Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: goldstar46
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 next>>
Jan 7, 2024 11:49:07   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
brentrh wrote:
.... Why have such a shallow opinion?
....... I will not worry, and enjoy photography as art.


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

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...
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 12:44:16   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
srt101fan wrote:
I thought you were done here ====================================================================================


OH, contraire... I am never done SRT101
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 12:24:38   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
User ID wrote:
Seen that movie, more than once here. If your tangent takes off there will be ~15 pages of UHH Sacred Traditional Ignorant Opinionating.

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


Go to
Jan 6, 2024 10:03:07   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
DirtFarmer wrote:
We are in agreement there.

When I first got into online forums I entered a few contests (challenges). The only one I came close to placing was one about 'my worst photo ever'. Many of the 'contests' were taken over by groups of people who had several entries and would vote for each other. I thought that by entering contests I might learn something about my photos, but that never happened. There was no feedback given (although the contests made it possible) so it was just thumbs up or down. Mostly down.
We are in agreement there. br br When I first go... (show quote)


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

Dear Dirt...

Yes..... Some think 'photo contests' is going to help improve what they do, and that they will get feedback... WRONG!!!

Unless 'required' as a condition of the judging, my 77 years of living and 55+ years in photography (some as a photo judge) will NOT take the time to do that...

In closing, after doing it for years, and years... and working alongside of many other professionals, I already know what I can achieve... and, I am 'self-guided' enough to recognize if/and when an image is good, better, or best... or need to be improved.

Tks for your response...

Cheers
George...
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 09:34:54   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
Rongnongno wrote:

...... your rant is moot as there is an AI section. .


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

Dear Rongnongno...

I never said anything that vocalized my support for, or non-support for an AI Section...

Please reread my first post...
It said: "AI is, at BEST, 'Digital ART' creation while using a photograph as part of the medium."
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 09:05:05   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
larryepage wrote:
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 shocking 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.
No. Because he did the work. He made the decisions... (show quote)


==================================
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 09:03:44   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
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
###
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 08:46:21   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
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
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 07:32:41   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
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.

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

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
###
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 07:23:34   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
R.G. wrote:
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.


Go to
Jan 6, 2024 07:05:11   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
R.G. wrote:
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.
Yeah, when does that ever happen in photography? C... (show quote)

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




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
###
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 06:30:48   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
R.G. wrote:
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 that are focused on artistry are legitimate in a photography forum. It's also true that the visual arts are all about imagery and photography is a significant source of imagery. None of that is going to change any time soon. The implication is that artistry, and imagery in general, are legitimate subjects in a photography forum. The visual arts, and imagery in general, are very relevant to photography and both are a potential source of inspiration and learning.
How about the question "How desirable is arti... (show quote)

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

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
Go to
Jan 6, 2024 05:23:30   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My Rant For Today
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.

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

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...
Go to
Jan 3, 2024 17:24:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Back ups
Longshadow wrote:
The Windows program may be free, but if you don't have enough One Drive space, buy more space?

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

Not a problem Long...

I have two 12 TB internal, 1 TB internal, and 1 25TB NAS, and BackBlaze (Unlimited)
------ I am good to go... ha ha ha

Cheers
Gordstar46
George Veazey
Go to
Jan 3, 2024 14:51:07   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Back ups
Cheetah34 wrote:
What is the best software to use to back up my computer? Some have recommended Backblaze. What does this community think? Thanks for your recommendations.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Cheetah...

Some UHH members here have 'reminding' readers the Apple's 'Time Machine' and...
... I would like to make viewers here aware that there is also a Microsoft's 'Built-in' version of 'Backup'
..... Which can be found in the "Update & Security" section, of the Microsoft "Settings" menu
...... The nice part about this is... It is part of the Windows O.S., It is Free, and it can be scheduled...

NOW, of course, any good backup system should adhere to the "3,2,1 Principal which is a 'total of 3 back up, with one being the original, and 2 copies (1 the Original), and 1 copy should be off-site... i.e. "3,2,1"

As for me, I do go a little further, in that I have my first copy onto "intervals drives and/or USB drives", then I have another copy over and onto my QNAP TS-451+ NAS, and then all of this is backed up to "BackBlaze" which right now cost me only $ 7/month for backing up some 14 TB...... Cheap insurance...

Regarding the actual 'Free' M.S. Bulitin Backup System, I would invite you to view the YouTube video:
... TITLE: "How To Backup Windows 10 & 11 For Free!!" --- Which is at the below URL

........ URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY5uAren2yk

Hope that helps you or anyone else...
.... Let me know

Cheers
Goldstar46
George Veazey
###
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.