More on AI (Page 2): Just because techniques are done poorly doesn't mean they aren't legitimate.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

ELNikkor wrote:

Cropping out a tree branch that interferes with co... (show quote)

Just because techniques are done poorly doesn't mean they aren't legitimate.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If making something look different from reality is bad, what should we do about the fashion and makeup industry? It’s been around for millennia.

Perfume and deodorant to make things smell different?

Spices and flavoring to make things taste different?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The photographer will soon be the only one to know if a photo is real. There can even be an argument as to how far editing can go before the product can be called artificial.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

gvarner wrote:

The photographer will soon be the only one to know if a photo is real. There can even be an argument as to how far editing can go before the product can be called artificial.

No photograph is "real" They are all two dimensional representations. Some have more of an illusion of reality than others. They are all photographs.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Curmudgeon wrote:

If someone is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. The only way to stop it is to handle it the way the Mob did in
Vegas.

That works for me!!!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

JohnSwanda wrote:

No photograph is "real" They are all two dimensional representations. Some have more of an illusion of reality than others. They are all photographs.

Two dimension images are not an illusion. They are the best we can do to accurately record images of our present time for posterity. For that reason if no other we must differentiate between SOOC and PP fakes.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Delderby wrote:

Two dimension images are not an illusion. They are the best we can do to accurately record images of our present time for posterity. For that reason if no other we must differentiate between SOOC and PP fakes.

There are times when accuracy is not required. SOOC is not necessarily accurate. PP does not always create fakes.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

JohnSwanda wrote:

No photograph is "real" They are all two dimensional representations. Some have more of an illusion of reality than others. They are all photographs.

I have my standard, you have yours. One could argue that a RAW file is the only real digital photograph but then it can’t be viewed without some level of processing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DirtFarmer wrote:

If making something look different from reality is bad, what should we do about the fashion and makeup industry? It’s been around for millennia.

Perfume and deodorant to make things smell different?

Spices and flavoring to make things taste different?

Make up is obvious and not purporting to be original.
Same for perfume.
Fashion? Prada shoes or a look alike knockoff? You pay for the real thing.
Same for a photo, just admit that it is faked and if people like it and it is well done they will purchase it regardless.
It is when it is faked but presented as original what was there , then you are a liar and a fraud.
That is where photo certification will have value until those same liars get a falsification program that says that the modified photo is original.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I take photos of my family and put them into a family collection. I modify them as needed to open eyes when someone blinks or replace heads when someone's expression doesn't fit with the rest of the group.

My family would not care because they would prefer to remember the subject looking good rather than whatever they might have looked like at the instant of exposure.

If I have done any serious transmogrification I would not hesitate to let people know, but if the image looks good that's all my family will care about. (Empirical observation).

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Delderby wrote:

Two dimension images are not an illusion. They are the best we can do to accurately record images of our present time for posterity. For that reason if no other we must differentiate between SOOC and PP fakes.

Accurately recording images of our present time for posterity is something photography does very well. That doesn't mean it is the only thing photography should do. It is, and always has been, a creative medium with no obligation to represent reality. Your view of photography is very limited.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

So remind me why it matters except for forensic, medical or contest work?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

JohnSwanda wrote:

Accurately recording images of our present time for posterity is something photography does very well. That doesn't mean it is the only thing photography should do. It is, and always has been, a creative medium with no obligation to represent reality. Your view of photography is very limited.

AI is photography.
It's that faking it and not being honest that the photo is faked is the issue.
People say that it has been done for decades but that is not the issue, those faked photos are admitted to being faked, now people are so used to lying that they cannot tell the truth and pass the faked photo off as original.
Contrast, sharpness exposure etc. are not changing the photo, cropping is not changing the photo, ps zooming is cropping, it is adding, removing elements etc. to falsify the photo and lying about it.
Just be honest, you are doing an artistic creation and not a representation of what was there. Omission is lying.
Again, certification embedded will be great so one cannot pass the lie on, at least until Topaz makes a data manipulation program to falsify the embedded data .

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Architect1776 wrote:

AI is photography. br It's that faking it and not... (show quote)

To me, the issue is that for a camera-generated photograph, an image of something real is at the core. At least a seed of that reality remains, even after significant (or even massive) manipulation.

With an AI-generated image, there is no identifiable seed of reality, even if it is assembled with some "real" components. That does not make an AI creation not be art, but it does make it very different from something that started from a photographic capture. It is quite reasonable in my mind that the difference be recognized and acknowledged.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

JohnSwanda wrote:

Accurately recording images of our present time for posterity is something photography does very well. That doesn't mean it is the only thing photography should do. It is, and always has been, a creative medium with no obligation to represent reality. Your view of photography is very limited.

My view of photography is limited to the creating of photographs. Yours seems to be that anything goes - whether fake, false, or otherwise. I cannot see that we will ever agree on our views. Simply, my view is pure - yours is not.