The Future of Photography

[dwdallam]

Here you go. I was wondering when I'd run into something that confirms my idea about art, and photography in general. I became interested in this sort of thing after reading a report where a group of MIT programmers put together a program, with specific parameters for the task, that would write a creative essay on the topic of an English instructors choice, such as you would find in a creative writing class.

The professors grading the essays had no idea which one was the computer generated essay. Turns out, they never did guess which one it was, but the computer generated essay did get an A. The next task was to write a work of fiction in the length of a book, perhaps 300 pages. The programmers said there was no reason that a piece of software should not be able to write fiction as well as and even better than a human, since all of the parameters and the "meaning" and "intention" of the work could also be programmed, along with the style of humankind's entire history of writers from Heraclitus to Faulkner and beyond.

Now here we are and photography is really not photography any longer, but a program recreating from CAD design blueprints a car, and another program calculating what the light should and does look like if the car were in that specific place, down to perfection.

Their next step is to create photography--computer images of--without the models, that is, a CAD blueprint of faces and bodies, and then the same software to "recreate" any position or article of clothing and light that is indistinguishable from a real model--without the model or the photographer.

It happened to Fisher when Big Blue did what nobody thought was possible--take down Fisher in a game of chess. And why not? Everything we do can be calculated. it's just a matter of how complex the machine is at calculating and variables becoming known rather than unknown.

Humanity reduced to yet another machine.

http://madvertisingblog.wordpress.com/2007...photography-20/

[wolfnowl]

Amazing and scary at the same time... thanks for sharing this!

Mike.

[DarkPenguin]

They've been making actors out of whole cloth (CGI) for a while now.  Apparently no action sequence that obeys the laws of physics is deemed acceptable anymore.

[dwdallam]

They've been making actors out of whole cloth (CGI) for a while now.  Apparently no action sequence that obeys the laws of physics is deemed acceptable anymore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, reality, how boring. If my actors can't pull a gun and shoot someone with a pistol at 300 yards in less than 1 second holding the gun sideways, they suck. Ditto if they can't jump 10 foot fences. Weak humans.

We shouldn't be surprised. How many times do you hear--"Well even though the light is bad and the background is cluttered and I have 80 years old bags under my eyes, you can just clean it up in Photoshop, right?" And, "Wow, that's a great shot. You must have a good camera."

The problem is, those comments are not completely w/o warrant.

[BernardLanguillier]

It happened to Fisher when Big Blue did what nobody thought was possible--take down Fisher in a game of chess. And why not? Everything we do can be calculated. it's just a matter of how complex the machine is at calculating and variables becoming known rather than unknown.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It takes some high key milestones like deep blue to raise awarness, but the fact is that there were programs able to beat most humans at the chess game years before one was able to beat Fischer.

The next major debate is about humanity. What is it to be a man vs a machine. All of us who have measured our abilities in terms of performance will soon realize that machines do it better. Then what is left? When machines look like man, and can handle most productive tasks better than man, what is left for man to be?

When a small caterpillar crosses a street on a hot summer day, have you ever wondered why he does it? What is there on the other side of the street that motivates the caterpillar to cross over? Nothing that he can see from his small height for sure.

Are we really less blind than caterpillars?

Similarly, what is the goal of us producing smarter machines every year? Who is in control? Under the cover of the ideas of competition, aren't we already mostly being slaved by machines using us to reproduce themselves and evolve?

[a href=\"http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html]http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_b..._and_temes.html[/url]

In other words, haven't we mostly lost track of the direction? Bad Religion said it all very well in a song called Flat earth society in the mid 1980s.

and the bright ship Humana is sailing far away
with grave determination....
and no destination

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=68b5PrZ0x9Y

It doesn't mean that we have to be Luddites, but we should reflect on this topic before it is too late

As far as photography goes, the next stake is clearly ethics.

Cheers,
Bernard

[bernie west]

It happened to Fisher when Big Blue did what nobody thought was possible--take down Fisher in a game of chess. And why not? Everything we do can be calculated. it's just a matter of how complex the machine is at calculating and variables becoming known rather than unknown.
http://madvertisingblog.wordpress.com/2007...photography-20/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are potentially right about the prospect of machines recreating photo shoots.  But.... There are essentially two schools of thought (there may actually be more, i'm no expert) concerning Artificial Intelligence and whether it will ever be possible to develop human-like machine intelligence.  Without any invocation of god, to be sure, there are many highly respected scientists and philosophers who believe that it will never happen.  Equally there are many in the other camp.  In my (very) limited understanding of it, it's got something to do with quantum physics, something to do with NP Problems (anyone remember those?!?), and some other stuff I either can't remember or can't understand.

Sorry, not very informative reply, but might give some of you a point for getting into this further.

[dwdallam]

/watch?v=68b5PrZ0x9Y[/url]

It doesn't mean that we have to be Luddites, but we should reflect on this topic before it is too late


Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I was majoring in philosophy, the rule of anyone doing philosophy honestly was that you never, never take a position and try to support it. Rather, you follow the evidence, and then accept the tentative conclusion that the evidence supports, be it an a priori argument or an empirical one--even if you dislike it. I called that rule "intellectual hygiene" in an essay I wrote after I was out of school.

