previously considered impossible.  According to "ologists" I am now "officially below the poverty line".  Yet I get people bemoaning about how they cannot possibly afford to live on double what I do.  Much, much more importantly is the fact that my "poverty" (I refuse to accept the description by the way)  is a standard of living way beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of worlds population.

"Making a Living" comes up so often on microstock sites - where the work of someone from the poorest country is priced and paid the same as that of someone from the richest country.  People talk about "paying the bills of daily life"  but I look at it differently.  4 sales a day is more money than the poorest people get paid doing the multitude of sweatshop jobs that exist.  They do those sweatshop jobs and stay alive - they manage to get the essentials.   I can already hear the buts - but sweatshop is illegal, but that is not living, but its a shorter life expectancy but, but, but.....  All I am trying to do is point out that while people worry about not being able to maintain their current standard of life is the same as being unable to make a living there are a damn site more people dreaming of making half the income they are worried about.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

By "making a living", I meant basic needs, food, shelter, clothing, not profit, overheads or business. I am from a "developing country" (India, if you're curious) and have worked in the film/television industry here for close to 20 years (thankfully as a video editor and not a photographer). Yes, it is not as expensive here as it is in the first world. But it's not easier because you get paid significantly less amount of money for gigs and you have tens of millions of photographers to compete with

It's the same where I live. The digital revolution pulled the rug from under our industry, because the point of entry got lowered so much. When I got started in this business, a professional video camera set you back $30,000, and building an edit bay cost a small fortune. Projects were priced accordingly, and one could make a very decent living at this. Then things went digital. $150,000 editing bays got replaced by a single computer and some software, and folks started shooting on DSLRs. Suddenly anyone with a few thousand bucks to spend (or generous parents) was in the business - and competition has grown exponentially. Because of all this, the rates for video production have gone DOWN, because we are all fighting over a slice of the same pie. Meanwhile the price for everyday living has gone way UP. The result is a squeeze that makes people lower their rates even more to at least get some work, and the downwards spiral continues. Worse yet, some folks do it for free, because it's so much fun! (Kind of reminds me of the state of the microstock business, actually.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...