alphonso49uk

So Ive never been one of those photographers who think its OK to do basic editing to a photo but that anything more major is cheating....the mentality that says replacing a background or a sky doesnt reflect on what was actually seen at the time of pressing the shutter button and therefore isnt a true photograph. Ive always thought those views were from the dark ages.
The other day I thought Id investigate AI for the first time. I typed in a fairly lengthy description of what I wanted it to come up with....key words etc and then pushed the ok button. I was amazed to find it was more or less exactly what I envisaged in the first place.
I added it to my Flickr photostream but only placed it into a few specific groups designed for AI images.
Id already tagged it as AI generated and the only other thing I did in photoshop was to decrease the size of the bottle in the pic.
Later that day I discovered that it had been chosen as a photo to be included in Flickr explore and that it had recieved several thousand views and a couple of hundred Faves.
I never received any negative feedback...quite the opposite infact...and yet still feel slightly guilty that something I didnt take with a camera has been so well received.
What do other hoggers think?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It sounds to me like most of the input came from your own imagination. How long would you have had to wait for reality to present you with those circumstances? You had a clear idea about the sort of image that you wanted and AI gave you a path to that image. If you'd depended on reality to provide that path it could have either taken a very long time or possibly never have happened at all.

Was your intention to document reality or to create a specific image? If it was the latter, you chose the best path to achieving that objective.

Since the root source of the image had nothing to do with a photographic imaging device (i.e. a camera), you don't get to call it a photograph. In fact labelling it as an AI image shows that you don't intend to pass it off as a photograph.

If you're posting it in a forum where the usual content is photographs, you should feel an obligation to make clear that it's not a photograph. It sounds like that's what you did, so no deception or omission was involved.

Photography is just one of many ways we have to generate images. AI is another. To avoid any possibility of misunderstandings, just be up-front about the sort of image that it is. Simple answer.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

alphonso49uk said " Ive always thought those views were from the dark ages."
Yes, SOOC people thought God lived and saw in the camera, even digital was unholy compared to Film.

We are undergoing like what in the early 20 century was the Industrial Revolution ... now the AI tech revolution~!

alphonso49uk said "document reality or to create a specific image?"
The Camera Club assignment was glass, I went to a studio and photographed. I submitted a large view, ovens, trash cans, etc and a woman blowing glass, good documentation like a crime scene. Ouch low points... the next month I did a close crop of front half of face and the glass she was blowing... aaaa hi score. as alphonso49uk stated the competition between document reality vs a specific image... the specific story image won.

alphonso49uk said "yet still feel slightly guilty that something I didn't take with a camera has been so well received."
Guilty vs Frightened and in awe. I think in awe is the reaction... You could ask Sophia Robot what she thinks and she would compile a tell-it-like-it-is answer based on a vast network of information, and her compiled more than human human-answer. Eventually, men will go to Sophia for their live in companion soothing both physical and psychological/social. Imagine Sophia la R at a business meeting with her physical and interactive quick charm. And of Course, in Sophia Golem's** idle time will be spent writing award winning novels, and creating art, similar to alphonso49uk's wonderful minds eye photo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot)

** Golem, an artificial human being in Hebrew folklore endowed with life

ELNikkor

In 1980, I had the previsualization of a couple sitting on the beach silhouetted by a huge rising moon; the moon only halfway out of the ocean. I took a high-contrast b&w of the couple in front of a flashed white wall in a darkened studio, and a shot of a half-moon with my 1000mm f11 Reflex Nikkor. Made a litho-half-tone & burned the couple into the paper, then printed the full-tone moon over the top. My imagination became real, and the couple loved it! Not AI, not exactly a "real photo", but my vision was satisfied. My mantra at the time, was "If you can imagine it, I can get it on film."
Nowadays, I suppose some would offer, "If you or I can imagine it, a photo look-a-like can be manufactured with digital tools without ever going near a camera." This forum may have its roots in photography, but has become very broad as the imaging medium has expanded. I still enjoy the photography aspect, but don't personally care much for the non-photography presentations; those that do are welcome to them.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I used to think along your line of thought. My sister in law is an artist and we have had many discussions about this topic. We finally came to the realization that if the artist can create what they envision, why shouldn't the photographer be able to do the same.
I love my neighborhood Osprey nest, I have several images of them landing, but wanted those images to be more dramatic. So I started to play with sky replacement in Photoshop. I really liked the results I was getting.
AI is a tool to help the photographer reach their potential. The artist's AI is in their mind and hand, the photographer's AI is in the computer. NO difference in my opinion.

