AI "photographs" (Page 2): MY opinion and mine only: AI is not photography. It is its own genre and needs to stay there. Period.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

MY opinion and mine only: AI is not photography. It is its own genre and needs to stay there. Period.

DavidA Loc: Hopewell NJ

Somebody better explain to me what constitutes a photograph. Many of us manipulate the raw image so it's almost unrecognizable from the original. Using all kinds of effects and filters and other devices built into our very sophisticated editing software (which itself uses AI). When does it become Not a photograph?

Alphabravo2020

DavidA wrote:

Somebody better explain to me what constitutes a photograph. Many of us manipulate the raw image so it's almost unrecognizable from the original. Using all kinds of effects and filters and other devices built into our very sophisticated editing software (which itself uses AI). When does it become Not a photograph?

It is subjective but Lightroom is a pretty good sandbox for editing photographs with some amount of respect for the art of photography since it mostly does global edits. I've watched videos of professional photographers doing edits in Photoshop that are complete turnoffs from an integrity perspective. Granted, masking in Lightroom is pretty lame when hair or back lighting is involved.

I wasn't around for film photography but I know there were shenanigans back in the day where even prize winning photos were highly manipulated.

User ID

bz178g wrote:

For me, photography is all about the process. Why would anyone who loves taking--making--images want to give that up?

The making is still there, and enhanced.

User ID

kenArchi wrote:

Will it produce an income?
Million dollar photos?
Is it a time consuming process?

Depends, no, and depends.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

I wasn't around for film photography but I know there were shenanigans back in the day where even prize winning photos were highly manipulated.

Ansel Adams would spend hours in the darkroom perfecting his otherwise hum-drum photos.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

julian.gang wrote:

Adobe Photoshop Elements also has AI qualities to it I find interesting...Julian

Elements can generate AI "photographs" from text descriptions as the OP requested?

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

I'm looking around for software to generate AI "photographs" from text descriptions. I've been hearing alot about it lately but have no idea what software is being used.

TIA.

Watch this YouTube channel https://youtube.com/@OlivioSarikas

You can use online services or install the software locally.

I've have installed Stable Diffusion on one of my computers, but beware that a) it's a fully manual procedure, b) I have a *very* powerful rig, c) I'm a computer expert... If you don't meet those last two conditions, then you'd better go the online service route.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

DavidA wrote:

Somebody better explain to me what constitutes a photograph. Many of us manipulate the raw image so it's almost unrecognizable from the original. Using all kinds of effects and filters and other devices built into our very sophisticated editing software (which itself uses AI). When does it become Not a photograph?

The defining characteristic of photography is that it is based on the action of light on a light sensitive material. In my view, if the image starts out that way, it remains a photograph no matter how much it is manipulated. An exception might be if another medium is added, such as purely computer generated imagery, then it would be mixed media.

DavidA Loc: Hopewell NJ

JohnSwanda wrote:

The defining characteristic of photography is that it is based on the action of light on a light sensitive material. In my view, if the image starts out that way, it remains a photograph no matter how much it is manipulated. An exception might be if another medium is added, such as purely computer generated imagery, then it would be mixed media.

So if I take this first image (a photograph) and manipulate it to this second image, then the second image is still a photograph?

(Download)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

DavidA wrote:

So if I take this first image (a photograph) and manipulate it to this second image, then the second image is still a photograph?

In my view it is. If there is to be some point at which a photograph ceases to be a photograph based on how much manipulation is done, who is to decide where the line is?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

DavidA wrote:

Somebody better explain to me what constitutes a photograph...

Why is it so important to define? As a hobby and a profession, photography (or "photography") continues to evolve, grow, change. For instances where a strict definition may be important - such as competition categories - there will likely be guidelines.

Simply continue to do your own thing, or join the journey of exploration and fun!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Linda From Maine wrote:

In this thread the OP used quotes around the word, which indicates to me he has drawn a line somewhere. But why is it so important to define? As a hobby and a profession, photography (or "photography") continues to evolve, grow, change.

Simply continue to do your own thing, or join the journey of exploration and fun!

The OP used those quotes because he was talking about purely computer generated images, which are not photographs. That's a different issue than whether an actual photograph ceases to be a photograph after some level of manipulation.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

So if an AI computer-generated image is not a photograph, then is an AI-manipulated photograph still a photograph? Does it make a difference if it is just slightly manipulated vs heavily manipulated? If it does then where do you draw that line? Seems like one could make a good argument either way so then it becomes just a matter of opinion, like so many other things.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

JohnSwanda wrote:

The OP used those quotes because he was talking about purely computer generated images, which are not photographs....

True. I'll remove my reference to the OP.