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

Model

Stormee

Posts: 2463

San Antonio, Texas, US

Oct 09 12 03:11 pm Link

Photographer

Orcatek Photography

Posts: 1689

Tempe, Arizona, US

It also means photographers are done too.   I've seen that for years in my automotive photography work.   Computer generated versions are used and no more photos.  Sucks!

Oct 09 12 03:22 pm Link

Photographer

bruce blosser

Posts: 294

Mendocino, California, US

this  sort  of  thing  will  replace photogs  just  as  quickly as  it does  models!  And within  the next  few  years  there  won't  even  be  a  need for  a technician  to  "draw"  the image... it  will  all be automatically done...

So  the only  thing  that  can  protect  either a  model or  a  photog  is  creativity  and originallity!  This  is  something  computers  will  likely never  be able  to keep up  with!

Oct 09 12 03:39 pm Link

Model

Amelia Talon

Posts: 1470

Los Angeles, 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

;-)

This is just for catalog work, there is a whole other world out there for us besides this.

Oct 09 12 07:41 pm Link

Model

ChaiNoir

Posts: 345

Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

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

TRUE big_smile

Oct 09 12 07:52 pm Link

Photographer

WCR3

Posts: 1072

Houston, Texas, US

CGI art nudes?

Do they do TF?

Oct 09 12 07:56 pm Link

Photographer

William Kious

Posts: 8841

Delphos, Ohio, US

The photographer has more to fear than the model, at least in the beginning. Digital artists are still going to require source material (even if it's just to laser-scan someone's body/face.)

Think about it... complete control over setting and lighting. Want to shoot on the moon? No problem, we can do that with a render. *sigh*

The technology is only going to get better. The rate of evolution is striking. Just look at what Pixar has done in 20 years.

Oct 09 12 08:04 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6395

Dallas, Texas, US

Oh, I think we're definitely going to see a lot more of this with print advertising/catalogs (merchandise and models)...somewhat more of it with models/actors in action.

Oct 09 12 08:05 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, 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.

You mean the look that 99% of high fashion clients want?

Oct 09 12 08:10 pm Link

Photographer

William Kious

Posts: 8841

Delphos, Ohio, US

Amelia Talon wrote:
This is just for catalog work, there is a whole other world out there for us besides this.

Like what, really? Runway shows? Well, let true holographic display come to pass (yes, the technology exists in an infantile stage). Personality really doesn't sell the clothes. Trade shows? Lately I've seen more standing, interactive kiosks than I have living, breathing models. In fact, it seems that "eye candy" is discouraged these days because it's sexist.

What else is there?

Oct 09 12 08:10 pm Link

Model

Amelia Talon

Posts: 1470

Los Angeles, California, US

William Kious wrote:

Like what, really?

Any and all other advertisements, like old navy tv commercials or a watch ad in a magazine, they're not going to need to replicate with a cgi model. Or even a line/brand that needs a face, an ambassador. Not to mention other genres such as glamour like Playboy or Sports Illustrated and even artistic nudes.
This is for a retail website/catalog that just needs the best looking mannequin to wear a whole bunch of clothes. It's lame, because I do quite a bit of work like this now, but it wouldn't be the end of the line for models.

Oct 10 12 01:38 am Link

Model

Miroslava Svoboda

Posts: 555

Seattle, Washington, US

Well at least that tells me that four years lost in creating lifelike avatars and fitting texture templates to objects and shapes wasn't a complete and total waste of time.

Oh and for those that think it's boring, it is not, every new thing is like a work of art you can still strive for perfection even changing skin tones.

Oct 10 12 01:53 am Link

Model

MickCetera

Posts: 276

Chicago, Illinois, US

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Just kidding no computer will best creativity and originality, I think we're safe guys.

Oct 10 12 01:10 pm Link

Model

Jessie Shannon

Posts: 2004

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Amelia Talon wrote:
Any and all other advertisements, like old navy tv commercials or a watch ad in a magazine, they're not going to need to replicate with a cgi llama. Or even a line/brand that needs a face, an ambassador. Not to mention other genres such as glamour like Playboy or Sports Illustrated and even artistic nudes.
This is for a retail website/catalog that just needs the best looking mannequin to wear a whole bunch of clothes. It's lame, because I do quite a bit of work like this now, but it wouldn't be the end of the line for llamas.

1

Oct 10 12 01:54 pm Link

Photographer

Looknsee Photography

Posts: 21684

Portland, Oregon, 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

;-)

Has anyone pointed out that our photography careers are similarly over?  tongue

Oct 10 12 02:03 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8872

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

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.

There are some photographers who seem to prefer the dead eye look.
Who knew they were trend setters?

And they are not likely to flake, or turn into divas. Unless it is an MS program.

Oct 11 12 12:18 pm Link

Model

Cy_n

Posts: 295

Saarbrücken, Saarland, Germany

Caustic Disco wrote:
INSANITY!!! technology is so bitchin'!

and making us jobless lol

Oct 11 12 01:11 pm Link

Model

Cy_n

Posts: 295

Saarbrücken, Saarland, Germany

ei Total Productions wrote:
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."

So Hollywood will be basically retired ? Oh man http://assets.modelmayhem.com/images/smilies/scary.pngto think but what you just wrote sounds realistic .

Oct 11 12 01:16 pm Link

Photographer

50 shades of ink

Posts: 23

Antelope, California, US

You can either go with the flow or get taken away with it

Oct 12 12 11:18 pm Link