srt101fan

Duplicate

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

A camera is not necessary to create a photograph. Photograms have always been considered photographs as they fit the classic definition of an image created by the activity of light on a light sensitive material.

srt101fan

I knew someone would bring up the grey areas at the fringes. How many photograms have you seen on UHH?

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Yes, people do photograms every day, therefore Images created by computers from text prompts are the same.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

But the question was, how do you post a painting. Like one The one made with oils on canvas, I assumed, which can not be posted except by photographing or scanning it, them posting.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Images created by computers from text don't fit the definition of photography. Photograms do. My point was that a camera isn't a necessary part of the definition of a photograph.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Splitting hairs does not become you. Show me the photograms of the last wedding you attended.

The point here is not to prove that photography, real photography, does not have its variations, but that the people who are convinced that cameras will be obsolete and photography replaced entirley by artificially created computer imagery is the future, are simply wrong.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

Yes, I do. Images generated entirely by AI is a computer generating the entire image, while using AI to remove and replace defects is still done by an actual photographer. It is no different than manipulating the image in the dark room with the exception that the sophistication of the tools available are much greater.

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

I made an assumption that you were producing a painting for a post. I now see that is not what you really meant, but I jumped to a conclusion. You were referring to an existing painting.

So a painting is not reproducible. You can hire an artist to make a copy but getting the subject exactly the same, along with the colors and the brushstrokes, is probably not practically possible. That is probably one reason that original artwork is expensive.

A photograph made with film is semi-reproducible. You can make a print from the negative, but that is a postprocessing action, similar to producing an image from raw digital data. It requires the application of specific parameters that define the brightness, contrast, and other attributes. Copying the negative is similar to producing a print because it requires another piece of film as well as an exposure and development, which could well be different from the original (not to mention that the grain is a random distribution of opaque silver blobs). You can make several copies, but the random processes produce slight differences which could be significant.

A digital photo is the most reproducible image. The digits don't change with time (assuming the media do not degrade). Any image noise can be reproduced by copying the digits. You can make as many copies of the original as you want.

So I guess your point is that to post (or otherwise display) a painting requires you to make a copy. The copy could be a photograph. It could be a digital photograph. It could be a halftone plate. But it is never the original painting. (I am taking the verb 'to post' as a way to present the image in many different locations simultaneously, not just hanging the painting on a wall somewhere).

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

Back in the days of film photography was manipulated today there is a fear of AI. Restrictions of AI is wrong. Some photographers take it to the extreme but photographers have a right to process their photography the way they choose. The sky is not falling so stop restricting modern photography if you don’t like AI don’t use it.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I think you can certainly call an image entirely created using AI ”digital art” or “graphics art” if you prefer. But it is not a photograph and to call it a photograph IMHO is mislabeling it.

Photography is to “paint with light” and creating images on the computer is not painting with light. It’s more like painting without a brush. It’s a form of digital art but it is not photography.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are missing the point.

Editing with AI is fine (we did it w/o knowing it anyway). Verbal, typed instruction is similar to using sliders, check box and whatever else is used. Now I have serious doubts about this as AI cannot read your mind and will not know what your ideas, concepts are. Another issue I have is that AI will suppress many original creations by being bland, souless.

What is upsetting folks is images created entirely with AI and presented as photographs. They are anything but.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

people will always take pictures of family and friends, and at weddings and events. For some of us Photographs store memories.

Advertising and marketing, making movies, is about making money and photography costs money. If AI technology is able to provide the same product at a lower cost you can expect AI will displace photography and become common in those areas.

srt101fan

Most people are not trying to "restrict" photography. We're just trying to put things in their properly labeled pigeon holes.

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

It's time,