Indiana wrote:
So, if photographs are made with words rather than camera equipment, can it still be called photography?
Call it whatever you want. When you show someone a picture do you tell them how it came to be?
---
Bill_de wrote:
Call it whatever you want. When you show someone a picture do you tell them how it came to be?
---
Yes, I do not plagiarize photography. I either took the photo, someone else took the photo, or it was generated by an outside source.
Indiana wrote:
Yes, I do not plagiarize photography. I either took the photo, someone else took the photo, or it was generated by an outside source.
Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say "I took the photo, someone else took the photo or it's not a photo."
If you need 1000 words to explain your image, you're doing it wrong.
Then there are people like me.
I either like what I see or don't.
It ends there.
TL:DR The answer to your question is the same thing that has always happened to photography. New tools, new processes, new equipment. Many of Ansel Adam's photographs were good, he made them great with advanced, for the time, tools. AI is hot now, people like to play with new, hot tools.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.