Forums > Model Colloquy > your modeling career is over....

Photographer

netmodel

Posts: 6786

Austin, Texas, US

yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

Sep 03 12 09:29 am Link

Model

Julia Francesca

Posts: 2365

Maumee, Ohio, US

INSANITY!!! technology is so bitchin'!

Sep 03 12 09:38 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 6324

New York, New York, US

Ah! but how often does your computer give you a hug and a kiss on the cheek after a good shoot!

Some things are priceless, for everything else there's CGI

Sep 03 12 09:56 am Link

Model

Laura BrokenDoll

Posts: 3554

Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy

Way more beautiful than me, gosh they're perfect.

But I still beat 'em at facial expressions! big_smile

Sep 03 12 12:07 pm Link

Photographer

T Brown

Posts: 2460

Traverse City, Michigan, US

Broken Doll wrote:
Way more beautiful than me, gosh they're perfect.

But I still beat 'em at facial expressions! big_smile

CGI doesn't hold a candle to you..  wink

Sep 03 12 12:10 pm Link

Model

Venessa Baez

Posts: 616

Tampa, Florida, US

They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

Sep 03 12 12:14 pm Link

Photographer

Kent Art Photography

Posts: 2929

Ashford, England, United Kingdom

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

And that odd little thing that a model does on the spur of the moment that just makes a shot.

By the way, the site wanted to download seven cookies to my computer.

Sep 03 12 12:17 pm Link

Makeup Artist

ArtistryImage

Posts: 2845

Washington, District of Columbia, US

the auto makers move to CGI years ago... attended a seminar given by a leading commercial Detroit photog... his solution is simply moving into smaller markets... the future for all in our industry will likely be an endless cycle of finding new untapped clientele to generate a revenue stream...

make technology work for you... embrace change...

Sep 03 12 12:24 pm Link

Model

Victoria Elle

Posts: 464

New York, New York, US

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

They are real human models from the neck up.

"The real model’s head has been superimposed on the body and the skin tone has been digitally altered to match her complexion."

http://mashable.com/2011/12/08/hm-cg-models/

Sep 03 12 12:35 pm Link

Model

Alabaster Crowley

Posts: 8265

Tucson, Arizona, US

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though.

Have you ever seen a high fashion runway show or editorial?

Sep 03 12 12:45 pm Link

Photographer

KMP

Posts: 4825

Houston, Texas, US

I can see this. 

A lot of times I may illustrate product shots to better bring out over all detail.  Once I get done, it can be hard to say if it's a photograph or an illustration. This is particularly true with automobile photography. 

With people cutting back on costs and digital illustration blurring the line between real and illustration..it's only a matter of time before it cuts into other areas.

Sep 03 12 12:50 pm Link

Photographer

Matt Knowles

Posts: 3563

Ferndale, California, US

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

They sure got that pose down.

Sep 03 12 08:21 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

GPS Studio Services

Posts: 36377

San Francisco, California, US

In the not too distant future, many movies will be entirely CGI.   Actors will be scanned and will then be relegated to delivering lines.

Computer generated models will become more and more common.  To think any differently is just naive.  It sux, but it is the future.

The good news is that I am old enough that it won't really affect me that much.  But for you younger whipper-snappers, brush up on your computer skills.

I am waiting to see my first "virtual wedding."

Sep 03 12 08:28 pm Link

Model

Misty R H

Posts: 471

Anaheim, California, US

VikyL wrote:

They are real human models from the neck up.

"The real model’s head has been superimposed on the body and the skin tone has been digitally altered to match her complexion."

http://mashable.com/2011/12/08/hm-cg-models/

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

Sep 03 12 08:41 pm Link

Photographer

GER Photography

Posts: 7951

Imperial, California, US

I'm waiting for some new Humphrey Bogart movies!!

Sep 03 12 08:49 pm Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 8493

Los Angeles, California, US

So, instead of an Escort . . . . you get a TechSupport guy


What's the difference . . . . they're both annoying


KM

Sep 03 12 08:50 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 33593

Los Angeles, California, US

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

Hmm.

Maybe I could use that technology for everything BUT the model. Sort of switch it around.

