It takes time before new images emerge from the batch, are visible and therefore purchased, because of the algorithms.  But once the inertia is overcome, the huge AI army will inevitably do huge damage to sales.

Almost everything looks very similar, like it's gone through the same "art" filter. I also see a lot weird shapes and artifacts that have no logic being there and that would normally disqualify the image but apparently the submission bar is set lower for AI. The whole thing is very discouraging. I could get on the bandwagon and have already tested a local SD iteration but every time I try to "create" something I feel like I'm cheating. Even when I get to something acceptable I just can't own the final result. I couldn't, even for a second, consider this thing mine. I can't imagine doing this for a living.
My take is this whole trend makes art accessible for the really bottom of the barrel, completely talentless and skill-less part of the crowd. Coincidentally these people are so happy to finally see something beautiful come as result of their efforts, they have no scrupules or second thoughts about owning it. As for the agencies, their moto has always been "Anything for a profit"

Personally I find the quirks and imperfections very interesting. It feels like the ai is striking back and making it their own as opposed to the prompters creation.

With a buyers hat on, I am very grateful that Adobe is offering a huge gen ai collection. I have asked many friends with businesses, they have all tried prompting and been more than disappointed with the results.

They have no time for that and will happily buy from an agency that offers a wide selection.

That includes people who have a good basis in photography or art, it simply takes much too long to learn the right prompts to get the result you want.

I also don't think that the ,,masses have no talent". They aree simply not trained in art, like they might not be trained in music or metalwork or sky diving.

But everyone can learn to create, like everyone can learn to do photography.

Ai just speeds up the learning process, because you just have to focus on the end result and don't have to learn the individual technique like oil painting, watercolor, papercut or photography.

Quote from: thx9000 on June 14, 2023, 11:10
Almost everything looks very similar, like it's gone through the same "art" filter.

Either many people are purposefully going for the same effect, because it is popular, or they do not know that they can influence the look of an image by describing for example light conditions and you can achieve images that look "artsy" and overprocessed or images that look like more like candid photos, but I think there is some great diversity there, especially since not everyone is using the same AI generator.

Quote from: cobalt on June 14, 2023, 11:26
Personally I find the quirks and imperfections very interesting. It feels like the ai is striking back and making it their own as opposed to the prompters creation.

With a buyers hat on, I am very grateful that Adobe is offering a huge gen ai collection. I have asked many friends with businesses, they have all tried prompting and been more than disappointed with the results.

They have no time for that and will happily buy from an agency that offers a wide selection.

That includes people who have a good basis in photography or art, it simply takes much too long to learn the right prompts to get the result you want.

I also don't think that the ,,masses have no talent". They aree simply not trained in art, like they might not be trained in music or metalwork or sky diving.

But everyone can learn to create, like everyone can learn to do photography.

Ai just speeds up the learning process, because you just have to focus on the end result and don't have to learn the individual technique like oil painting, watercolor, papercut or photography.

I'm sure it takes certain amount of talent to find and push the "generate" button but to make the debate shorter just take a look of what these people did before their AI content. There's an abyss between before and after

Quote from: Firn on June 14, 2023, 11:32

Quote from: thx9000 on June 14, 2023, 11:10
Almost everything looks very similar, like it's gone through the same "art" filter.

Either many people are purposefully going for the same effect, because it is popular, or they do not know that they can influence the look of an image by describing for example light conditions and you can achieve images that look "artsy" and overprocessed or images that look like more like candid photos, but I think there is some great diversity there, especially since not everyone is using the same AI generator.

These images share at least half of their prompts. UHD, 8K, HDR, Trending on Artstation, High definition, Ultra detailed etc...

Quote from: thx9000 on June 14, 2023, 12:41

I'm sure it takes certain amount of talent to find and push the "generate" button but to make the debate shorter just take a look of what these people did before their AI content. There's an abyss between before and after

It is funny watching self professed "prompt gurus" write essays on the Midjourney Discord with incredibly flowery prompts and get results indistinguishable from the next person who uses a couple of words.

