login info join!
Forums > Model Colloquy > your modeling career is over.... Search   Reply
first12
Model
Stormee
Posts: 2,463
San Antonio, Texas, US


Oct 09 12 03:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orcatek Photography
Posts: 1,689
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Model
Amelia Talon
Posts: 1,470
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
WCR3
Posts: 1,042
Houston, Texas, US


CGI art nudes?

Do they do TF?
Oct 09 12 07:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8,841
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  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,391
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  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
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  Quote 
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8,841
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  Quote 
Model
Amelia Talon
Posts: 1,470
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Model
Jessie Shannon
Posts: 2,004
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  Quote 
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 21,411
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  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,717
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
R O S E S M O D E L S
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  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply