The wonders of AI keep unveiling themselves — most recently, as photorealistic images.
I am astounded.
I’ve been test-driving a new AI program called Midjourney. It can create infinite images, including uncannily lifelike, detailed, photorealistic images from descriptive text.
Last night, in nostalgia for Western romance novels, I tested Midjourney. I prompted: “A young cowboy kisses his sweetheart during an evening rainstorm.” A simple, evocative. I clicked the generate button and prepared for a laughable, cartoonish result.
When the image popped up on my screen, I was speechless.
It was a sight to behold. The image showed a rugged cowboy, complete with a hat, locked in a passionate embrace with his sweetheart. The couple was about to kiss as they stood in the warm glow of a rainy western street. The light from nearby windows reflected off their clothing, creating a surreal, dreamy atmosphere. It was tender, raw, and powerful.
It was so real and vivid that I had to remind myself that no artist’s hand had touched this piece. It was pure AI, Midjourney flexing its silicon muscles to breathe life into a simple string of words.
To say I was pleased would be a gross understatement. I was dumbfounded, thrilled, and utterly captivated. Midjourney’s image wasn’t just photorealistic; it told a story. It captured the moment’s essence, making me feel like I was peering into a novel myself.
Now, I’m left with this burning question: Could this image make it to the big time? Could it stand shoulder to shoulder with professionally photographed book covers? Could it grip a potential reader’s imagination and entice them into the wild, passionate world of a Western romance novel?
I am leaning towards yes. What do you think?
L.T. Hanlon 
I think it’s a worthy image.
Midjourney is the best of the AI image generators, in my experience. The results are uncanny. This kind of thing will change our culture in radical and unpredictable ways. It’s going to be both fun and disturbing.
LikeLike
This is where I wish existing photography for book covers gave more of the background behind the photo. Who is the photographer? (sometimes given). Who are the subjects? Where is the photo taken? What model camera was used? What was the setup like? Of course, book covers would never give all these details about how a photo was made. But these are things that bring a photo into reality. But now that I type this, the publisher wouldn’t want to give all the details to a photo, because the photo is just supposed to be illustrative of the contents of the book. The photo isn’t meant to be literal.
So now, this has got me thinking that AI ‘photography’ for book covers is an ok thing.
LikeLike