As long as you can write a sentence, take a few minutes to look at what other people have used and spend a bit of time learning the basic commands you can tailor results as much as anyone. You can produce results as good as anyone else right away, and tailor the results to whatever style want after an afternoon's practice.

If this wasn't the case it would be a huge failure of Midjourney. The whole point of it is to allow people get results with basic prompts. And lets not forget you can now feed it images and get a descriptive prompt, reverse engineering a prompt to get similar results.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 14, 2023, 13:36

Quote from: thx9000 on June 14, 2023, 12:41

I'm sure it takes certain amount of talent to find and push the "generate" button but to make the debate shorter just take a look of what these people did before their AI content. There's an abyss between before and after

It is funny watching self professed "prompt gurus" write essays on the Midjourney Discord with incredibly flowery prompts and get results indistinguishable from the next person who uses a couple of words.

As long as you can write a sentence, take a few minutes to look at what other people have used and spend a bit of time learning the basic commands you can tailor results as much as anyone. You can produce results as good as anyone else right away, and tailor the results to whatever style want after an afternoon's practice.

If this wasn't the case it would be a huge failure of Midjourney. The whole point of it is to allow people get results with basic prompts. And lets not forget you can now feed it images and get a descriptive prompt, reverse engineering a prompt to get similar results.

Yes, it's like eating vomit, then vomiting again. Reverse vomiting produces a new vomit  oh sorry for my particular humour which may offend these self-proclaimed artist teleprompters, which before the use of AI only produced visual crap. They now think they are Picasso. It also reminds me of modern music, where the sound produced by the remixed singer voice evokes in me the idea of ​​digital vomit.

I think this metaphor is the correct one. It can occur following a massive ingestion, and it arises expeditiously. It is not very appetizing and is particularly repellent. But when the sheeps have nothing but vomit to eat, they won't find it too bad.
Imagine the dunce of the class who discovers chatGPT, uses it, proudly declares: "I wrote it myself", and who ends up being convinced of it himself.

It's very hard to get rid of vomAIt...

I completely get that "Quality" is a very subjective measure, and that all the agencies have the right to set their own standards for what they will and won't accept, but as I look through the 10+ million (acknowledged) genAI images in the Adobe Stock collection, I think there's work that should be rejected because it's faulty reality - not artistic point of view, not fantasy, not creative expression, but just a mistake.

I've been collecting examples - roast turkeys with four drumsticks and two wings; a lobster with three claws (the one in the front sort of circular); an office chair with three arms, one in the middle so you can't sit; a cow with a single bump-like udder in the middle of its belly and another with several balloon-like udders in the right (ish) place; an office chair with two legs and one arm that couldn't even stand up; a refrigerator with open doors too wide to close; a photo of London in the 1940s which not only isn't but is mismatched building bits, US flag with too many/few stars, stripes, stars that are squares or triangles, spiders with 10, 12, 14 legs and cockroaches with 8 . . .

Two issues with this type of thing from my perspective. One is that this type of content is defective - noise free, in focus, good color, but just a mistake.

The other is that some buyers may not realize the content is erroneous and just assume the agency has their back and it's good to use. An example: a buyer has not been lucky enough to eat lobster or even know what it looks like, but has been told to download a picture of a lobster meal. GenAI content is included in search results by default - you have to turn it off if you don't want it, so the unlucky buyer downloads a mutant genAI image with extra claws without realizing it's pretty but wrong. Doesn't an agency have some responsibility to weed out this type of "mistaken" content?

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 16:06
I completely get that "Quality" is a very subjective measure, and that all the agencies have the right to set their own standards for what they will and won't accept, but as I look through the 10+ million (acknowledged) genAI images in the Adobe Stock collection, I think there's work that should be rejected because it's faulty reality...

Exactly what I was talking about. There's loads of stuff that they would never even think about accepting if it was the result of dodgy photoshop work, but they've been letting that garbage in from day one if it is AI generated. Very odd policy.

Like I said, the 8 fingers, 3 claws etc...IMO are ,,typical" of ai. Which why for me it makes perfect sense to take it.

Otherwise it could just be a normal illustration or photoshop work.

