My Rant For Today
Jan 6, 2024 07:32:41 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
I have no objection to requiring full disclosure in a court of law or in a product claim....
'Progress' happens. Deal with it.
'Progress' happens. Deal with it.
===================================
Ok Mr. Dirt...
I have three 2-carat diamonds here which I want to sell you...
... Which one do you want to pay $ 10,000 for ??
Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###
Jan 6, 2024 07:43:33 #
I don't want to buy any diamonds. They don't interest me. Just because you want to sell them doesn't mean I have to buy them. Caveat emptor.
And what does that have to do with AI in photography? Are the diamonds artificially produced?
Were I interested in buying diamonds I would use the services of an expert to evaluate the product before committing any funds.
I do not deal in commercial photography. I don't buy photos to hang on my wall. Were I to do that, I might consider requiring a sworn statement about the photo before committing funds, but only if the level of funding were significant.
If someone presents me with a family photo or a photo of their vacation or their lunch, I will take it at face value: entertainment. There are billions of photos taken daily for just that purpose. The number of photos that have significant value pales in comparison. Those are the photos you are concerned about. They don't concern me.
De gustibus non est disputandem.
And what does that have to do with AI in photography? Are the diamonds artificially produced?
Were I interested in buying diamonds I would use the services of an expert to evaluate the product before committing any funds.
I do not deal in commercial photography. I don't buy photos to hang on my wall. Were I to do that, I might consider requiring a sworn statement about the photo before committing funds, but only if the level of funding were significant.
If someone presents me with a family photo or a photo of their vacation or their lunch, I will take it at face value: entertainment. There are billions of photos taken daily for just that purpose. The number of photos that have significant value pales in comparison. Those are the photos you are concerned about. They don't concern me.
De gustibus non est disputandem.
Jan 6, 2024 07:51:01 #
I'm afraid that where technology is concerned, total control is not possible - never has been.
Jan 6, 2024 07:56:42 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
GHS58 wrote:
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.
In that case, I can no longer post.
Jan 6, 2024 08:16:02 #
GHS58 wrote:
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.
AI is not the problem, disclosure is the problem. The winner of the year in my prior camera club a few years back was a composite. A daylight image of Death Valley was Photoshopped into a night scene. An animal and moon were pasted in. Various other edits were made. All the images were shot by the photographer and the resulting image was spectacular. It wasn’t until later that the photographer disclosed the editing.
So even photos without generative fill can be “fake”. Is that OK? My answer is only if extreme editing details are disclosed in advance.
Jan 6, 2024 08:22:18 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
GHS58 wrote:
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.
Then we can also scrap all of Ansel Adams prints. Because they were for runners of AI.
Jan 6, 2024 08:26:12 #
bkwaters wrote:
AI is not the problem, disclosure is the problem. ... (show quote)
That's the problem with photo contests. As far as I'm concerned, a photograph is - well, we all know what it is - and I don't care how it was produced. Even a "legitimate" photo is processed. Maybe judges should accept only photographs taken on film, with the photographer submitting only the negative. The negative itself would be judged.
Jan 6, 2024 08:35:19 #
goldstar46 wrote:
======================================== br br b... (show quote)
There is a big difference between forensic photography and creative photography. An artist has no duty to disclose his techniques.
Jan 6, 2024 08:37:23 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
There is a big difference between forensic photography and creative photography. An artist has no duty to disclose his techniques.
But the judges make the rules - so many rules. That's going to lead other contestants to look for cheating in others.
Jan 6, 2024 08:39:41 #
jerryc41 wrote:
But the judges make the rules - so many rules. That's going to lead other contestants to look for cheating in others.
But the judges make the rules - so many rules. That's going to lead other contestants to look for cheating in others.
I wasn't addressing photography contests. Outside of contests there are no rules for artistic photography.
Jan 6, 2024 08:40:21 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
I wasn't addressing photography contests. Outside of contests there are no rules for artistic photography.
Right.
Jan 6, 2024 08:46:21 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I'm afraid that where technology is concerned, total control is not possible - never has been.
=================================
Jerry...
Technology is "Fine" as long as the "individual is in charge & has all the facts"
In the last several months, I have been 'playing' with ChatCPT...
... AND, it is a FACT, they many, many times the AI algorithms do, in fact, get it wrong.
The real problem is that... many of the 'subscribers' to AI, don't know when AI is wrong and/or when to actually question it...
In the imoral works of "Ronald Regan" ... "Trust, but Verifiy'... ha, ha,
..... My position is "Never Trust" and "Continue to Question"
Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
Jan 6, 2024 09:01:56 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
billnikon wrote:
Then we can also scrap all of Ansel Adams prints. Because they were for runners of AI.
No. Because he did the work. He made the decisions. Not a machine. That is a huge difference and a critical distinction. It is shocking to me that so much of the population is unable to see the difference.
It is also especially shocking here in light of the repeated vocal objections made numerous times on this very forum against allowing cameras to make exposure decisions. There is no difference in maintaining total control over exposure and maintaining total control over later processing. Or giving up control over image creation. Is there?
Jan 6, 2024 09:03:44 #
bkwaters wrote:
AI is not the problem, disclosure is the problem. .
============================================
BKWaters...
Fully Agree...
..... As for photo contests, I gave up on those many years ago for they are "ALL Subjective" in the actual opinions of the humans who are judging...
Regarding disclosure and photo contest... you are right.
... In the contest, "Photography" is "Defined" by the rules as they are written in the contest.
.... What is in the 'four corners' of the contest rules are the definitions for the event...
Does that mean that because this 'is a photo contest' and 'it is in the rules' that this is the definition of a 'photograph'....... WELL ???...
Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###
Jan 6, 2024 09:05:05 #
larryepage wrote:
No. Because he did the work. He made the decisions... (show quote)
==================================
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.