GHS58 Loc: Missouri, USA

I purpose a new section for AI pictures (I don't consider them photography). I have no interest in them and it would help me avoid even opening those posts.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ask and ye shall receive.....
POUF!
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-143-1.html

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

Created - May 28, 2023 14:33:26

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

GHS58 Loc: Missouri, USA

Thanks, I missed it.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

--------------------------------------------------------------

Fully Agree GHS...

AI is, at BEST, 'Digital ART' creation while using a photograph as part of the medium.

QUESTION: In today's world, software 'manipulation' of images doesn't in most 'all instances' to some degree... At What point does it stop being 'Photography' and being 'Digital ART'?

There are the 'purists' who will argue that Ansel Adams did this.... so

Now, that is the true question for debate... I truly would like to know the answer...


Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey...

R.G. Loc: Scotland

How about the question "How desirable is artistry in photography?" Artistry isn't an essential part of photography - anybody taking photographs can claim to be practicing photography, so to clarify, a secondary question would be "What would photography be if it was devoid of all artistry?"

If you concede that artistry is at the very least a desirable ingredient to have in photography you would have to concede that sections which are focused on artistry are legitimate in a photography forum. It's also true that the visual arts are all about imagery, imagery is a significant aspect of photography and photography is a significant source of imagery. None of that is going to change any time soon.

The implication is that artistry in general, and imagery in particular, are legitimate subjects in a photography forum. Imagery and the visual arts are both very relevant to photography and both subjects are a potential source of inspiration and learning.

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

My photos are used for my purposes, so they have to meet my criteria. Your druthers mean nothing to me.

There are different purposes to different photos. Sometimes AI is contraindicated, sometimes required.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

======================================

R.G.

First ... You use the term: "artistry in photography"

Definition of: Art·ist·ry (N)
... creative skill or ability.

Recently, within the last year or so, the US Department of Copyright has "Disallowed Creative Artistry" when done via AI, because it was not a direct 'function' or 'production' of the human element...

Second: You ask "What would photography be if it was devoid of all artistry?"
...... I would guess that it could be called 'documentary photography' or a 'snapshot' to record a historical event for some family or other purpose...

Third: You said: "Artistry is legitimate in a photography forum. "
.... YES, that is correct - but, it 'must be' the talent of the human element - not a machine being directed by a human... and then the machine decides what the interpretation of the works is going to be given the 'data' within the AI machine...

Lastly, you said: "None of that is going to change any time soon."
..... Fully Agree. But, the Department of Copyright has ruled.

Article Title: “AI-Generated Art Cannot Be Copyrighted, Rules a US Federal Judge.” The Verge, August 19, 2023....

See the below URL:
https://amt-lab.org/blog/2023/10/us-copyright-office-ruling-and-implications-on-ai#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAI%2DGenerated%20Art%20Cannot%20Be,%2Dcopyright%2Ddistrict%2Dcourt.

Yes, we all here use programs like Lightroom or LR/LRC to 'edit' and adjust exposure, colors, saturation, tonal range, bla, bla, bla... and at first, (in photography) we intended to 'render' our final product to have somewhat of a 'visual appearance' which was similar to what the creator 'viewed' at the time the imaged was 'snapped'..... BUT, ART has gone much further beyond that today with modern software.....

And that is my point.

In Closing: Yes, you can create "IT"... YES, you can "Own it"... YES, it "will continue"
... BUT, where do you draw the line between "Photography" and "Digital Art Using Photography" and still call it 'photography'


Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Yeah, when does that ever happen in photography? Cameras are tools, artificial lighting is a tool, photo editors are tools (etc etc). AI stops being an issue if you consider it to be a tool. Can the publishers of photo editors claim ownership of the resulting edits? Can the camera manufacturers claim ownership of the resulting photos? AI is yet another tool at our disposal that responds to our input (artistic or otherwise).

AI can be used to create deceptions, so can photo editors. AI isn't the problem, it's the deceivers, and the same can be said for Photoshop etc. AI just needs an extension of the precautions that are already in place for photo editing.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

========================================




R.G.
Fully Agree...

I come from a lifelong career of... when I had to stand in public and swear under oath... that what I was presenting in public was... "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth"

To Me... "The absence of the "whole truth"... is the same thing as a "LIE"

Therein lies the problem for me...
.... When someone makes a 'human creation' which is NOT what was 'viewed' at the time the photograph was taken, and captured in the camera... i.e. "Photography"

Can you see me telling a judge... "OH, your honor, I removed this and that from the image' because I did not like how it looked........... ha ha ha

Later in life, I also became a jewelry store owner and a 'certified' diamond appraiser... in that career as well, we had the 'obligation' to fully disclose any/and all information about our 'product' which included any 'human' manipulations of the product which would be relevant in formating a 'true value' of the products we sold... such as 'Laser Treatment of Diamonds... OR, if something was in fact 'gold overlay' and NOT the true product of 'solid gold'... Just saying...


NO -- My position is: The 'artist' has the responsibility to disclose...

I'm done here.


Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Wasn't that a week before AI was invented?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That would be very good practice, and it also applies to photo editing, but the same problems apply to both AI and photo editing. Both can be used for deception. That doesn't mean that either is wrong or should be shunned. The simple fact is that AI and photo editing have both weakened the reliability and the credibility of photographic evidence. As long as that fact is being acknowledged, we're good to go.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

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

I have no objection to requiring full disclosure in a court of law or in a product claim.

As far as a family photo is concerned? Who cares? If I have a photo of my grandparents and their children at their 50th anniversary and one of the children blinked, is it a crime to use AI to open her eyes in the photo? I admit it. I did it. It was back in 1960 so I didn't know she blinked when I took the photo and by the time it was developed and printed it was too late to re-take the shot. So after digitizing the photo and using her sister's eyes to make it look like her eyes are open, the photo is a lie? There is no way someone is going to recognize that it has been transmogrified unless I tell them. I am happy to tell them, but at my age I only have a decade or two left, so after that the photo has to stand on its own.

Photography is many things to many people. For the most part it is documentary. You are recording an event to make it easier to remember sometime in the future. That is what family photos are all about. But even 'Documentary' doesn't have to mean perfectly accurate. It's OK in my book to correct errors in the image. And despite the claims of the SOOC crowd, cameras do make errors. The photographer makes errors. The subject makes errors. Why is it not OK to correct errors to present an image as something that documents the 'normal condition' of the subject?

So the 'artist' has the responsibility to disclose? Maybe. In those cases where it matters, there should be disclosure. My point is that it rarely matters. And the 'artist' is mortal, so the disclosure has to be made within the artist's lifetime. And now we get into the subject of the history of the image. Is it a print? Is the disclosure written on the back of the print? Overlaid on the image? If the print is copied will the disclosure be on the copy? Is it digital? Is the disclosure in the metadata? Does anyone even look at metadata?

Trying to ensure that AI doesn't change photography is a losing battle. It's a bunch of old curmudgeons yelling at the kids to get off their lawn. (Apologies to curmudgeon -- no disparagement is intended). It's a bunch of cave painters complaining about the newcomers using high technology 'brushes' instead of their fingers because the brushes can leave thinner streaks on the cave than the fingers can.

'Progress' happens. Deal with it.