|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
"I Lost My Job To A Digital Chick"
I was talking with a few of my agency friends and was surprised (not-so-much-really) to find out that they and some of their competitors were beginning to rep new divisions of computer generated talent! Oh $$h!+! Does anyone else detect the distinct odor of bubbling tar pits? Many of us in this constantly evolving modeling industry could be about as current as a T-Rex. Well maybe not that drastic, but it did make me wonder what this could mean to my career and the models I photograph should there be a rapid move in this direction. I think about the up spring of computer generated actors in blockbuster films. In my opinion there are still major hurdles to leap when it comes to perfecting photorealistic models, but I know itâs only a matter of time before this happens. In print, models are already computerized to some degree. Would the next step be to computerize runway models? Not possible? I used to think so until I saw the potential with my own two eyes... Re.,The Gorillaz/Madonna performance at the 2006 Grammy Awards⦠Pretty freaking amazing! They used 3D projection to create a very realistic experience. The big question is why would anyone want to replace the real thing with a fantasy image? I think the reasons have been touched on numerous times here in the forums: In some cases, I think clients might prefer having a dependable techno-model. Real models are notoriously late, occasionally have bad attitudes, and add to this, sometimes real models expect to get paid big bucks, as much as $10,000 for a stroll down the catwalk. Techno-models never get sick, work 24hrs without complaining, never have scheduling conflicts, donât need photographers or make-up artists, and they are perfection made to order. Could this be the future for models? Nothing more than an image on a computer screen? Does this mean little girls around the world can finally look up to real women as role models? Does this mean models will finally be able to eat more than their daily rice cake? Hopefully none of us reading this today will lose work because a techno-model got the job. I would urge you however to increase your skill set, maybe take up a computer compositing course, else you might find yourself reduced to slinging burgers at the local Mickey Dâs. Can I get some fries with that shake? Jan 05 08 04:49 pm Link I didn't read all of what you wrote... ... but I have heard of this. I guess there was some fashion show that didn't actually have models at it, just a 3D projection of them. Jan 05 08 04:52 pm Link You've got to be kidding me. I seriously doubt any of that will replace a flesh-&-blood model. Jan 05 08 04:52 pm Link Goldie117 wrote: Kind of like the same way a machine would never replace a flesh-&-blood bank teller? Jan 05 08 04:54 pm Link Sneak backstage and smash the motherboard with a baseball bat. Problem solved.  Jan 05 08 04:54 pm Link Goldie117 wrote: You would be surprised. Jan 05 08 04:54 pm Link With the way technology is going, I don't see why not. I don't think it will be anytime too soon, but I think it's coming. Hell, at some point you'll probably be able to have some 3D holographic fashion show pop out of the screen on your iPod. Jan 05 08 04:55 pm Link Goldie117 wrote: Just keep thinking that way. It's already happening. Jan 05 08 04:55 pm Link Christopher Ambler wrote: yup... welcome to the Matrix... Jan 05 08 04:56 pm Link EMG STUDIOS wrote: And digital would never replace film. Jan 05 08 04:57 pm Link To all those who doubt this please see the movie Simone http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/ I don't think digital models and actors are not that far off. The suit types will love it since it will be vastly cheaper. Jan 05 08 04:58 pm Link Like everything else, I suspect there will end up being room for both 3D generated and real-life models. "Real-life" models will probably continue to be used in art, high-end productions (where total realism is needed and desired) and hobby work (where the social component is almost as important as the actual images to many people) For an example of where this is going, just look at Landscapes: Computers have ben able to generate photo-realistic landscapes for the last 5-10 years and, for many purposes, computer landscapes HAVE replaced location shooting in movies. Nevertheless, plenty of people still enjoy taking landscape photos (and plenty of people enjoy looking at and buying them) AND whenever a big-budget (or low budget, for that matter) movie wants a certain look, they go shoot in a real place. (New Zealand in LotR, anyone?) Jan 05 08 06:00 pm Link Replace? No. Add another layer of competition and dilute the amount of work? Yes. Fewer marginal models and