Generative AI
May 27, 2023 07:29:48 #
May 27, 2023 07:47:25 #
Elias Amador wrote:
I am all for population control, but to me these photos seem more viewable and interesting with people in them.
================================
Elias........
On Shot #2, I would have left just the one cyclist who was riding away from the photographer
....... for context
IMHO..... Only
LOL
Cheers
GoldStar46
George Veazey
May 27, 2023 08:53:21 #
Tdearing wrote:
A new world.
Well, it is not quite a new world yet. See this blog for a description of one person's disappointment.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90898566/i-tried-photoshops-new-generative-ai-tools
The new tool may make "fixing" these photos easier, but it is not opening up new vistas. With a cloning tool and the ability to make layers, any photographer could get rid of people just as we have gotten rid of telephone poles grow3ing out of people's heads by cloning the sky.
Just some thoughts. --Richard
May 27, 2023 09:41:09 #
May 27, 2023 11:32:04 #
UTMike wrote:
This advance in AI is not different from tools we already have to remove people from photos. The issue is ethics. If you present an altered photo as an original - that is wrong. If, instead, it is presented for the scene it portrays - digital art.
So, to make sure that I comply with the ethics committee of UHH am I supposed to add a textual comment to each of the photos hanging on my walls describing all of the modifications I made to each of the images?
May 27, 2023 11:44:10 #
rcarol wrote:
So, to make sure that I comply with the ethics committee of UHH am I supposed to add a textual comment to each of the photos hanging on my walls describing all of the modifications I made to each of the images?
I don't believe that presenting an altered photo without comment is dishonest. Claiming it is unaltered is.
May 27, 2023 11:44:55 #
NCMtnMan
Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
charles brown wrote:
Upon reviewing my two above posts one word suddenly comes to mind, ethics.
Well, if we're going to go there then shouldn't this apply to any post processing? People have been playing with post processing since the days of darkrooms and dodging to modify the printing process. I agree that actually taking parts of one shot and combining it with parts from another is not a true representation of either photograph, but it's been going on for years by using layers. Cropping to eliminate unwanted parts of a shot. Is that a true representation of the actual photograph? This kind of "moral/ethical" question can be discussed forever with no real conclusion except one's own opinion. The AI is not really an accurate name for it, but it's the technology buzzword of the present. It is just improved capabilities within the post processing software world of digital imaging. Also, remember that Photoshop is used by literally millions of graphics people for all kinds of purposes. Just some thoughts.
May 27, 2023 11:57:02 #
Interesting. I like the people removal, leaving the scene uncluttered.
May 27, 2023 16:28:09 #
May 27, 2023 16:57:45 #
"So, to make sure that I comply with the ethics committee of UHH am I supposed to add a textual comment to each of the photos hanging on my walls describing all of the modifications I made to each of the images?"
"I don't believe that presenting an altered photo without comment is dishonest. Claiming it is unaltered is."
No matter what you do or don't do, the light reflected to a camera is altered to create a digital image. Same for film. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc all have algorithims to get that data into a JPEG. Shoot RAW? Software has to do something to that captured light data to be a viewable image. Film has to be developed for some length of time in some variety of chemical. Then it has to be printed with some measurement of exposure and development times.
To be a photograph it has been altered in some way by someone.
"I don't believe that presenting an altered photo without comment is dishonest. Claiming it is unaltered is."
No matter what you do or don't do, the light reflected to a camera is altered to create a digital image. Same for film. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc all have algorithims to get that data into a JPEG. Shoot RAW? Software has to do something to that captured light data to be a viewable image. Film has to be developed for some length of time in some variety of chemical. Then it has to be printed with some measurement of exposure and development times.
To be a photograph it has been altered in some way by someone.
May 27, 2023 17:26:19 #
bsprague wrote:
"So, to make sure that I comply with the ethi... (show quote)
I should have worded it better. I meant altered to look differently than the scene, or with visual elements removed or added, the kind of things some here think must be revealed.
May 27, 2023 19:45:48 #
RodeoMan
Loc: St Joseph, Missouri
If it is acceptable to employ the use of AI either to make changes to your own image or even to create a new image based on prompts that you chose without acknowledging use of this technology, then would it be acceptable just to hand your camera over to a professional photographer and have them take the image and claim it as your own.
May 27, 2023 19:54:16 #
In some instances I don't see much difference in the AI tool as opposed to the "spot removal" or "clone" tool in Lightroom for example. Both alter the image.
Don
Don
May 27, 2023 20:00:58 #
I'm not surprised at the responses so far on this post. There are clearly two camps on this issue; one wanting to present only images as they essentially come out of the camera and the other of the belief that image creation goes beyond what the camera sees. I'm in the latter camp.
I've attached a link to a story about Ansel Adams most famous photograph, "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM". Included in the story is a video of how the image was created. I find it interesting that not only did Adams manipulate the processing and the printing of the image, but later iterations of the print changed dramatically over time as Adams applied additional techniques to the printing process. I guess he got an upgrade.
My point is image manipulation was possible right after the first Daguerreotype was captured. There is nothing new here, just a different brush.
https://petapixel.com/2018/11/07/the-story-behind-ansel-adams-iconic-moonrise-hernandez/
I've attached a link to a story about Ansel Adams most famous photograph, "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM". Included in the story is a video of how the image was created. I find it interesting that not only did Adams manipulate the processing and the printing of the image, but later iterations of the print changed dramatically over time as Adams applied additional techniques to the printing process. I guess he got an upgrade.
My point is image manipulation was possible right after the first Daguerreotype was captured. There is nothing new here, just a different brush.
https://petapixel.com/2018/11/07/the-story-behind-ansel-adams-iconic-moonrise-hernandez/
May 28, 2023 08:27:58 #
I have never seen a disclaimer from a photographer that the photo has been altered. Before AI, we straightened, sharpened and modified photos in many ways. We remove debris, birds, people and autos. Never has it been listed on this site what was removed or improved. SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) is seldom what is posted. Using AI is just a different, and interesting, tool to make the photo what the photographer wants.
Photography just received a new tool. Some will abuse it and others will have fun with it. We need to enjoy what we can do. Photography just added a new toy for our amusement. Those who run photography contests will probably create a new category that includes AI generated photos.
Photography just received a new tool. Some will abuse it and others will have fun with it. We need to enjoy what we can do. Photography just added a new toy for our amusement. Those who run photography contests will probably create a new category that includes AI generated photos.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.