chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...sure it is...only it's your *art* work!

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

[quote=chasgroh]...sure it is...only it's your *art* work![/quote


At work only if over 50% is ai generated

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is my humble take on this. A photographer is an artist, we do not have the canvas or brushes a painter has but we are still artists. We are also creative, we were when we were using the darkroom and we are now that we have the "digital darkroom."
AI is here to stay and I bet it is the future of ALL editing programs. More and more editors are incorporating AI into their software.

I have always been a fan of landscape photography and although I have been photographing landscapes for more than 50 years I still enjoy very much placing my camera on a tripod and exposing the beautiful scenery our Lord created for us. Nothing makes me more happy than to look at the beauty He created and with all my humble expertise I try to reproduce what I saw in a JPEG or RAW data. How many times I felt frustrated, especially when shooting slide film with those flat, unattractive skies mainly in winter? Many times, there was no way I could fix an otherwise interesting image. AI has changed that. I now have two choices, I can go with what I shot or I can improve what I saw with AI. Many times I go with AI and save the image. Enlargement? No issues, if good attention to details is paid and AI is not over used the image will look very natural.

I understand the purist, I used to be that way also but I cannot deny the improvements that AI has brought to my photography. As I said, we have choices and each one of us should do what pleases us.
To repeat myself, I am very happy using AI, not on all images and now I have new choices. I firmly believe that AI is here to stay.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I did belong to and check into a few art forums on FB, but no more. People are crawling out of the woodwork on those forums claiming AI as their hand painted artwork.
Good for those who still tell it like it is. Sad for those who feel the need to lie.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Thanks for commenting Jo. When I can get AI to do what I asked it to do I feel I accomplished something

Horseart Loc: Alabama

That sounds like the same way I feel when my paints and brushes do what I want.
The good thing is that you are truthful about how you made it.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

I think you have, too! Just to get the right prompts is art! ;0)

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Well, perhaps....any image we take with our digital cameras is produced via 'computer intelligence'. After all, it is the camera's microprocessor that creates the output image. To create an "AI" image we input what we want to see in the scene. With the digital camera, we direct the camera to the subject we want to see as a result.😁

User ID

Thaz all real, but the photo taliban always hangs their hat in the sensor as being the requisite "light sensitive medium" without which an image doesnt match the archaic Greek roots of the word "photography".

If we were to take that to the fringe, if a person disrobes and displays their tanning lines, then that is a photogram, an image method that was always acknowledged as being a form of photography.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I hardly think that definition of photography is archaic, but has proved very useful in defining photography. I have seen definitions before digital came along which refer to a light sensitive film, but that just had to be changed to a light sensitive medium or material to include digital. I have never thought about tanning as a photogram, but I have seen people intentionally use a template of some sort to tan words or images on their skin. I don't think it's a stretch to include that as a photogram, which I agree has always been included under the umbrella of photography. But I wonder what kind of definition of photography you would propose which doesn't include the action of light on a light sensitive medium and still accurately differentiates it from other forms of image making.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

It's a photo! No, it's not, it's a composite! No, it's not, it's simply digital artistry! No it's not unless it's over 50% digitally enhanced. And on and on…

To me, a photo is a canvas to either be left intact or edited to suit MY vision and intent. Whether using selections in Camera Raw, Photoshop, Topaz or some other editing software, or using AI selectively, or keeping the SOOC image, the end result is what I seek. Whatever term a person might choose to call the resulting image is not a concern...

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Thanks for taking the time to respond Tommy. I use composites to illustrate situations that are unlikely or impossible to happen. I use Post Processing to replicate what I saw at the time I pushed the button

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

When I studied with Ansel Adams he said that the image captured by your camera is only the starting point for creating the image that is in your mind - it is that which should concern you - guys with paint brushes have been doing it for centuries

User ID

Nearly all definitions become archaic if theyre not updated. Whether your prefered definition of photography is already archaic is just an argument about WHEN the update occurs. If for you that hasnt happened yet, theres no harm in using archaic terms in the interim.

User ID

When I studied with Owen Butler, he made it clear that we would best avoid such ideas.

His advice has served me well, but I dont go around preaching in his name. Your teachers advice suits you ? Good on you.

OTOH, when I studied with Henry Schwartz, he was extreeemely opinionated about paint and brushes. That served me very well, but didnt pay as well as photography so I simply followed the money.