MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DALL-E2 AI just killed stock photography and illustration  (Read 974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 03, 2022, 11:16 »
+5
We sorta saw this coming but not so soon and not so refined. This changes EVERYTHING. Game over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1cF9QCu1rQ


« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2022, 11:21 »
+1
This looks pretty cool, more than photographers I'm guessing this is also scaring a ton of graphic designers

« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2022, 11:55 »
+2
I'm guessing this is also scaring a ton of graphic designers

Nope. Not even a little.

« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2022, 12:52 »
+3
Won't really work so well in the real world. As someone who does commission work, most of the time the client only has a vague idea of what they want. It's the job of the designer team to come up with a concept which gets refined over weeks before you have final illustration that goes live. I see no scope for refinement with the AI here. And any team would need a ton of stock photography/illustrations to run through their ideas. That way, the free stock sites are a far bigger threat to photographers and illustrators than the AI.

Maybe the only real use I see for this is as a starting point for something you could work on. Otherwise, designing any ad campaign is a whole lot more complex than just typing in a few letters and coming up with an image.

« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2022, 13:05 »
0
i have the feeling these "ai" is using google images and other sources and combining these somehow. we had this before where faces were "generated" by ai. but as far as i understood, these generated from real life photos token for this project and then combined to a new image. i would feel proud to have a real ai in this world, but i expect a complex script that combines from existing images again, sadly. Someone teach me the opposite, iam sceptical.  ???

« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2022, 15:28 »
0
We sorta saw this coming but not so soon and not so refined. This changes EVERYTHING. Game over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1cF9QCu1rQ
Do not panic, nothing can replace human factor, only improvise us at this moment.We are not technology.And I am sure we never will.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2022, 16:06 »
+3
These look like they're generated from parts of existing photos. Possible infringement problems? I do agree this eventually will partially, but not totally, replace the need for photographers to produce stock photos. Then these stock companies will just license the AI and create their own images to bypass paying people.

ETA: I watched the full video. How else would it create something with Mona Lisa, Gollum, or Pinkachu without using an existing image of them? They claim to have safeguards from using things such as political figures. What about copyright? They had to have used bits of existing photos for eyeballs, cookies, etc. 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2022, 16:46 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2022, 16:19 »
+1
I dont see it replacing graphic designers just yet. But it would be a great tool for ideation. Pretty cool.

wds

« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2022, 17:52 »
+1
These look like they're generated from parts of existing photos. Possible infringement problems? I do agree this eventually will partially, but not totally, replace the need for photographers to produce stock photos. Then these stock companies will just license the AI and create their own images to bypass paying people.

ETA: I watched the full video. How else would it create something with Mona Lisa, Gollum, or Pinkachu without using an existing image of them? They claim to have safeguards from using things such as political figures. What about copyright? They had to have used bits of existing photos for eyeballs, cookies, etc.

Forget the "stock companies", if this works why would anybody need them at all?

« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2022, 18:15 »
0
Because the "stock companies" will somehow have monopoly on "this".

« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2022, 01:22 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2022, 01:26 by Firn »

« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2022, 05:52 »
0
Mind blowing . Possibilities are endless. This will kill cheap stock photography like we see on micro sites in less than 10 years. Absolutely sure about that. :o

« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2022, 06:32 »
+1
Surely its manipulating and combining existing images into new ones? Its not generating images from scratch and those starting images have to come from somewhere.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2022, 06:44 »
+1
These look like they're generated from parts of existing photos. Possible infringement problems? I do agree this eventually will partially, but not totally, replace the need for photographers to produce stock photos. Then these stock companies will just license the AI and create their own images to bypass paying people.

ETA: I watched the full video. How else would it create something with Mona Lisa, Gollum, or Pinkachu without using an existing image of them? They claim to have safeguards from using things such as political figures. What about copyright? They had to have used bits of existing photos for eyeballs, cookies, etc.

Forget the "stock companies", if this works why would anybody need them at all?

For the same reason they need them now. Convenience and efficiency. Buyers who dont have the time to play with the AI to get the right image will look for something close enough in the database or the stock companies will have employees who create custom images for a premium price.

The stock companies already have a huge amount of search data analytics to know trends of what buyers are looking for. They will probably have a combination of employees who create AI content and will also feed that data directly into the AI to generate images to add to the catalog. Plus they could just integrate the AI with their search engine and generate images on demand when buyers search. Either way, they would no longer need to pay us and will keep 100% of the sale which is their goal anyway.

We need something like micro watermarking that cant be seen by the human eye but can be tracked to find whatever bits the AI is scraping from the internet. I think Adobe used to have something like this.

Amazing technology but as a photographer, I'm glad I'm older and headed toward retirement. I'm sure this technology will create new money making opportunities for those who are interested in doing the work. It will also displace people like me who love taking photos outdoors and not spending more time in front of a computer.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2022, 06:53 »
+3
Surely its manipulating and combining existing images into new ones? Its not generating images from scratch and those starting images have to come from somewhere.

The guy in the video seems to be saying it's not using existing photos to create the image. Maybe it's learning from existing photos and creating its own new version of what it thinks a staircase or a cookie is. Regardless even if that's true, it had to use existing photos to learn.

So not only could this technology possibly eliminate the need for us, it also could be using our work to do so.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3598 Views
Last post August 12, 2008, 20:53
by dnavarrojr
7 Replies
5620 Views
Last post February 16, 2011, 11:21
by Morphart
2 Replies
1745 Views
Last post February 14, 2012, 11:27
by ruxpriencdiam
10 Replies
3071 Views
Last post July 07, 2017, 11:26
by illustrator
6 Replies
3647 Views
Last post August 30, 2019, 06:58
by AnS

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle