User ID

Its originally your photo. The street elements are nobodys photo. The street scene would obviously predate photography.

I would not deny its a manipulated photo and if reqired by some "authority" I would label it as such. But I would never mention anything about AI. AI is such a misused and abused term that I would avoid mention of it for the foreseeable future.

Perznally, if anything Ive posted is 1% AI or 99% AI (or whereever in between) I have no intention to label it as "AI" to ANY degree.

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

In earlier film Nikon photo contests, color slides were submitted. And, of course, that was the negative.

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

I can't see requiring submission of the raw file. It wouldn't work for my photos.

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

Nikon had different categories. I always entered with slides. Sorry it would not work for your photo's. Since Nikon no longer has film entries, then it no longer matters does it.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

why have such a shallow opinion? Don't want to see if. Photography is art a painter is never excluded because he did not declare the brushes he used or painted something that wasn't there. I want to see all and like what I like and dislike what I dislike. Seems rather silly all the fear of AI. At extremes phone cameras should not be viewed because they use AI to set a balanced exposure. Never look at an image that was post processed with software to increase contrast or colors. Pictures that are not straight from camera are abominations and should never be displayed. They make non creative people feel inferior. We should do a study to prove that AI can cause brain damage hence should be banned. I will not worry, and enjoy photograph as art.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

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

Brent hrh...

In your post, you said: "I will not worry, and enjoy photography as art."

... "I" -- Yes, you have all the rights to do what you wish..."
...... And, when you view photos? created by others... please enjoy what you 'see'...

My objective is... To protect a 'consumer' and I don't care about a casual 'viewer'...

It is the 'end consumer' of a product who needs to be "protected" to ensure they have a "Photograph" and don't have what is actually a 'piece' of 'Digital Art' created with many or multiple photographs and/or 'subsections'...

Yep, let's replace the sky, and, oh now, we can put the moon over on the left which is in the southern region (not the east or west) of the landscape... and while we are at it... we can 'insert a roadrunner bird' down on the bottom right... and 'walla' you have a 'work of art' which you are certainly entitled to 'enjoy'...

BUT, if this is a 'created product' that is to be sold to the general public, they (the public) have the right to know

Example: I used to be in the jewelry business (fact)
... The question is: .... You wish to buy a pearl necklace for your wife... Don't you want to know if they are 'real' or 'fake' ie, Don't you want to know if they are 'natural pearls' or if they are 'cultured pearls' and yes... it makes a difference in the price... OR... Oh, let's buy the 'fake' and tell the wife they are 'nature' ha ha ha!!!

In closing...... Yes, photography is a 'personal art' and a person/creator can 'enjoy' anything and everything they wish to enjoy...... BUT, should a creator of a product be required to 'advise' the consumer who is 'buying it'... if they are getting a "fake" meaning 'mechanical thing....... OR, are they getting a real human creation...

Just IMHO...

Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey...

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Since its very invention photography has never been able to be trusted to be "real". Replacing skies, or adding or removing objects have been done in the darkroom all along. It's certainly easier now, but also people are now more aware that it is commonly done. if you are selling your work as photojournalism or documentary photography then it is unethical to do those kinds of things. If you are selling it as creative or artistic photography, there is no need to disclose anything. Now if you are selling text generated AI images and calling them photographs, that is fakery. If you are inserting text generated AI objects into your photographs, then it should be called mixed media which includes photography.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

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

Dear John...

You said: "If you are selling it as creative or artistic photography, there is no need to disclose anything. "

WRONG!!!

The "absence of the WHOLE Truth" is the same thing as a lie..... Therefore disclosure is professionally required.......

As I said, I used to be in the jewelry business... and YES, I sold Zirconia diamond substitutes...
... It was "required of me" as a business person and a professional to tell the customer upfront...
.... Product 'value' is based on quality and authenticity...

In my former profession as LEO, we were required to 'testify under oath' and it was...
... "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

....... And there are reasons for that because if you left out 'part of the information' a 'false jury decisison' could be reached and there would be serious implications...

Regarding your statement: "selling text-generated AI images and calling them photographs, that is fakery"
........... Very True! -- That is a 'misrepresentation... Just like leaving the 'truth' out in your first statement.


Just IMHO

Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

your whole premise is that photography is required to reflect reality and if it doesn't it is fake. But photography has never had that requirement, excepting photojournalism, documentary, or forensic photography. Other art mediums like painting, drawing, or sculpture have never been perceived to have that requirement and neither should photography.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

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

John......

You said: " and neither should photography."

If it is a 'consumer product' then it should..... There is a federal law which is known as: "Truth in advertising"

and you're placing the 'burden' of quality and value upon the consumer when it should be on the seller...


You ask the me question... Is that a diamond or a CZ, my response is going to I don't have to tell you???
--- IMHO!


Cheers
George

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

I believe your viewpoint is too narrow. First off, not all of photography is related to professional activities, nor is most photography a consumer product. The whole truth is not always evident, nor easy to discern. I agree it should be disclosed in your examples of testimony and advertising. But art is usually neither of those things. And there are different degrees of lies. Some matter, some don't.

I would suggest 'All photography is a lie' for discussion at this point. Because the camera is not capable of reproducing the whole truth. Parts of the truth, surely, but not all of it.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Again, you are only right if there were some requirement that photography must reflect reality. There isn't. Paintings are "consumer products" but certainly aren't required to portray reality. There is no relation to real vs. fake diamonds.

Bill_de Loc: US

Thirty some years ago I was in a camera club where members wanted to limit contest entries to slides. This was after a print was put in competition where the moon was created with a quarter.

The next month I entered a slide in the competition with a cactus, a huge rock, and a nice sky. After winning the competition I had them show the three slides I used to create the final image. Composites were acceptable after that. Nobody even noticed that the shadow from the cactus fell in the wrong direction.

For non-commercial photography I believe anything goes.

---

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

====


OK... I'm good with "narrow minded"

😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣

Cheers
George

JD750 Loc: SoCal

oh no, you cut off the feet of the mailbox in the first photo how dare you!!!