Great article Tom! I like your word "synthogram" as it then separates these ttig images from photography. So many people don't realise we have been working with AI for years now and see them as just updates to PS and LR etc. Lovely how you have pointed this out.
I haven't yet got into these new models yet, but wondering if you have a preference for one above the other.
Also, wonder if there is a way to combine your own photographs with synthograms?
Hi Gail. Yes, indeed. I've been using AI models with my photographs in two ways (so far). One is by using out-painting in DALL-E to elaborate my photos – see https://makersplace.com/marketplace/tomang/
The other way is to 'artify' photos (in Fotor) to work as frames for synthogram portraits in my Princesses of the World series: check out https://app.clubrare.xyz/explore
As for models, I've used DALL-E most as I've been given some privileges. Try to get on the Adobe Firefly programme as it's free at mo'.
Personally, I'm most intrigued by how these models handle abstract concepts e.g. from poetry and nonsense verse, working in different artistic styles, than in trying to conjure up photo-realistic results. Those are, for me, are mostly 'yeah, yeah, yeah'.
Thanks for the links to your work Tom. Really fantastic stuff! and for your explanations. I have an exhibition in Adelaide that opens in 2 weeks, so full on until then. after that I'm definitely going to have a play around with this.
Interesting article Tom. I accept that AI generated pictures can be considered an art form and I like the term synthogram. Sadly I see two issues to AI generated art. Firstly is that right now the actual photograph, untainted by Photoshop, captures a real event. Jamie MacArthur is an outstanding bird and wild life photographer who spends many hours crouched in hides all over Europe capturing stunning photos which he chooses to share freely. One of his latest is a fox and an eagle playing tug of war with the foxes freshly caught rabbit... just a stunning and rare photo that Jamie uses to endear wildlife to people in the hope that we might collectively slow down their destruction. The skill and personal dedication is what makes his photographs personally appealing to me. If computers start producing photos indistinguishable from those of real professionals, I would be very sad indeed. People already buy prints or posters and even fraudulently copied paintings without the artists knowledge and I personally think that it devalues not only the artist but also the art. By creating the very possibility of questioning whether a painting, print and now photograph, is actually “real”, I believe people will dismiss them and the message they contain. “Ha.... so what... it’s not real” will be the common response....
The second issue is one of propaganda ....I have already seen AI pictures of Donald Trump doing unimaginable and degrading things...and it won’t be long before AI can create a video interview with the person stating things that they would never dream of saying in real life... just look at the problems we face now with the amount of lies and deception over COVID and the removal of fraudulent medical journal articles from researchers chasing the money.... and what use will photos and videos be in court cases from now on? How can they be verified as actual and authentic?... I do sense the excitement around AI and what it can do as an art form, but knowing human nature, I really do fear for where this is heading....consider the many thousands of people who already believe that the NASA moon landing was faked... Once AI generated images become the norm I think people will automatically switch off and dismiss real evidence as not being authentic.... governments, institutions, public service organisations and individuals .... all risk loosing credibility and where might that lead in our brave New World....?
The cupidity of mankind knows no bounds. Your feelings are, I fear, more a reflection of the times than of the tech. You can make a knife to cook with but you can't stop someone from using it to hurt others. People are already using AI to make false videos, false pictures. But others are using TTIG to make fascinating images that couldn't be done otherwise.
New tech goes where it can. It's up to us to be sensible about how we use it, where we take it. (Talking about COVID, I'd say the moves towards more genetically modified jabs is far more worrying.)
And already the world is pretty divided on how to control, regulate and legislate. Some issues are arguably far bigger making fake pictures or videos. Lives may depend on AI-generated decisions in many fields already.
Great article! Very interesting and informative piece thank you
Thank you!
Any holes or info you'd like more on, lemme know. The field is expanding faster than the speed of light.
Great article Tom! I like your word "synthogram" as it then separates these ttig images from photography. So many people don't realise we have been working with AI for years now and see them as just updates to PS and LR etc. Lovely how you have pointed this out.
I haven't yet got into these new models yet, but wondering if you have a preference for one above the other.
Also, wonder if there is a way to combine your own photographs with synthograms?
cheers
Gail
Hi Gail. Yes, indeed. I've been using AI models with my photographs in two ways (so far). One is by using out-painting in DALL-E to elaborate my photos – see https://makersplace.com/marketplace/tomang/
The other way is to 'artify' photos (in Fotor) to work as frames for synthogram portraits in my Princesses of the World series: check out https://app.clubrare.xyz/explore
As for models, I've used DALL-E most as I've been given some privileges. Try to get on the Adobe Firefly programme as it's free at mo'.
Personally, I'm most intrigued by how these models handle abstract concepts e.g. from poetry and nonsense verse, working in different artistic styles, than in trying to conjure up photo-realistic results. Those are, for me, are mostly 'yeah, yeah, yeah'.
Thanks for the links to your work Tom. Really fantastic stuff! and for your explanations. I have an exhibition in Adelaide that opens in 2 weeks, so full on until then. after that I'm definitely going to have a play around with this.
Interesting article Tom. I accept that AI generated pictures can be considered an art form and I like the term synthogram. Sadly I see two issues to AI generated art. Firstly is that right now the actual photograph, untainted by Photoshop, captures a real event. Jamie MacArthur is an outstanding bird and wild life photographer who spends many hours crouched in hides all over Europe capturing stunning photos which he chooses to share freely. One of his latest is a fox and an eagle playing tug of war with the foxes freshly caught rabbit... just a stunning and rare photo that Jamie uses to endear wildlife to people in the hope that we might collectively slow down their destruction. The skill and personal dedication is what makes his photographs personally appealing to me. If computers start producing photos indistinguishable from those of real professionals, I would be very sad indeed. People already buy prints or posters and even fraudulently copied paintings without the artists knowledge and I personally think that it devalues not only the artist but also the art. By creating the very possibility of questioning whether a painting, print and now photograph, is actually “real”, I believe people will dismiss them and the message they contain. “Ha.... so what... it’s not real” will be the common response....
The second issue is one of propaganda ....I have already seen AI pictures of Donald Trump doing unimaginable and degrading things...and it won’t be long before AI can create a video interview with the person stating things that they would never dream of saying in real life... just look at the problems we face now with the amount of lies and deception over COVID and the removal of fraudulent medical journal articles from researchers chasing the money.... and what use will photos and videos be in court cases from now on? How can they be verified as actual and authentic?... I do sense the excitement around AI and what it can do as an art form, but knowing human nature, I really do fear for where this is heading....consider the many thousands of people who already believe that the NASA moon landing was faked... Once AI generated images become the norm I think people will automatically switch off and dismiss real evidence as not being authentic.... governments, institutions, public service organisations and individuals .... all risk loosing credibility and where might that lead in our brave New World....?
The cupidity of mankind knows no bounds. Your feelings are, I fear, more a reflection of the times than of the tech. You can make a knife to cook with but you can't stop someone from using it to hurt others. People are already using AI to make false videos, false pictures. But others are using TTIG to make fascinating images that couldn't be done otherwise.
New tech goes where it can. It's up to us to be sensible about how we use it, where we take it. (Talking about COVID, I'd say the moves towards more genetically modified jabs is far more worrying.)
And already the world is pretty divided on how to control, regulate and legislate. Some issues are arguably far bigger making fake pictures or videos. Lives may depend on AI-generated decisions in many fields already.
This overview may be worth a quick squizz: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-eu-and-us-diverge-on-ai-regulation-a-transatlantic-comparison-and-steps-to-alignment/