Neural networks are rapidly transforming many creative fields, and the photostock industry is no exception. Will artificial intelligence finally supplant traditional photostocks, leaving photographers unemployed, or is true creativity immortal?
Today, we see artificial intelligence generating images that are virtually indistinguishable from the work of a professional photographer. On the one hand, this frees up huge resources for the development of creativity, but on the other hand, it creates many problems, including the spread of fakes and low-quality content.
With the development of AI technologies, the use of graphical neural networks has become not only a trend but also a necessity for many design professionals.
This is due to the fact that neural networks provide new opportunities for creating and processing visual content, significantly speeding up and simplifying work processes.
We have all heard many times about the rapid development of neural networks and how they are being heavily implemented in various industries. Artificial intelligence has not passed by photography either. Already contests began to send works made by non-photographers, and their organizers had to urgently rewrite the contest conditions, prohibiting the use of AI.
And now Adobe Photoshop with AI has been released, which promises to generate any image by text description. You formulate what you need, write it down, and the neural network produces a ready-made image. You don’t need a camera, equipment… You don’t even need the subject itself!
The emergence of such capabilities immediately raised concerns—will AI not supplant the long and laborious work of photographers, videographers, and retouchers? Will photographing, for example, dishes for menus remain a job for humans, or will there soon be no need for them? Is it still possible to find human-made royalty free vectors by Depositphotos, for example?
The use of AI has gone so far that now people are talking about the emergence of a new profession—”AI artist,” and they, in turn, are even giving interviews. Their work is different from the work of an ordinary artist and, in fact, is not particularly difficult: write a prompt, and then process the result in Photoshop or outline it so that the result looks less like the work of AI.
Do you find any contradiction in this? It seems like they are proudly promoting technologies, but at the same time they are trying to hide them. And then suddenly it turns out that people do not like open admission of content generation.
The illusion is destroyed not in a vacuum but in context: almost all the works of AI artists look, if not almost identical, then terribly similar to each other. Like NFT with monkeys, fortunately long forgotten.
At first glance, artificial intelligence and the graphic content it generates have a number of advantages over traditional photo stocks.
However, such synthetic creativity has a number of serious disadvantages.
Neural networks are actively used in various areas of design.
It is important to realize that neural networks are unlikely to replace humans completely. Creativity, creativity, sense of taste—all of this is still left to humans. To remain competitive and effectively use modern technologies, it is important to master traditional graphic design tools.
Design was, is, and will be, but AI can and should be utilized, confirming the basic thesis that neural networks do have a significant impact on the photostock industry, expanding creative opportunities and simplifying workflows.
Traditional design methods remain important and in demand. Human beings are the main specialists, and it is they who have the key role in creating creative content. Neural networks should be considered as an additional tool that helps professional designers unlock their potential and realize the most daring ideas.