Captain Bernie

Great, really dramatic, AI-enhanced photo ! Bravo Zulu !

AI is just another tool in our kit. That tool can be used productively and imaginatively, or it can be abused or mis-used. We must learn to take advantage of its potential and possibilities.

Bernie

jcwall396 Loc: Roswell, GA

Love the image you generated! I agree with the statements made, AI is another tool we will use to generate / greatly modify photography. And we're already using it in Photoshop, Luminar, etc. May I ask what software / app you used to generated your image? I'd like to give it a try myself....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I think the AI image is fantastic.

One has to figure where they sit on the line, realist or visionary.

Realist-------------------------(ME?)-----.------------------------------Visionary

Literally or figuratively.

Art - created with a brush, pencil, camera, .....
Photo implies created with a camera. So the picture is an image.
Image is all encompassing, photograph is a subset.

By the way, IR out of the camera may be SOOC, but it's not "real" in a sense that no human actually sees that way. But it's still a photo.

george19

This reminded me of a conversation I had with (IIRC) a university researcher coming to terms with the use of digital imagery in scientific papers. I suggested that, like the remainder of the paper, she document the steps taken to allow the results to be replicated. This includes any image manipulation.

It’s a valid argument that your intended image might never present itself in real life. This is causing me to rethink my feelings about AI.

But…you clearly stated your process and that the image is AI. No problem in my book.

And…cool image.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I'm a photographer, for me, part of the hobby is the challenge of capturing not creating. Getting the perfect shot is what brings a smile to my face. If I was a graphic designer, needing to come up with specific content, it would be AI all the way but I'm a photographer.

User ID

Not only is the use vs non-use of a camera irrelevant but this image has something no camera photo could offer. Its a sneak peek inside your skull, unadulterated by objects gathered from the material world by a lens.

alphonso49uk

Hi...it was Leanardo AI....tried it a few more times but havnt been as successful since the first image.....

alphonso49uk

Thanks for all the interesting replies...I think I know where Im going with it now

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

We will all ponder this. All I want to know is it AI created or not. I can enjoy them differently.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think you have created a very appealing, powerful image. It reminds me of a couple of the images that my friend, who has just been awarded her MFA degree, painted as part of satisfying the requirements of that degree with a focus in illustration. So I suppose that it might really matter what she thinks of the image.

There is, of course, another consideration as well. You very rightfully described the effort and thoughtfullness that you invested in preparing your instructions for the image. So even if no artistic technique was required from you, at least the creative thought process, or perhaps part of it, was required. The tragedy to me, though, is that if I, or some other person, submitted that same instruction set, we would likely get that same image back, or at least something very close to it. In one puff of smoke, the individuality and uniqueness of your work is gone.

It could be argued, of course, that there's no difference between that and the hundreds (or is it thousands) of essentially identical, well-crafted photographs of Horseshoe Bend on the Colorado River. They are all (or at least mostly all) nice images, but they are also really passe' by now.

So perhaps the appropriateness and even usefulness of these images is not governed by anything we might think one way or the other, but rather by their usefulness. Do they have a usefulness beyond their current newness? Will anyone care in 50 years? In 10 years? In 5 years? Or is it just the latest new camera model, to be discarded when the next new thing comes along in a year or two?

Apart from their strong opinions about everything, the big thing I'm learning about photographers is that many of thrm have very short attention spans. The latest thing is the greatest thing until it's not...when the next new one comes along.