Hi all. I've been blown away by how the A.I software Dall e 2 can make any image possible and when it goes live I just wonder what impacts it will have on the stock photo business. The future looks scary and it's fast approaching. I've always been one to look at the future and evolve my talents to fit. It's going to be kinda hard with Dall e around.
A friend of mine has early access to it and the results are just astonishing. Especially if it's in its infancy. Where this all goes is mind-blowing. Thoughts???

https://openai.com/dall-e-2/?labs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCBEumeXY4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fDJXmqdN-A

This came up before.

I believe it just recombines images that must be first inputted to the database. The photographer of ever component should be getting paid whenever any part of the image is used, same as if a human was Photoshopping together an image.

Also the results are mostly garbage. The YouTube videos cherry-pick stuff to hype it for clicks (or maybe as an ad for the creators).

If you search hard enough you will find actual scientific papers evaluating at it with actual results, they aren�t nearly as impressive.

I beg to differ. A friend of mine has been allowed on the testing list and the results are mind blowing.

The analysis of DALL-E 2 is anything but mind-blowing though:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2204/2204.13807.pdf

"for 5 out of the 14 prompts, at least one of the ten images fully satisfied our requests. On the other hand, on no prompt did all of the ten images satisfy our requests"

Only 5 out of 14 test images providing any satisfying result isn't blowing my mind. Also, if you take a look at the examples in this test: Even if the AI got it right and understood what was supposed to be displayed in the the images, the how is still problematic.
Look at this example of a pumpkin and a tomato. That the AI couldn't understand what was asked of it in most cases is one thing, but does any of these images look like high quality food photgraphy to you? Do you think any of these would have any real sale potential on microstock agencies and this is the kind of quality customers are looking for? Can you imagine images like this being used in an ad for a restaurant?



I think that AI will replace us at some point. Not just us, but a lot of jobs will be replaced by AIs and machines at some point. But I don't think we are quite there yet and won't be for a while.
Just look at all the graphic programs using AI technology, like sky replacement: It has been out there for years, and it's still highly flawed and needs manuall fix up in most cases. If not even something more simple, that has been in development and published for years, is functioning correctly, I don't think we will see high quality AI generated images without flaws for years. Even with Dall e 2 - Has anyone actually seen a zoomed in high resolution full size test image? How many weird flaws will you find then?

I feel maybe we're in a bit of denial or maybe I see the future a little more clearly. Yes, it's not 100% foolproof yet and some results are totally off. But most stock images are simple and if someone can type in exactly what they want and get good results then I don't know why they would spend hrs looking for the right images when they can quickly make an original one using A.I in seconds?

I'd say in the next 5 to 10 years the stock industry will basically be a future version of Dall e. It's a no-brainer. We've just got to think out the box and how we can use this new tech to our advantage.

It most certainly does use pre-existing images and edits/ distorts them to create the new images, just like a person in Photoshop. One giveaway: "OpenAI�s policy prohibits publishing photographic images produced by DALL-E" that show people who might be recognizable" i.e. if the photos composed have recognisable models.

I think that's because you can put famous people in poses or places they never actually were can can be extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Apparently, you cannot create images of harm, abuse, famous people, naked, etc etc.

It is very impressive, but it is using pre-existing images at some point in the creation process.

Photographers and illustrators need to be paid for the use of those images, unless they've been donated.

Inevitably, it'll be like Pinterest and other tech start-ups - steal and never say sorry.

Give it confusing or vague orders and sure it will produce, confusing or wrong results. GIGO Like bad searches that produce bad results, it's the input and vocabulary that communicates what the AI will create.

Tomato and Pumpkin? What the heck is that? I mean you tell me, what it's supposed to mean? A combination, a hybrid? Side my side? Half and half? Tricking AI and then saying it's flawed by giving the input poor definitions, isn't really proving anything.

Maybe you want to take a look at the analysis before commenting on it, then you'd see that the instructions were extremely specific.

I did last time we had this same discussion?

I can't recall having this discussion with anyone before?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 28, 2022, 13:00

I did last time we had this same discussion?

I can't recall having this discussion with anyone before?

Deja Vu all over again? 

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dall-e2-ai-just-killed-stock-photography-and-illustration/msg576187/#msg576187

I would not worry about this too much, at least not for the next 10-20 or so years till the technology is really advanced enough to be really flawless enough to be useful.

I've already seen an AI that generates random realistic faces ( https://generated.photos/faces ) and I have seen a video about an AI that comppletely generates you any kind of realistic looking landscape ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OgthWZ982Y ) and yet it hasn't killed stock photography.

