Super Dimension Foto wrote:
I bet you're pretty proud of yourself.

You know, when Nikola Tesla introduced electricity, the Procter & Gamble com0any realized that their candle making business would soon start losing business.  So, they took the raw materials they had, one of which was cottonseed oil, and created the hydrogenation process.  The outcome was Crisco Oil, which they sold as a "healthier" alternative to animal lard and tallow.

Change is inevitable, regardless of who starts it.  At one point, a lot us were on MySpace.  Then Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook and we all jumped ship to interact there.  Even MM drew tons of users away from OneModelPlace (OMP).  Some companies adapt, other close shop. It's neither evil nor righteous; it's just change.

EdBPhotography wrote:
Change is inevitable, regardless of who starts it.  It's neither evil nor righteous; it's just change.

Change isn't inherently evil nor righteous; it's a neutral force, neither inherently positive nor negative, but its impact depends on the context, our reaction, and the specific outcome, often bringing both discomfort (uncertainty) and growth (new opportunities, skills, adaptability).

While often necessary for personal growth and progress, leading to better skills and opportunities, it can also be stressful, destructive, or force unwanted habits, with its moral alignment determined by what it alters and how individuals adapt.

The OP is not the hero or the villain in his story. His goal was to generate revenue for his AI business. His number of educational lessons on the benefits of AI backfired with the modelling agency choosing instead to shut down. 

Good or Bad? I guess time will tell, as the first AI generated catalogues start arriving in email letter boxes, many people may not realise or care that the pictures are AI fakes.

Super Dimension Foto wrote:
I bet you're pretty proud of yourself.

I have been a non commercial creative only Fashion Photographer for more than 20 years and as such I have worked with the majority of Modelling agencies in  Western Canada . Some have been very poor to me , some ok but the Woman who runs this particular Agency has been the best . Therefor I was interested in helping her ( and he agency ) to survive that coming AI Apocalypse .. However this Woman did not even understand the basics of AI

So I had to educate her about AI in order to explain how i could help her survive . Once She understood AIs pontential and that it was already seeping into the commercial market - she did not see an incentive to keep her agency going

To be fair to her though - she told me more recently there were other factors contributing to her decision . and that AI was just the last straw

Audrey Rinehart wrote:
How did the hands look though?

Did the AI models have crab hands?

AI still can barely create a convincing skin texture.

You are more aware of AI than many people in the Fashion Industry but the hand glitch was solved over a year ago by those who create and develop the AI Programs

Audrey Rinehart wrote:
How did the hands look though?

Did the AI models have crab hands?

AI still can barely create a convincing skin texture.

What I find interesting about this skin texture issue is that for decades now Photographers have relied on Makeup , Lighting and Editing Programs like Photoshop to make Models skin look as flawless as possible ( often un naturally so )

Along comes AI which at this point can make flawless looking Skin - but i find myself using Photoshop to create a few small flaws to make the skin more natural

Garry k wrote:
or rather my message did …..And it certainly was not my intention to do so as they had been good to me

Let me explain

About 2.5 years ago I had a lighting flash of an idea..literally when I was sitting at our Fashion Week watching the shows

AI would take over the majority of the Commercial Fashion ( Advertisng ) Industry for 2 simple reasons . It was significantly cheaper ( I estimated up to 90 percent ) and could be far more creative than traditional photography , models etc

So with the help of a Designer Friend of mine ( who had introduced me to AI ) I set out to build a commercial grade Ai Fashion Business … Our work became quite good to the point that we partnered with one of my city’s top Women’s Wear Designers who asked us to salvage her Spring 2025 campaign which had been poorly shot in China ( but that’s another story )

While on my AI journey I realized that there would still be a need for Real Models for real events such as Fashion Shows, Galas etc.. So I contacted the 5 top Modelling Agencies in my City and offered to clone their top Models so they could compete both in the real world and the virtual one.l

Only one ☝️ f the Agencies had any interest in talking to me about this concept .. They knew nothing about AI ( I suspect few of them do ) so I had a number on of meetings with them over the summer to educate them about the basics of what AI could do and its future potential ..In our last meeting the Agency Director told me that had analyzed th whole thing and did not see a way that her agency could stay afloat financially -so she had decided to return to her former profession

I was not entirely sure she was serious.. but in checking their website yesterday I see that the Agency has shut down

They were the oldest and most established Modelling Agency in my City and their Director was my personal Favourite

wow, you sound like absolute human garbage

EdBPhotography wrote:

You know, when Nikola Tesla introduced electricity, the Procter & Gamble com0any realized that their candle making business would soon start losing business.  So, they took the raw materials they had, one of which was cottonseed oil, and created the hydrogenation process.  The outcome was Crisco Oil, which they sold as a "healthier" alternative to animal lard and tallow.

