There is always Firefly.

...

Doesn't really answer the question - if you cannot distinguish real photos from Ai created images, why should you inists on using real photos? Yes, AI suck at most medical content right now (though I have sold AI images of medical conditions already) and food is hit or miss, but I have sold many AI food photos as well. I even once posted  a link here to a site with Asian recipes - all images were AI created. (And most looked very weird. Obviously the creator of that site did not care)
But AI is only going to get better in the future. So why should someone inists of using a real photo "just for the sake of using a real photo", when there is no difference in the end result?
Why use a real photo when, at some point, the people buying and reading the food magazine will not be able to tell whether real photos or AI images were used? Especially if AI images were so much cheaper and faster to create?  I don't see the advantage from the publisher's point of view.

if a food article is about a specific recipe, then the final result would hopefully show an actual dish, but it could use ai for individual ingredients, or techniques

or, Scientific American often uses illustrations for quantum, medical, astronomical and other complex articles but no reason AI couldn't help here, especially as a first draft, AS LONG AS there is human review for accuracy.

In the case of the company my husband works for, the artificial intelligence has killed all the stock agencies, they have stopped paying the annual subscription with one of the biggest agencies and now pay $30 a month to mid journey where he has also discovered that he can download and use images created by others since none of the images created by mid journey are copyrighted.

I remember when Photoshop illustrations were called �not real illustration � and when digital art was called �not real art� and most traditional artists said they would never use photoshop or digital painting� and look at the reality now!

Photography had a very long run with no competition. Give it 5-10 years and AI photography (and illustration) will be as normal as Photoshop and Lightroom. (+ most of photographers are already using AI to remove something on photos)

AI will not kill traditional photography, just like digital art didn�t kill traditional art. However, the quality level for traditional photography will have to increase.

Microstock might change, but its ability to pull variety of talent from all over the world will stay.

Sadly today's world is a fake world of fake food, fake textiles, fake movies, false human relationships and so on. Of course as continuation today we have fake photos. I'm positive person, but that is the reality.
The people want a lot, want it fast and cheap and here we go, the cheap fast photos(just like fast food, fast fashion..) are here.

Totally agree.

Talent accessible to all, without learning, without effort, immediately and without singularity.

The reward right away, but without all the steps that precede it. False satisfaction, because true satisfaction comes at the end of error and effort.

Skill is no longer necessary, everyone can. We advocate diversity but in the same time kill authenticity.

The reign of the artificial, without truth, without soul.

We even reprogram the values. And most humans with software from another time are silent, the ignorants express themselves so much everywhere.

But machines amalgamate and regurgitate, they do not and will never create anything (except the abyss into which humans collapse with joy). 

In the case of the company my husband works for, the artificial intelligence has killed all the stock agencies, they have stopped paying the annual subscription with one of the biggest agencies and now pay $30 a month to mid journey where he has also discovered that he can download and use images created by others since none of the images created by mid journey are copyrighted.

This is something that would seem to make sense, and should worry us as Microstock artists, more than how much someone sees various formats on stock sites. When someone starts making their own, or has access along with their AI subscription, they don't need us as suppliers anymore.

Glad to see a more balance discussion with some more people and broader opinions popping up.

I agree that the artform will never die at least, good analogy to traditional art and paintings. So some demand will always persist.

Yes, open minds and broader views, are more interesting than, just shouting from one extreme side of the issue.

As for the art form dying, true, but the demand for oil paintings is hardly enough for anyone to want to go into that for a living. As a side interest of hobby, sure. Some demand for stock images, won't support anyone's life or equipment investment in the future. Also that won't keep the stock photo agencies in business as they would be selling an obsolete product.

Think of being a blacksmith as a trade? There's still a need, but hardly enough commercial demand. All that's left are specialists and the last trade artisans.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 24, 2024, 12:41

As for the art form dying, true, but the demand for oil paintings is hardly enough for anyone to want to go into that for a living. As a side interest of hobby, sure. Some demand for stock images, won't support anyone's life or equipment investment in the future. Also that won't keep the stock photo agencies in business as they would be selling an obsolete product.

Think of being a blacksmith as a trade? There's still a need, but hardly enough commercial demand. All that's left are specialists and the last trade artisans.

He-he, try to find a good blacksmith! Huge demand! Horses need shoes every 8 weeks. Best have 2 people working for them and do several horses at the same time. 200-250 horses per week in rain, freeze, or heat.

Friend of mine in her 50s decided to take art classes from Stanford, started to paint and now has several exhibitions and galleries rep her. She is an amazing salesman. My guess she makes $20k per year from oil paintings.

Sorry Pete to debunk your post, to each their own, Stock is fast, but painting is slow. I painted for many years, it�s the same principle as in Stock: only 20% of what you produce sells, where to store other 80% of large paintings? Not for me anymore, but it was fun and there are still droves of people who would love to make extra cash with art. Art will never die, it�s therapeutic and romantic. It weathered centuries 😉

Not debunked at all. We agree. My point was, if there were 20 blacksmiths or 100 people, locally, making oil paintings, none would be profitable. These are specialty trades. We have horses around here and a couple of Farriers. One is mobile and makes calls on a schedule, the other covers the SE part of the state. I can assume there are others, for different areas.

Yes, they can make a living, but they need demand and they need to be good. Same for oils or any other custom art.

BUT... I wouldn't say that there's a great potential for making a living at either, since the demand and market is limited.

Simple example. I worked as a volunteer at the natural history museum. Archaeological Rescue. In fact, we paid to be volunteers to pay for some of the expenses. I had mentioned  to the lead, who had created the group, how archaeology was interesting, I could have added that when I was in college. He's a department head at the local Univ. as well. "You could murder every employed archaeologist in the country, and this years graduation class would fill all the open positions." 

Yeah, cool. What do you want to do when you grow up? "I want to be a marine biologist." Lets see, 4-5 years of college, there are 1,000 job openings in the US and they will make around $60,000 a year.

There are maybe 700 blacksmiths, professionally, in the US and they make $35,000 a year. I don't know anything about people who paint, for a living. My Sister is retired, she makes and sells pottery. My Brother is retired, he works on pipe organs and building pipes, on contract.

All that's left of many jobs, are specialists and the last of the trade artisans. Microstock is headed the same direction.

Stock images are an over produced, over abundant commodity. AI will be making that even more common and easy for consumers to produce their own images.