Sep 03 12 11:11 pm Link

Model

Victoria Elle

Posts: 464

New York, New York, US

Misty R H wrote:

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

You're welcome to think whatever you want about their facial expressions.  They are, however, one of the only parts of the image that are not CGI.  In criticizing them, you are criticizing the modeling ability of the live human models, not the CGI aspect at all.

Sep 04 12 05:15 pm Link

Model

The Grace Gabbana

Posts: 351

Santa Rosa, California, US

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

What are you so happy about? Did you actually think that they hired a photographer to shoot a model that doesn't exist in reality? That models would be jobless, and photographers would be sitting pretty? Do you really get your jollies from the misfortune of others?

I don't know you personally, so I can't accurately judge your character. Having said that; what you posted is so insensitive and ignorant that I truly pity you.

G

Sep 04 12 05:36 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Both interesting and funny. I can certainly imagine a future when most of the industrial modeling and photography (advertising, product, even fashion) is gone and instead CGI rules.

It wouldn't bother me at all, I'm only interested in the type of personal interaction photography that would still be around, marginalized just like it is today. Erotic feelings and interactions and images made from that inspiration have been around since the time of the cavemen. It's not stopping anytime soon.

Sep 04 12 06:26 pm Link

Photographer

ontherocks

Posts: 22618

Salem, Oregon, US

i got a hug from a one year old customer once. that was so sweet!

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Ah! but how often does your computer give you a hug and a kiss on the cheek after a good shoot!

Sep 04 12 06:35 pm Link

Photographer

Good Egg Productions

Posts: 15721

Orlando, Florida, US

Pssh...

This was foretold in 1981.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

We had PLENTY of time to change career choices.

Sep 04 12 06:37 pm Link

Photographer

Har Marshal

Posts: 264

Raleigh, North Carolina, US

If your computer locks up prior to a virtual photo shoot, does that count as flaking?  Just wondering what MM forums will be about in the future . . .

Sep 04 12 06:46 pm Link

Model

MichelleGenevieve

Posts: 97

Austin, Texas, US

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though.

Then Kristen Stewart's replacement is here!  Her days as an actress are numbered.

Sep 04 12 08:43 pm Link

Model

Ivanafox

Posts: 979

Healesville, Victoria, Australia

I think people on sites like Mm have nothing to worry about. Normal people will still want to get photographs of themself/kids/pets and photographers will still want to spend time trying out concepts/lighting with a real live person.

Sep 04 12 09:00 pm Link

Photographer

toesup

Posts: 1050

Templeton, California, US

Can I get a plus size version please...

Nothing will EVER beat the feeling of that great shot of some real flesh and blood llama, the curve of her body, the look of her eye, the shape of her lips.. need I go on?..

Bahhh.. CGI, NO WAY!..

Sep 04 12 09:07 pm Link

Model

Kaley King

Posts: 1027

Jefferson City, Missouri, US

Takes away jobs for photographers too...

Sep 04 12 09:09 pm Link

Model

Stray Kat

Posts: 90

Morris, Illinois, US

The Grace Gabbana wrote:

And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

What are you so happy about? Did you actually think that they hired a photographer to shoot a model that doesn't exist in reality? That models would be jobless, and photographers would be sitting pretty? Do you really get your jollies from the misfortune of others?

I don't know you personally, so I can't accurately judge your character. Having said that; what you posted is so insensitive and ignorant that I truly pity you.

G

as it says...

To save on costs—and perhaps assembly time—Swedish retailing giant IKEA created computer-generated images of its furniture for the new catalog, RATHER THAN HIRE A PHOTOGRAPHER. By next year, a quarter of the scenes depicted in IKEA’s print and online advertising will be digitally drawn rather than photographed, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. In fact, IKEA says it is able to better depict its products with computer images than actual photography.

Sep 04 12 09:12 pm Link

Model

Stray Kat

Posts: 90

Morris, Illinois, US

toesup wrote:
Can I get a plus size version please...

Nothing will EVER beat the feeling of that great shot of some real flesh and blood model, the curve of her body, the look of her eye, the shape of her lips.. need I go on?..