Change is inevitable, regardless of who starts it.  At one point, a lot us were on MySpace.  Then Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook and we all jumped ship to interact there.  Even MM drew tons of users away from OneModelPlace (OMP).  Some companies adapt, other close shop. It's neither evil nor righteous; it's just change.

the only thing inevitable is all the weak spirited low lifes that will continue to make our world a cess pool   fck all these people

Camera Buff wrote:

Change isn't inherently evil nor righteous; it's a neutral force, neither inherently positive nor negative, but its impact depends on the context, our reaction, and the specific outcome, often bringing both discomfort (uncertainty) and growth (new opportunities, skills, adaptability).

While often necessary for personal growth and progress, leading to better skills and opportunities, it can also be stressful, destructive, or force unwanted habits, with its moral alignment determined by what it alters and how individuals adapt.

The OP is not the hero or the villain in his story. His goal was to generate revenue for his AI business. His number of educational lessons on the benefits of AI backfired with the modelling agency choosing instead to shut down. 

Good or Bad? I guess time will tell, as the first AI generated catalogues start arriving in email letter boxes, many people may not realise or care that the pictures are AI fakes.

he openly talked about "cloning models"  this 100% should be illegal and he should be openly shamed for this

Garry k wrote:

I have been a non commercial creative only Fashion Photographer for more than 20 years and as such I have worked with the majority of Modelling agencies in  Western Canada . Some have been very poor to me , some ok but the Woman who runs this particular Agency has been the best . Therefor I was interested in helping her ( and he agency ) to survive that coming AI Apocalypse .. However this Woman did not even understand the basics of AI

So I had to educate her about AI in order to explain how i could help her survive . Once She understood AIs pontential and that it was already seeping into the commercial market - she did not see an incentive to keep her agency going

To be fair to her though - she told me more recently there were other factors contributing to her decision . and that AI was just the last straw

u r garbage on many levels dude

EdBPhotography wrote:

Change is inevitable, regardless of who starts it.  At one point, a lot us were on MySpace.  Then Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook and we all jumped ship to interact there.  Even MM drew tons of users away from OneModelPlace (OMP).  Some companies adapt, other close shop. It's neither evil nor righteous; it's just change.

TRUE

Garry k wrote:

TRUE

u r a true dickhead

Camera Buff wrote:
Change isn't inherently evil nor righteous; it's a neutral force, neither inherently positive nor negative, but its impact depends on the context, our reaction, and the specific outcome, often bringing both discomfort (uncertainty) and growth (new opportunities, skills, adaptability).

While often necessary for personal growth and progress, leading to better skills and opportunities, it can also be stressful, destructive, or force unwanted habits, with its moral alignment determined by what it alters and how individuals adapt.

The OP is not the hero or the villain in his story. His goal was to generate revenue for his AI business. His number of educational lessons on the benefits of AI backfired with the modelling agency choosing instead to shut down. 

Good or Bad? I guess time will tell, as the first AI generated catalogues start arriving in email letter boxes, many people may not realise or care that the pictures are AI fakes.

I view Technology as a Neutral Force but what people do with t can be good or evil

AI Fashion Imaging can be viewed as Good  or Evil depending on who is looking at it AI could be good in they eyes of the Designer who is looking to save

Of course AI will also be viewed as Evil by those Creatives ( Models, Photographers etc ) that is displaces

D L Photo wrote:

he openly talked about "cloning models"  this 100% should be illegal and he should be openly shamed for this

you need to be careful with your accusations . I have not talked about “ cloning real life Models

my AI Process is much more about creating unique looking models to appeal to the Designers ( or my own aastheric )

D L Photo wrote:

u r garbage on many levels dude

Listen … ( And I speak for many others ) it took me about 3 seconds of looking at your “ portfolio” to figure out what you are all about

Garry k wrote:

you need to be careful with your accusations . I have not talked about “ cloning real life Models

my AI Process is much more about creating unique looking models to appeal to the Designers ( or my own aastheric )

and I quote:  "So I contacted the 5 top Modelling Agencies in my City and offered to clone their top Models so they could compete both in the real world and the virtual one"


garbage person

D L Photo wrote:

It took me only this post to see that you are a low life who is about stealing people's likeness for commercial use and then bragging about putting real artists out of business, gfy guy

Mr D L Photo was subsequently removed from this site, after which he has been sending me threatening texts

Garry k wrote:

You are more aware of AI than many people in the Fashion Industry but the hand glitch was solved over a year ago by those who create and develop the AI Programs

I spend probably 20 hours per week on PhotoShop, minimum -- the 2026 version now. Sometimes, I'm retouching for 10 hours straight, multiple days in a row. I still find the AI (at least the one used in PS) to do a terrible job on human hands. It puts the knuckles in the wrong places. It makes whole hands grow out of spots where just a thumb or pinky should be. You can eventually get it to be accurate, but it's a tedious process.

