ai generated photos just look like the idea of a photo rather than a photo, like everything is slightly too resolved, no weird shadow from a bad angle, no moment where the light was almost right but not quite, just everything exactly where you'd want it which is how you know nobody was actually there, and the design ones especially have this quality where every surface is perfect and the coffee cup is always at the right distance from the laptop and the plant is never dying, and at first glance it reads as aspirational but after a second it just reads as empty, and i think what's missing is resistance, like real photos have stuff in them that wasn't planned and that unplanned stuff is actually most of what makes an image feel like it came from the world, and these don't have any of that, they came from an average of the world which is a completely different thing.
>>464704Yes, an approximation. That's all computer generated images should be. The idea of what you told it to make. It isn't photography, it isn't human made art. It is simply a computation of information. I love it for that, and don't see it as anything more than that.
>>464720haha what is the point?nobody thinks AI equals photography.and nobody thinks it's human made art.everybody agrees that its outcomes simply come incredibly close to these things, so that many expect the (previously) manual effort to just not really be worth it anymore from now on. >people are wearing mass produced nike shoes, even when their value and quality is so obviously inferior to that of its predecessor, the tailor made leather boot (or even to that of a sufficiently trained bare foot, for that matter)
Sometimes they can look really realistic. Other times you get those weird texture patterns like in the OP image or the like all smooth and smeared