AI images all look great at a small thumbnail size BUT 90% unacceptable even at 2000px.
Blurred, out of focus, strange image details..
And most of the ones I've seen so far have been upscaled to 5000+ pixels.
Customer refunds foreseeable?

Also found the information about this during the upload if you mark your images as AI, "Most common rejection reason for AI-generated images ...an image that is 1000 pixels long should not be scaled up to 8000 pixels..." (Indivstock)

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 16:06
Doesn't an agency have some responsibility to weed out this type of "mistaken" content?

In any case, the agency makes no effort to do so. Probably also related to the automation of validation process. 
As I already said in antother thread, I think it's our relationship to real, natural, logical, truth, beauty, memory, history that is challenged. 

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 16:06
The other is that some buyers may not realize the content is erroneous and just assume the agency has their back and it's good to use. An example: a buyer has not been lucky enough to eat lobster or even know what it looks like, but has been told to download a picture of a lobster meal. GenAI content is included in search results by default - you have to turn it off if you don't want it, so the unlucky buyer downloads a mutant genAI image with extra claws without realizing it's pretty but wrong. Doesn't an agency have some responsibility to weed out this type of "mistaken" content?

Maybe no more than they have the responsibility to make sure captions and keywords are correct, for a similar reason (e.g. the junior has been tasked with finding images, and doesn't know any better)

Quote from: cobalt on June 14, 2023, 16:51
Like I said, the 8 fingers, 3 claws etc...IMO are ,,typical" of ai. Which why for me it makes perfect sense to take it.

How, in any universe, is this a useful image of a roast turkey?



Or this of a boiled lobster?



There are lots and lots of this type of "mistakes of AI" - I'm not just cherry picking a few with flaws.

Or, if this type of could-easily-be-mistaken-for-real content is really important, then slap an overlay on them, like "EDITORIAL ONLY" or "PREMIUM" have. Otherwise it's a fast ticket to getting fired from your job for being mocked on social media instead of promoting whatever it was you were supposed to be pitching.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 13, 2023, 21:35
If this is "quality", it's using a very odd measuring device

And AI is as hopeless at insect limbs as it is with human ones

perhaps a spider - cockroach hybrid?

Quote from: cascoly on June 14, 2023, 18:52

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 13, 2023, 21:35
If this is "quality", it's using a very odd measuring device

And AI is as hopeless at insect limbs as it is with human ones

perhaps a spider - cockroach hybrid?

actually the turkey is a creation of John Madden for holiday football games

and i'd love to find a lobster w claws that size!

Quote from: Artist on June 14, 2023, 04:50

Quote from: images on June 14, 2023, 04:45
Stock photography is coming to an end has been the most consistent topic on this forum for the last 15 years. And yet, here we are.

You should see facts. Such technology was never build and this AI is something which can create 100s or professional works within minutes.
And it is self improving and learning program so it will become more accurate with time.

which is it? AI creations are terrible or AI images are 'professional'

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 16:06
I completely get that "Quality" is a very subjective measure, and that all the agencies have the right to set their own standards for what they will and won't accept, but as I look through the 10+ million (acknowledged) genAI images in the Adobe Stock collection, I think there's work that should be rejected because it's faulty reality - not artistic point of view, not fantasy, not creative expression, but just a mistake.

I've been collecting examples - roast turkeys with four drumsticks and two wings; a lobster with three claws (the one in the front sort of circular); an office chair with three arms, one in the middle so you can't sit; a cow with a single bump-like udder in the middle of its belly and another with several balloon-like udders in the right (ish) place; an office chair with two legs and one arm that couldn't even stand up; a refrigerator with open doors too wide to close; a photo of London in the 1940s which not only isn't but is mismatched building bits...

Two issues with this type of thing from my perspective. One is that this type of content is defective - noise free, in focus, good color, but just a mistake.

The other is that some buyers may not realize the content is erroneous and just assume the agency has their back and it's good to use. An example: a buyer has not been lucky enough to eat lobster or even know what it looks like, but has been told to download a picture of a lobster meal. GenAI content is included in search results by default - you have to turn it off if you don't want it, so the unlucky buyer downloads a mutant genAI image with extra claws without realizing it's pretty but wrong. Doesn't an agency have some responsibility to weed out this type of "mistaken" content?

the really sad thing is not that AI produces these freaks, but (as others have noted) that people upload them & they're accepted.  even my steampunk  dinosaurs have the proper number of limbs!

@Jo Ann

The Lobster ist fantastic! I would use this and enjoy all the comments and interactions you can get from using that.

The turkey is less attractive for me but I am sure somebody will buy it because it was visibly done with ai.

I think Adobe should put together an edited ai collection to promote and pictures like the lobster should be the top promoted images.

Quote from: cascoly on June 14, 2023, 18:55

Quote from: Artist on June 14, 2023, 04:50

Quote from: images on June 14, 2023, 04:45
Stock photography is coming to an end has been the most consistent topic on this forum for the last 15 years. And yet, here we are.

T

Quote from: cascoly on June 14, 2023, 18:55

Quote from: Artist on June 14, 2023, 04:50

Quote from: images on June 14, 2023, 04:45
Stock photography is coming to an end has been the most consistent topic on this forum for the last 15 years. And yet, here we are.

You should see facts. Such technology was never build and this AI is something which can create 100s or professional works within minutes.
And it is self improving and learning program so it will become more accurate with time.

which is it? AI creations are terrible or AI images are 'professional'

the question is (now we are at the beginning of AI) if actual photos, vectors and/or videos will be replacedechnology was never build and this AI is something which can create 100s or professional works within minutes.
And it is self improving and learning program so it will become more accurate with time.

which is it? AI creations are terrible or AI images are 'professional'

The question is (and now we are just at the beginning with AI) if photos, vectors and videos will be replaced by AI or not.
The next question is, if not, are your photos, vectors or videos findable between this garbage?

Quote from: SVH on June 14, 2023, 19:20
The question is (and now we are just at the beginning with AI) if photos, vectors and videos will be replaced by AI or not.
The next question is, if not, are your photos, vectors or videos findable between this garbage?

SVH, everytime you post, I add +1 

Quote from: cobalt on June 14, 2023, 19:16
The Lobster ist fantastic! I would use this and enjoy all the comments and interactions you can get from using that.

The Lobster is fantasplastic!

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 18:33
There are lots and lots of this type of "mistakes of AI"...

AI IS mistake
People who take photographs never count the number of fingers, one would have to wonder why this should happen now.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 14, 2023, 18:33
getting fired from your job for being mocked on social media

Fantastic then! the opportunity for that person to go back to real organic and true life! 

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 14, 2023, 19:42

Quote from: SVH on June 14, 2023, 19:20
The question is (and now we are just at the beginning with AI) if photos, vectors and videos will be replaced by AI or not.
The next question is, if not, are your photos, vectors or videos findable between this garbage?

SVH, everytime you post, I add +1 

Renegades of the sheep community

Quote from: cascoly on June 13, 2023, 21:10
was searching for some of my ai on AS ---  for ai generated with keywords "venice gondola" not only did mine not show up in first few pages (not a  big concern here) but the first page & a half were filled with similars most of which had at best only tiny gondolas and none showed venice (more likely amalfi coast)


heres's the search  https://tinyurl.com/3z35792b

These are not gondolas but a different type of ligurian boat for fishing. And the location is more similar to ligurian coast (5 Terre). But the problem is that there aren't valid verification of non AI images, if you switch with the same search in "non AI" you'll see images that probably are AI images, like the venice paintings or similar.

Actually I'm wondering, is all of this stuff Midjourney? The generated resolution is not very high so is it all upscaled to a higher resolution? Or are there certain paid plans or AI generators that produce higher resolutions, or higher quality results?

Not that I intend to use AI myself; it's an uphill battle, and it feels like cheating... Anyone who knows how to write prompts can do it, whereas not everybody can shoot high quality photos or videos or draw beautiful vector art.

About agencies needing to take responsibility to check these images for accuracy: that will probably never happen, because reviewers are trained to determine photo image quality (like noise, out of focus, etc), they're not biologists, historians or food experts. They won't check Wikipedia for species of insects to correctly determine the shape and size of legs, or the correct size or color of a piece of fruit.