I prefer natural-looking images. To me it seems like it's actually easier to create artistic photos than to create photos that look like nothing special was even involved in taking the photo.

With artistic styles, you just crank up whatever you got to make something that stands out and call that art. At that is art. So I'm not against it. Just think it's easier.

I guess there is a million ways to take an artistic picture of some scene or subject, but there is only one way to take a natural photo that represents what the eye sees. And that takes a lot more effort to get right.

With artistic styles you can be wrong and still right. But with a natural look, you either nail it or you miss and something is off.

Here is a passage from a news service (Gannett). Is it the responsibility of the writer, editor, or AI to correct spelling and word use before publication? Here is an excerpt from an article they published.

"She's a lovely woman. She had lovely children, well-mannered. Her son… he was a great child. They sometimes came around, he and my daughter, they play in the years together," one neighbor said.

Are we to understand that they played in the yard together, for years together, or in the yard for years? While it may not have any significance in this context, misunderstandings could have serious or even life-threatening consequences.

If we are relying solely on AI to handle all problems, we could be creating even worse problems.

Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinkering with the trivial aspects of the image, but not with the important features such as the faces. So, what! I suggest the British press focus more on the many more important matters of the world than trying to play "gotcha" with things that don't matter. And spare me the "righteous indignation" that the media displays with such insignificant things when they regularly distort facts to convey their own political messages and biases.