Bahhh.. CGI, NO WAY!..

+1

Sep 04 12 09:13 pm Link

Model

Stray Kat

Posts: 90

Morris, Illinois, US

Har Marshal wrote:
If your computer locks up prior to a virtual photo shoot, does that count as flaking?  Just wondering what MM forums will be about in the future . . .

LOL

Sep 04 12 09:15 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 2834

London, England, United Kingdom

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

Lol, yeah right. No one notice how nearly every example in the article came with a negative reason why it won't be accepted?

The problem with journalism these days is most of it's based on guess work and not hard facts. Yes these technologies exist, but they rarely ever replace. A worse case scenario is we all retrain as CAD specialists or CGI specialists.

Since the public is turning away from retouching producing an impossible body image, you guys expect the public to embrace a completely fake image?

IKEA suffer from an image problem associated with all flat -packed manufacturers. People almost expect their assembled item to not be as good as image. Plus it's much easy to CGI a non living entity.

Cinema, we are yet to see a convincing character, a lot of CGI is detectable to the human eye, we just accept we have to suspend belief for a few seconds. Didn't Ridley Scott do a lot of the effects old school to make Prometheus as believable as possible?

If you ever get a chance to go to a film premier you'll see the crazy effect these actors/actresses have on their adoring public, not so easy to replace with CGI as people would have you think.

Makes a great article though for their "Personal Finance" section.

Sep 05 12 01:38 am Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 2834

London, England, United Kingdom

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

While I agree with some of your original post, I do think the above point is misguided. There are other subjects that can be photographed.

When models is replaced by Barbiesoft Inc's Leticia version 2.654, Model Mayhem will resurface after being rebranded as "Bowl of Fruit Mayhem"

Seriously though, I doesn't matter what the Industry does, because Internet Modeling is a separate, independent industry. They like to call it a site full of professionals when in fact its a site full of hobbyists, they are not interested in software.

Sep 05 12 01:45 am Link

Photographer

Mark Anthony Photo

Posts: 199

Pottstown, Pennsylvania, US

Misty R H wrote:

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

Sorry. Don't know if it was said yet, but perfection is legend. I find and relish imperfection as a celebration of each person. The challenge is to bring that imperfection into the beauty as well.

Sep 05 12 02:45 am Link

Photographer

Mark Anthony Photo

Posts: 199

Pottstown, Pennsylvania, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Pssh...

This was foretold in 1981.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

We had PLENTY of time to change career choices.

Don't forget S1MONE with Al Pacino.

Sep 05 12 02:49 am Link

Photographer

KFPhotography

Posts: 67

ROCKAWAY PARK, New York, US

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Ah! but how often does your computer give you a hug and a kiss on the cheek after a good shoot!

Some things are priceless, for everything else there's CGI

Shoot me, I never get those priceless moments after any shoots sad

Sep 05 12 02:55 am Link

Photographer

j3_photo

Posts: 19875

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

La Lana  wrote:
Takes away jobs for photographers too...

Yep, I saw that right away in the article.  Instead of hiring a photographer, they drew the damn furniture.

Sep 05 12 04:45 am Link

Model

Jen B

Posts: 3185

Hopkinsville, Kentucky, US

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

+ I agree, good call.

Sep 05 12 08:45 am Link

Model

Princess Dasha

Posts: 57

Malmö, Skåne, Sweden

The people working with these models will eventually be sad and depressed and suffer from an overdose of anti-depressant because they don't meet and greet people but instead sit in front of their computers to simulate poses and expressions? tongue How depressing!

But yeah, cool technology. However just like someone said above: what about the handshaking and hugging and the laughs! yikes

Oct 09 12 03:45 am Link

Model

Laurel Rae

Posts: 2034

Tucson, Arizona, US

it doesn't matter...I'm 24 anyways ...it's about time I retire anyways tongue

Oct 09 12 02:38 pm Link

Model

Jessie Shannon

Posts: 2004

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Laurel Rae wrote:
it doesn't matter...I'm 24 anyways ...it's about time I retire anyways tongue

yikes Oh shit I'm 26 yikes................yikes lol

Oct 09 12 02:40 pm Link