If it is a fact that machines can eventually evolve and displace humans in everything "good" that humans strive to be, then it is a matter of accepting that fact. ("Good" because we would have a hard time supporting the creation of machines that surpass humans at their worst, whereas on the other hand, we would have a hard time supporting the noncreation of machines that can do better all the things for which humans strive.) It's about accepting that fact, if it is a fact, and whatever comes with it.

[BernardLanguillier]

When I was majoring in philosophy, the rule of anyone doing philosophy honestly was that you never, never take a position and try to support it. Rather, you follow the evidence, and then accept the tentative conclusion that the evidence supports, be it an a priori argument or an empirical one--even if you dislike it. I called that rule "intellectual hygiene" in an essay I wrote after I was out of school.

If it is a fact that machines can eventually evolve and displace humans in everything "good" that humans strive to be, then it is a matter of accepting that fact. ("Good" because we would have a hard time supporting the creation of machines that surpass humans at their worst, whereas on the other hand, we would have a hard time supporting the noncreation of machines that can do better all the things for which humans strive.) It's about accepting that fact, if it is a fact, and whatever comes with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What if it is a fact that we could end up being in that situation, but believe that it wouldn't be good, and decide not to go there?

Do we not, as smart humans, have the power to avoid some of the potential pitfals our tendency to progress leads us to?

Regards,
Bernard

[dwdallam]

What if it is a fact that we could end up being in that situation, but believe that it wouldn't be good, and decide not to go there?

Do we not, as smart humans, have the power to avoid some of the potential pitfals our tendency to progress leads us to?

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're assuming "pitfalls" when none are yet supported. But to answer your question, if you wanted to show "pitfalls" that would be more negative than positive, then you'd need to support that position.

That's why I framed my argument the way it is. If we could build machines that could love, respect, reason, have emotion, but do it better than we have so far, not to exclude our own progress in those areas--thus why I said "All the good things humans strive to be"--it would be very hard to argue validly for the denial of that creation.

On the other hand, if you could show some very real and negative aspects of creating such life forms, to the extent that creating them would be more negative in ways that would override the positive aspects, and support those reasons without leaps in logic, then you'd have a good counter argument, and we'd have to tentatively accept it as the best reasoned conclusion thus far.

[Ray]

Back home, the real work starts: The car company supplies the post production with CAD data of the car. And combines it with yet another amazing technology: BRDF. Bi-directional Reflection Distribution Function, which calibrates a material´s reflection attributes.

When is Adobe going to provide this feature in Photoshop? Such technology could be very useful for copying and pasting cut-outs into a different environment and lighting situation.  

From a general philosophical point of view, I see nothing to worry about concerning mankind's increasing mechanisation. In fact our entire civilisation and prosperity depends upon it, especially in view of the energy crisis and the impending disasters which will likely result from climatic warming.

The fact is, we're having free lunches at present because millions of Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and others are working for peanuts to provide us with cheap goods; goods which are cheap because the production processes use less energy; use less energy because the workers don't live in nice houses with  swimming pool,  fridge and a plasma TV, and generally don't drive to work in a nice car and buy DSLRs and MFDBs.

Robots don't require nice houses and swimming pools. They'll work for the cost of a battery recharge. Let's hope we're smart enough to create the sort of robots that have been the subject of science fiction for the past several decades; or our entire civilisation is likely to go down the gurgler.

[BernardLanguillier]

You're assuming "pitfalls" when none are yet supported. But to answer your question, if you wanted to show "pitfalls" that would be more negative than positive, then you'd need to support that position.

That's why I framed my argument the way it is. If we could build machines that could love, respect, reason, have emotion, but do it better than we have so far, not to exclude our own progress in those areas--thus why I said "All the good things humans strive to be"--it would be very hard to argue validly for the denial of that creation.

On the other hand, if you could show some very real and negative aspects of creating such life forms, to the extent that creating them would be more negative in ways that would override the positive aspects, and support those reasons without leaps in logic, then you'd have a good counter argument, and we'd have to tentatively accept it as the best reasoned conclusion thus far.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fail to understand why the proof of the negativity of a possible future is required to start thinking about it.

For me the possibility of future negative consequences is enough of a case to start worrying.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

There is a simple - simplistic? - problem to all this which is seldom considered seriously. A machine doesn´t need emotional or status comforting. People do. Take away the human needs for identity and nothing will get done. Neither, of course, do machines spend money, thus ceasing to provide the base function of production.

No human needs or input and the nett result is silence in the workplace and the banks long broken...

Rob C, in a hurry and off for a quick pre-prandial drink!

[russell a]

My position is that all intelligence is artificial.  Cockroaches will inherit the fruits of human intelligence - sooner rather than later, it would seem.  Have a nice day.

[Ray]

Neither, of course, do machines spend money, thus ceasing to provide the base function of production.

No human needs or input and the nett result is silence in the workplace and the banks long broken...

Rob C, in a hurry and off for a quick pre-prandial drink!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,
I thought it was the machines that produced the money. Aren't printing presses machines? We're fortunate the machines don't also spend the money.  

[dalethorn]

Rob,
We're fortunate the machines don't also spend the money. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sadly, machines are increasingly spending the money.  Most people in the U.S. are on budget billing for energy, and auto-deduct from bank to make payments.  Few people carry much cash anymore, esp. in California.  Nobody in the govt. knows where all the money goes, since most is auto-spent on programs set up by computers years ago.

[Rob C]

Okay, I was in too much of a hurry to down that illicit glass of bubbly before lunch; now, with clear head and full belly I see that I should have been more precise!

The point I as trying to make is that machines are not people. It is only the human part of the equation that has the sentient need for life and the requirement to work and earn in order to sustain it (I appreciate there is also a sub-class of human that thinks differently, but that only survives as long as do the earners. This is also balanced, to an extent, by the other, super-affluent part of society that has need for neither work nor charity). Machines, left to themselves, have no need for anything at all; as they do not feel anything and do not have a sense of self, they have no wish for a salary. As they have no such wish and as they do not drop round to the local shops to buy anything, they do not further the supply of circulating money or credits, if you wish to quibble the semantics of cash v. card.

Ultimately, with no wealth being created, there is no money supply and thus no commerce, meaning no production of life-sustaining goods.

For many (meaning for me) the more automation in the factory or anywhere else, the less need for man to fulfil the rôle, and so on to subsequent unemployment which, taken to the finite, means total, world-wide idleness. And chaos.

How did we get onto this kick, anyway?

Rob C

[Stuarte]

You may be interested in the essay by Bill Joy in Wired magazine back in the 20th century - Why the future doesn't need us..

"Do you remember the beautiful penultimate scene in Manhattan where Woody Allen is lying on his couch and talking into a tape recorder? He is writing a short story about people who are creating unnecessary, neurotic problems for themselves, because it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.

He leads himself to the question, "Why is life worth living?" and to consider what makes it worthwhile for him: Groucho Marx, Willie Mays, the second movement of the Jupiter Symphony, Louis Armstrong's recording of "Potato Head Blues," Swedish movies, Flaubert's Sentimental Education, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, the apples and pears by Cézanne, the crabs at Sam Wo's, and, finally, the showstopper: his love Tracy's face.

Each of us has our precious things, and as we care for them we locate the essence of our humanity. In the end, it is because of our great capacity for caring that I remain optimistic we will confront the dangerous issues now before us."

EnJoy!!

[Ray]

Sadly, machines are increasingly spending the money.  Most people in the U.S. are on budget billing for energy, and auto-deduct from bank to make payments.  Few people carry much cash anymore, esp. in California.  Nobody in the govt. knows where all the money goes, since most is auto-spent on programs set up by computers years ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The person (or entity) who (that) makes the decision and signs the instruction for automatic payments is the one who is literally and actually spending the money.

[Dansk]

You cant stop progress the machine moves forward relentlessly and tirelessly the trick is to stay a half step up and not dig in too deep. Solvency is a great asset, as is adaptability. I grew through the film/digital switch and literally watched the entire business turn on its ear so fast half of em didnt even see it coming. Only thing that saved my bacon was already coming from a prior film career that became a dodo bird I was watching very cautiously so I managed to ride through still earning my keep from photography.

The good news as I see it. Implementation. The "photo machine" has to get there ( that be the location ) converse, take creative direction, consider brand or subject of interest as well as composition and oh yeah the designer has a layout in mind so deal with some awkward framing. Then when the creative director pulls an audible play based on supreme inspiration adjust for that and so on and so on I think I made my point. Honda can barely make a robot that walks at costs so absurd its absurd. So by the time we have a machine that can walk, talk, drive, contemplate, have flexible characteristics, and be consistent, not break down, COST effective.... well I'm pretty sure I'll be long gone so I really could care less.

In short IMO we are a looooooooooooong way from machines replacing photographers but we are fast heading towards true talent being crucial to survival if your plan is to make a business of photography the tech ability is not enough anymore we are definitely heading back to creative vision, true talent, and razor sharp skills being much more crucial that techno gadgets ( thank goodness )

But if this photographer replacement machine prophecy comes reality? You could always just take the red pill  

[Wayne Fox]

It happened to Fisher when Big Blue did what nobody thought was possible--take down Fisher in a game of chess. And why not? Everything we do can be calculated. it's just a matter of how complex the machine is at calculating and variables becoming known rather than unknown.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not to get off your overall topic, but I believe it was Kasparov beaten by Deep Blue.   He was the first reigning world chess champion to lose to a computer in a standard tournament game, and in 1997 was actually defeated in a match.

Was he really beaten by a machine?  All a computer does is allow programmers to do massively complex calculations.  As a case in point, one reason the program won the championship was the programmers changing code that prevented it from falling into a trap that Kasparov had taken advantage of twice ... something a human player would have picked up on.  There also is still a lot of rumors and accusations that human intervention occurred at other times during the match, and in fact IBM refused a rematch and retired the computer - many wondered what they were afraid of.