It will all look cool and that in a presentation video, but I don't think it would pass the reality check yet. Take sky replacements in programs like Photoshop or Luminar for example: I don't know about you, but whenever I try them, there are still some flaws that I would need to fix - Luminar for example always replaces the reflections in windows with the sky and has some strange clipping around trees sometimes - and that's just the sky. Imagine how many weird glitches you would have in a completely computer generated image that you would need to fix with some basic design skills. That's more something for designers who knwo their way around a graphic program, but not for the end customer (unless he has really low standartds). 
I think that, yes, one day we will get there and these computer generated "photos" will become a real thing and a threat to stock photographers. But I don't think we are there yet, not for a while.

But still I don't think this is the end to photography or us, and for simple illustrations, as long as it's not too specific or tricky, maybe the AI like DALL-E2 can be useful. I'd want to own it. Just think of all the things I could create. And apparently you can upload and edit your own photos as well.

What Dall-e can and cannot do, some more detailed flaws. But the can part is still pretty stunning to me.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uKp6tBFStnsvrot5t/what-dall-e-2-can-and-cannot-do

I think... you will still have a demand for human work - but it will be different. In some ways it will be going back to the way it was - in that people will want to have an "original" human piece of art... or "Authentic" photos by so & so, etc.

Just like "brad pitt" has made a name for himself - and there are probably 1000's of other actors that are much better than "brad pitt" - people would still want to get their picture with him, etc. So even if the AI (which are actually ALGORITHMS, not "intelligence") got to the point where you could have it script an entire photo realistic looking movie ("technically" possible nowadays with things like blender3D, although a lot of work) - people can still sell their work.

I.e., look at poker. Technically you could have computer algorithms "outplay" pretty much any human - yet - humans still want to play against other humans. So the poker sites work hard on ensuring it is a "human only" thing.

Tech was developed to be used "by" humans. While of course there is a pyscotic element in society (i.e., the pyschos organzing the fakedemic the last 2 years designed to killoff as many ppl as possible to "replace" them with robots) - normal humans still want to interact with normal humans.

So I believe there will still be a demand - just like even though yes - many ppl use digital cameras - there are people who still like using film. It will just be 'different'. And you'll just have to reposition yourself.

It is worth watching, but I doubt it will replace us in the next 10 years.

But it is fun to use, I play with the nightcafe creator.

I think part of the idea is not actually replace us but increase the volume of our work. 10 years ago i barely could do 10 pictures a day with all the steps of cleaning, some rotoscopy, colorize etc... Today with AI in photoshop or LuminarAI and some scripts i can easily do 40 in a day. But if we talk about cleaning for just green screen my personal record is 327 pictures in a day.

In ten years perhaps volume will be so easy to create digitally than a lot of individuals can actually have a personal microstock site store with millions instead of thousands. But for news or documentary stuff i think this will continue shy with no big changes

 

Quote from: Firn on June 28, 2022, 13:09

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 28, 2022, 13:00

I did last time we had this same discussion?

I can't recall having this discussion with anyone before?

Deja Vu all over again? 

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dall-e2-ai-just-killed-stock-photography-and-illustration/msg576187/#msg576187

Quote from: Firn on May 04, 2022, 01:22

I would not worry about this too much, at least not for the next 10-20 or so years till the technology is really advanced enough to be really flawless enough to be useful.

I've already seen an AI that generates random realistic faces ( https://generated.photos/faces ) and I have seen a video about an AI that comppletely generates you any kind of realistic looking landscape ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OgthWZ982Y ) and yet it hasn't killed stock photography.

It will all look cool and that in a presentation video, but I don't think it would pass the reality check yet. Take sky replacements in programs like Photoshop or Luminar for example: I don't know about you, but whenever I try them, there are still some flaws that I would need to fix - Luminar for example always replaces the reflections in windows with the sky and has some strange clipping around trees sometimes - and that's just the sky. Imagine how many weird glitches you would have in a completely computer generated image that you would need to fix with some basic design skills. That's more something for designers who knwo their way around a graphic program, but not for the end customer (unless he has really low standartds). 
I think that, yes, one day we will get there and these computer generated "photos" will become a real thing and a threat to stock photographers. But I don't think we are there yet, not for a while.

But still I don't think this is the end to photography or us, and for simple illustrations, as long as it's not too specific or tricky, maybe the AI like DALL-E2 can be useful. I'd want to own it. Just think of all the things I could create. And apparently you can upload and edit your own photos as well.

What Dall-e can and cannot do, some more detailed flaws. But the can part is still pretty stunning to me.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uKp6tBFStnsvrot5t/what-dall-e-2-can-and-cannot-do

I searched for a Dall e2 thread before posting this but the search didn't show anything. Weird, I'd have just voiced my opinions on the original. Maybe I needed to add the -?