AI and this forum (Page 2): It's cell phone cameras impacting traditional camera manufacturing, not AI. AI requires creating on your computer (or equivalent). Totally different world...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

yssirk123 wrote:

...I have no issue with those who like to create 100% AI images, with one reservation - it is a replacement technology that will negatively impact camera manufacturers. By way of example - how many pagers are being sold these days?

It's cell phone cameras impacting traditional camera manufacturing, not AI.

AI requires creating on your computer (or equivalent). Totally different world from capturing moments in time.

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

kscanman wrote:

For me A.I. is a slap in the face to the people who work hard to create beautiful photography. It is an art form that should not be tainted by A.I. at least in this forum. Many people have spent hours and lots of money on learning and buying equipment so that they can not only make money, but also have art that they can be proud of. It kind of hurts when you put something together in 2 minutes and call it art. A.I should have it’s own forum.

As long as A.I. work is labled as such, I have no problem with it. I do what I do for me and do not care what others do. If A.I. threatened my job, then I would be concerned and need to learn to adapt.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

I chuckle as I read your comments about AI:O)
Each of course is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect yours, but I think (way) back when I was with our local newspaper when 'auto-focus' was coming in strong. Most reporters/photographers referred to it instead as 'OUT of Focus':O)
Then there was that 'new' process -- Digital! "No way it will EVER equal FILM!" :o)

New things can seem threatening but we continue learning more and more with each innovation, like it or not.
A forum in my opinion should consist of a variety of topics/subjects - pro & con- to be considered and discussed.
Just my two-cents worth,
God Bless,
Papa Joe

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

My concern is the integrity of the persons using it. I know that many will present an AI generated image as a real photo, thereby causing viewers to believe that scene actually existed, or that action actually occurred. Perhaps not here, but elsewhere. As a new art form, it is welcome, and can be used much as a painter creates a scene from his imagination. If we are to remain a photography forum, perhaps we should create some limits. On FAA, for example, most of the photography groups have imposed a "no AI" rule. But even there, it all depends on the integrity of the person using it to be truthful.

I'll take the arrows that will come when I say that I'm opposed to sky replacements, which y'all seem to embrace, for the same reason. To me, photography is a faithful representation of what was, not a manipulated version of what I want it to be. That, to me, is digital art. It's not wrong, just different.

Canisdirus

Most things in life is an agreed upon delusion.

The vast majority of people will consider this to be photography...no argument will sway them.
If the vast majority agree upon the delusion...it becomes very real to them.

Now you know what it is like to be an atheist.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There are many who seek a means of artistic expression without having to do the study, or the practice or the work. We get a glimpse of that here. I suppose that AI is a legitimate medium for those folks. But absent the skill, absent the diligence, I do not think that automatically makes the products of that process worthy of acceptance by anyone else as art.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

AI is part of photography and art if you don’t like it don’t use it but don’t slap artists for creativity just because you believe in old school photography

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

brentrh wrote:

AI is part of photography and art if you don’t like it don’t use it but don’t slap artists for creativity just because you believe in old school photography

Agreed!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

brentrh wrote:

AI is part of photography and art if you don’t like it don’t use it but don’t slap artists for creativity just because you believe in old school photography

And please don't give a slap to those who disagree with you or choose to like something other than your choice. There is no reason to degrade any artist for their choice of medium.

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

Shellback wrote:

AI has it’s own url=https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/... (show quote)

I have no problem with AI imagery. I'm not interested in employing it myself, but I have no issues with others making pictures that way. My issue is simply that we need to stop calling it art. That's silly. That's like calling corn on the cob cuisine. It's like calling bot content literature. It's just stuff.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"Progress," like flood waters, cannot be held back. Like it or not, AI is here to stay. In a short time, it will be in charge, not its creators.

mffox Loc: Avon, CT

To each his own. Personally, I have no interest in AI.
Mark

MrPhotog

Frank T wrote:

Film photographers said the same thing about digital.
Wet plate photographers probably said the same thing about film.
The beat goes on. Learn to dance to a new tune. It's fun.

Portrait painters certainly said similar things about photographic portraits, and they continue to say such things to this day. Art schools, museums, exhibitions—even county fairs and state fairs separate camera work from brush work.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Interesting discussion.

AI pictures are not, and never will be photographs.

AI pictures are not copies of someone else's pictures. AI pictures are unique and did not exist until asked for from your favorite AI site.

Use and presentation of AI is an ethical problem that needs to be resolved by rational debate.

AI allows me to visit places, I can not go, and to see things I otherwise can't see: The summit of Mt. Everest looking down into Tibet; the back alleys of London in the 1880; flying dragons or elves in bright armor.

Question: Is there a difference between using an AI image of a dark New York alley and a stock photograph by someone you probably don't even know?

Generative Fill poses an interesting question. A Black Hawk flies by down wind at a high rate of speed and I have only a split second to react and he's gone. I get home look at the image in LR and discover its left wing tip is missing. To me I have three options: Delete the pic, push the limits of my PS skills and reconstruct the wing tip or use Generative Fill. What would you do, and most important, why.

greigfla

kscanman wrote:

For me A.I. is a slap in the face to the people who work hard to create beautiful photography. It is an art form that should not be tainted by A.I. at least in this forum. Many people have spent hours and lots of money on learning and buying equipment so that they can not only make money, but also have art that they can be proud of. It kind of hurts when you put something together in 2 minutes and call it art. A.I should have it’s own forum.

I'll bet with a little digging you can find 200 year old letters from painters expressing similar sentiments about those new-fangled gadgets called cameras