It is much better at accurately removing unflattering shadows across facial/body skin and touching up skin in general, but I do find it too smoothing so I still prefer old school frequency separation. Plus, in the past year or so, the NY editorial "scene" has moved strongly towards imperfect skin that looks (to me, as someone in my 40s and no longer "hip") a bit over-sharpened. That brings out a LOT of texture. It's a course correction from the past decade where, as digital retouching advanced, people were chronically over-smoothing models' skin and making people look like creepy robots. I don't care for the over-sharpened look, but I also hated the robot look. AI skin retouching tends to favor a look that was more popular in glamour photography 10+ years ago, over what is currently happening in fashion. Not surprising, but it's notable.

Audrey Rinehart wrote:

I spend probably 20 hours per week on PhotoShop, minimum -- the 2026 version now. Sometimes, I'm retouching for 10 hours straight, multiple days in a row. I still find the AI (at least the one used in PS) to do a terrible job on human hands. It puts the knuckles in the wrong places. It makes whole hands grow out of spots where just a thumb or pinky should be. You can eventually get it to be accurate, but it's a tedious process.

It is much better at accurately removing unflattering shadows across facial/body skin and touching up skin in general, but I do find it too smoothing so I still prefer old school frequency separation. Plus, in the past year or so, the NY editorial "scene" has moved strongly towards imperfect skin that looks (to me, as someone in my 40s and no longer "hip") a bit over-sharpened. That brings out a LOT of texture. It's a course correction from the past decade where, as digital retouching advanced, people were chronically over-smoothing models' skin and making people look like creepy robots. I don't care for the over-sharpened look, but I also hated the robot look. AI skin retouching tends to favor a look that was more popular in glamour photography 10+ years ago, over what is currently happening in fashion. Not surprising, but it's notable.

I bought an early version of Photoshop for $300 that I still use today both with my photography and with my AI.

and I think I prefer AI skin ( with a few added photoshop blemishes ) to overly photoshopped skin that has been photographed

Garry k wrote:
Mr D L Photo was subsequently removed from this site, after which he has been sending me threatening texts

I'm glad to hear that his profile was removed, with total justification.  His posts were outrageously hostile, totally inappropriate and often vulgar.

TJ Photo wrote:
Regarding the general topic of AI creations, I have mixed feelings.  But it's reached the point where it's often difficult to distinguish between an AI female image and a real model run through the typical software modifications to "perfect" or enhance the image.  And on sites like youtube, I see videos done using AI that are often quite realistic and not always identified as AI generated.  Add to that the use of "deep fakes" and totally bogus narratives, it's no wonder so many average citizens believe in dangerous fantasies, conspiracy theories, etc.  This isn't just about "change".  It's about a world going into new territory that threatens our shared reality, political stability and much more.

generative AI was so 2022-2025

due to its wild unpopularity amongst creatives and their fans, agentic AI has risen - which simply does the human edits automatically. the kinds that scripts couldn't do well or at all, such as judging where to airbrush across hundreds of images, isolating the model from hundreds of images, removing her tattoos, color grading based on visual judgements. even doing compositing

all to solve a contrived market need of assuming people don't want AI (whether they can tell or not) and groups that don't want to be cancelled by people learning they used AI - but again, thats just for generative AI. using AI to automate what you did with media as a human is different

Garry k wrote:
To be fair to her though - she told me more recently there were other factors contributing to her decision . and that AI was just the last straw

that's what I'm seeing too, companies are approached with a buy offer by firms that have AI tools already. the owners see that its the future (but its the present) and see that they have no future if they don't sell. these deals close super quick, like next day

since you weren't trying to buy her business, she saw the same end and closed up instead.

but that's just AI anxiety, in reality there is more work, for more humans. Every year, companies set out to do 100 things, and by Q3 have cancelled 95% of those things. With AI, they can actually do all 100 of those things that would have never actually have been started, so the workload is insane, for real live humans.

Roaring 20s wrote:

generative AI was so 2022-2025

due to its wild unpopularity amongst creatives and their fans, agentic AI has risen - which simply does the human edits automatically. the kinds that scripts couldn't do well or at all, such as judging where to airbrush across hundreds of images, isolating the model from hundreds of images, removing her tattoos, color grading based on visual judgements. even doing compositing

all to solve a contrived market need of assuming people don't want AI (whether they can tell or not) and groups that don't want to be cancelled by people learning they used AI - but again, thats just for generative AI. using AI to automate what you did with media as a human is different

Interesting point

Lucifers_Corner wrote:
I see the ideology.

You could've "cloned" her models, and used their likeness to sell products, etc...
No need for photographers, studios, etc Just take the product and write a prompt that would spit out an amazing ad campaign, and the model and agency get a check without even having to roll out of bed.
Just like in Black Mirror. Let me sign a contract, and you sign mine, concerning my likeness being used. You can make a whole TV show off of me, and not one time do I have to attend a 4AM call to make-up, just make sure the money hits the account.

People had better learn how to use AI before they're in the dust. Very few people still use film.
One thing is for sure: it's a LOT easier than using Photoshop, if you have the right program.

It would also have made her Models available for any Designer Client in the World to hire ( if they were using AI )