Thanks! Yes. The principles apply! This is especially the case if you're looking at an image from one AI image generator and trying to replicate the style in a different AI.
I'm a 65 year old fart trying to break into this stuff due to having some children's stories I wrote many years ago but quit due to art work being so expensive. I even started learning Python as one video said it was needed. No it wasn't . This video was needed. Thank you!
I would say Bing AI (other than ClipI) is the best for describing images. You could produce a prompt from your questions at the start of the video to give to Bing AI with the image and produce exactly the description you're after.
Could you elaborate or give an example? If I understand correctly, you describe what you want and then ask Bing AI to convert this to prompts? Ditto Clipl?
I haven't played with Bing AI very much. Every time I try to do something, I get pushed to Edge or something. Too much hassle. I have ChatGPT 4.0. But you've peaked my interest.
@@MakingPhoto Just for fun I also get it to write a short story related to the image on include it with my Instagram posts. But I hear Claude is more creative and could try asking Claude to improve the story. First attempt seemed pretty good.
@@dframp5152 I ask Bing to give me a title, description and Instagram tags. I also, for fun, ask it for a related story. The key is fine tuning the prompt. I don't think mine is very good atm.
People need to be really thoughtful about putting living artists' names in AI. That's when it becomes, if not stealing, at least disrespectful. I'm looking forward to AI letting us create more precise individual styles unique to use as individuals. And eventually we'll have systems that don't train on the art of others. Right now it's still a shackle that's holding us back as well as causing strife.
You're assuming that artists are all against this. They aren't. Peter Mohrbacher has been teaching on the Midjourney platform for months, now. Don't assume. And if you use 3 artists names, the art style the emerges isn't like any of them.
Most of them are Specially when they aren't profiting anything from this, instead, they might lose money When these AI techs start to pay the artists they depend on, then overall artists opinions might change
@@MakingPhoto I'm not for or against AI image generation, but this is a terrible answer. You can't say "don't assume" and then take for granted that there are artists living who are against it. A prompter usually has no idea of a specific artist's opinion on the matter. By saying "Don't assume," are you telling prompters to look up the artist's opinions each time?
@@MakingPhoto And it mimics those style and generates an image. It gets to me especially on Facebook art groups when people without an artistic bone in them all of a sudden call themselves artist and all they do is type words on a computer.
Yes it does mimic styles. But so do humans. How do you think artists learn to make art? When you say "all they do is type words on a computer" I think you're missing the point. If a person finds creativity through typing words on a computer - it's not for me to tell them that they aren't creative! Don't get stuck in old technical thinking. I come from the art work - I know how artists are trained - and I know the difference between technique and art.
agreed it's not actually recognized as art and promoters are not artists they are the equivalent of someone giving a description to artists for commission work. except this is gross
