could machines ever replace photographers? I mean they could be programmed to do good event photos and such, but more than that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU
>>2793674
Yes, although we are far from it.
The question is if they are able to mimic our creativity using AI
>>2793683
You sure about that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI
>>2793684
Yes, through analysis of "good" examples of photojournalism and scripts of how to maximize a certain effect, computers will be able to rival us. They will never supersede, however, without AI actually being developed.
>>2793691
Alrighty guy, whatever you say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBUxG-wSVg
They already did, It's called to Sony A7Rii shooting in P mode.
>>2793692
poo if you like, you have offered no thesis to degrade my opinion
>>2793698
Actually I have, you're just not paying attention.
As a matter of fact, I'm providing concrete examples of a computer acting creatively.
>>2793705
I also said it would take time to advance and refine the science.
>>2793711
You stated THE QUESTION IS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO MIMIC OUR CREATIVITY.
The answer to that is yes. As for applying it to photography, the rest is sorting out technical details.
>>2793683
yes this is totally within the realm of possibility. creativity is not some sort of magic or a gift only a few of us have. It is a learned system...and that means the machines can learn it too.
from this thread we can clearly see who among us is a robot
>>2793674
they already have at disney
>get photo taken by fancy disney photog
>ask about what lenses they use for shits and giggles
>hey man, i don't really know anything about cameras, i just set the tripod up, and click the shutter all day
They literally have no idea how to work a camera
guess it saves them money hiring real photags
>>2793674
maybe not professional photographers, but I'm sure a machine could make better photos than anyone on /p/
>>2793732
Even if that's true, the development of artificial intelligence is so extremely slow that we'll all be dead by the time that they even even have ai that has the ability to be creative
>>2794543
...we've already done it.
>>2794570
>look ma I'm talking out of my ass!
>>2794645
How do you think that?
>>2794645
http://www.themarysue.com/e-david-painting-robot/
it's not even about AI. eventually we'll have robotic cameras that resemble spheres, which will be capable of generating massive panoramic merged images. i think it'll happen as sensors and lens technology improve.
>>2794770
>themarysue.com
ALRIGHTY THEN
Since many of you seem to miss anon's somewhat evasive point, Emily Howell is a computer program that composes music.
>>2794792
>Emily Howell is a computer program that composes music.
faggot pls. at best it does dull pieces, literal etudes. not proper music.
>>2794770
>the mary sue
they're probably just hoping that one day robots will replace men
>>2794776
>it's not even about AI
Yes it is. This is literally the point of the thread.
> we'll have robotic cameras that resemble spheres
So 360 cams, but higher res? Such a bold prediction
>i think it'll happen as sensors and lens technology improve.
Implying the reason behind the lack of Rotogs is because of camera tech and not ai tech.
This technology will be long off, if humanity ever gets to that point. To replace a photographer you will need a robot capable of doing what a photographer does.
Club or wedding photography might be able to be mimicked. We could have a robot assistant moving around the venue taking thousands of frames per second and using heuristic analysis compared to a database to find pleasing photos.
But do we just take photos? We interact. We plan. We develop. A robot cannot develop rapport with a client the same way a human can, unless we can make fully functional androids.
But there are certain photographers that a robot cannot replace. You find me a robot (or its owner as it is just property) that has the will to trek across the country taking photos from his/her unique perspective.
So yeah, we might be able to make a machine that can take photographs in the same way as a human. And I think even AI might progress to a day where creative choices can be made. But I don't think one will ever be able to fully replace a human photographer without making a human-robot.
>>2793674
https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.s2ercspma
TL;DR A robot was programmed to be awesome at Go, which is basically Hyper-Chess. They're able to feed a database into these robots which causes them to learn much faster than any human being, and then of course be able to call back on that stored data at any time, which is all done without the fog of human memory. In other words they're perfect learners.
There was no mention of photography in the article but I think it's implied that machines could do it too. The issue is that in order to photograph, you have to move around. Until we create drones that can levitate silently instead of buzzing around like 1000 angry hornets (this is a barrier to things that could otherwise be automated, like wedding photography), I think the Google Maps car is the closest we'll get to robots taking photos for us.
I think that the real point should be that technology replaces jobs that we don't want to do though. i.e. call centers and cashiering. The point to designing a fully autonomous photographic drone would be to take photos we can't take (inside a volcano or violent thunderstorm for example), or don't really feel too enthused about taking, i.e. generic product shots for a weekly sales flyer. On the other hand, half the interest of photography for many photographers is being intimate with the subject, I don't think technology will ever fully replace photographers either.
>>2795795
>TL;DR A robot was programmed to be awesome at Go, which is basically Hyper-Chess. They're able to feed a database into these robots which causes them to learn much faster than any human being, and then of course be able to call back on that stored data at any time, which is all done without the fog of human memory.
Go and chess are games, as such they were made for human comunication in a different level than mere talking, like dancing. Of course they can make a perfect dancing robot eventually, with infinite stamina and memory for every dance step ever invented, but thats way off the purpose of dancing.