photographers will have work. "One must excel to survive." - Dawin* *Actually, Darwin never said that, but he would have if I'd have written his speaches. Jan 05 08 06:14 pm Link KingPaul wrote: I don't know, but it's been happening forever. The argument that models represent only a small portion of women and the use of make-up and photoshop come to mind here. Are our "real" models all that real, anyway? Seriously? Jan 05 08 07:13 pm Link Wait isn't the whole point of photography to have an excuse to talk to pretty girls who are socially out of our leage? Why would I want to use a CG model? Jan 05 08 07:24 pm Link Yes, replace. It's already happened, and I'd wager almost everyone doesn't realize it. Jan 05 08 07:27 pm Link freckin scary to think about all this Jan 05 08 07:32 pm Link I guess someone will have to design a logo "Done with real people" but it will probably end up in the someplace as the "Made In America" logo. Jan 05 08 07:40 pm Link leesaxon photography wrote: We have a better chance of scoring with a CG model. Jan 05 08 08:00 pm Link Looks like everyone's gonna have to start shooting fitness now...unless they automate that also with computers.  Edit: I can just see the headlines now: "Jay Cutler replaced by a PC-generated image of a bodybuilder for Flex Magazine."  Jan 05 08 08:11 pm Link Wouldn't digital "models" be inadequate for showing how the clothing will drape? I mean, if they aren't solid, they can't actually wear the clothes -- just digital reproductions. Robots, on the other hand . . . Jan 05 08 08:19 pm Link Kamarose wrote: I've seen 3D character generation software the very realistically reproduces the effect of draping clothes...even wind-blown clothes... Jan 05 08 08:25 pm Link Adagio by J Pate-Terry wrote: You might like we could get rid of Boris and make a run at Natasha? Thats cool! Jan 05 08 08:27 pm Link Christopher Ambler wrote: Lol.. what are you talking about? Please inform all of the people here since you know everything! Jan 05 08 08:29 pm Link CarlMaiorinoPhotography wrote: I don't mean clothes in general . . . I mean very specific clothes. I'd never buy a garment that I'd only seen a digital reproduction of. Would you? Jan 05 08 08:30 pm Link Its all a matter of time... And quite possibly in our own life time. I work in a production studio that has a strong 3D department and trust me, dealing with a digital production problem is easier than some internet wannabe... Eventually, the tech will be easy enough for all talent to become generated and "flash and blood" models will be vintage. I can see the headlines now "Fashion designer uses real models for Winter collection, WFT?" M Jan 05 08 08:31 pm Link Kamarose wrote: Kamarose you're right. Clothing is actually one of the areas hardest to replicate in CG, that and realistic eye movement, but trust me there's probably someone working on this as I type. Jan 05 08 09:02 pm Link Adagio by J Pate-Terry wrote: Good Question. I've taken an ugly girl or two to stellar status with the click of a mouse and the liquify tool... LOL... By the time I was done with her, the images were unrecognizable to the models and I had usable shots. Jan 05 08 09:11 pm Link technology is always on the rise! China is already replacing "organic based guides" to "robotic guides!" as they call them! they asked what next? robotoc secretaries and cab drivers? "Who knows of the possabilities!!" and 3D holograms...just another technology! they are wanting to intergrate it into video games and weaponery technology, and i bet that the 3D models will become more popular but i doubt it if there will be some take over in 3D hologram models!! Jan 06 08 02:50 am Link But who will bang a computer-generated model? Jan 06 08 02:56 am Link Leggy Mountbatten wrote: I would, I would! hell who knows those 3-d renders paired with 3-d goggles, and a dick in a box, thats the future. Jan 06 08 03:12 am Link Layla Love wrote: LOL! All the benefits minus all the headaches. Do they make one of those for guys? Jan 18 08 07:57 am Link Computer generated talent = Euphanism for cartoon character? Jan 18 08 07:59 am Link rp_photo wrote: I know a few warm blooded cartoon characters Jan 18 08 08:01 am Link Adagio by J Pate-Terry wrote: Yea but how does tfbj work then... sorry that was another thread Jan 18 08 08:05 am Link KingPaul wrote: More like? Jan 18 08 08:06 am Link Anthony B wrote: Ah well Here you go! Jan 18 08 10:42 pm Link The masses must somehow be able to relate to the model, id imagine? I wouldnt want to buy a sports drink, lipstick or insurance policy from an all-too-perfect computer model. real people look much better. Jan 18 08 10:50 pm Link Jeff Fiore wrote: It involves windex. Jan 19 08 10:28 am Link Nicole Hopkins wrote: Butterfinger Jan 19 08 10:42 am Link |
