Posts for: ygelman
Mar 5, 2024 10:42:56 #
Feb 15, 2024 11:11:13 #
DanF wrote:
Long time reader, first time posting. Wintertime, culling old photos, found this one from a few years ago on a winter trip through Texas. I almost never use a sepia tone, but somehow think it works here.
In my own view (not forcing anything on you), there are two quibbles.
1. I don't like fuzzy water; I'd like to see some ripples. So a faster shutter would be more appropriate.
2. More important: On the boardwalk in the background there is a tall structure sticking up...it should be removed. That boardwalk would then refer cleanly back to the nearer one, like a repetitive phrase in a musical composition.
Jul 10, 2023 17:57:08 #
Rather than having to read about whether or not a work generated with Artificial Intelligence is art, I move that any such image be moved to its own group. That might also include new PS features, but that's something to consider.
At least, generating an image by verbally describing it should not be called photography.
At least, generating an image by verbally describing it should not be called photography.
Jul 2, 2023 14:24:07 #
User ID wrote:
More ROTFLMFAO ...
Please, What does this say??? (I thought I was clever when I figured out what FOMO meant when it appeared in a crossword puzzle. And I know RTFM, but this. . .?)
May 10, 2023 20:55:46 #
CKAlbion wrote:
I'm going to Iceland at the end of the month, and I'm looking for guidance. I have a Canon R5 with a Canon 100-500 lens, plus my Sony RX10. Everything I've read has warned me to be prepared for lots of weather and, as an added bonus, blowing sand. . . . .
I've been to Iceland twice; did not make any special preparations for my camera (Canon 5D M2), and did not have any problem -- except that I should have taken a long zoom as well as my 35-105.
Feb 14, 2023 00:42:19 #
Delderby wrote:
IMO There is NO PLACE for IA IN THE WORLD OF PHOTOGRAPHY. From a photographer's point of view IA is an abomination. . .
Don’t be so rigid. Much of Photoshop etc. is already AI. Images generated by AI can be quite good. What we need is an honest description of a piece of Art.
It seems that any truthful description of the artistic medium for a work will have to fall into one of the following categories:
1) Straight out the Camera;
2) Photographically generated, with digital/darkroom manipulation;
3) AI generated and manipulated.
If we keep to that system, there’s no longer any need for eight or more pages of opinions on this matter.
Nuff said.
.
Feb 11, 2023 11:41:52 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.
Hmmm. Some five-year-old with a brush recently exhibited his work. So years is not necessary. Lots of inclusions can be included in Art. Let’s just exclude AI.
Feb 11, 2023 09:05:40 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
AI image fools judges and wins photography competition. What do you think about AI-only generated images and their place in the photo world?
This is all a matter of definition. It would be hard (or, even foolish) to list the different creative methods to include in the definition of art. But it can be easy to list some methods to exclude.
I, for one, would exclude AI in the definition of art. A panel of judges in a contest could also do the same. Or, if they choose, they could include it.
Again, it is only a definition or just a preference.
Feb 9, 2023 11:16:22 #
bonjac wrote:
Saw this church aat the Russian Research Station in Antarctica.
Glad your eye told you to take the shot. Nice, but (to my eye) the rock in the foreground blocks the path to the church. By cropping the bottom border to just touch the rock, the viewer's eye jumps right to the church with the rock acting as a frame for the church. The left side, too, would be less distracting with a good crop.
Still nice, though. Thanks.
Feb 6, 2023 22:59:16 #
burkphoto wrote:
. . .
I found myself saying, "Yes! Yes!" at every turn. I'd love to hear what you think. You will have to watch to the end to get the whole "picture."
I found myself saying, "Yes! Yes!" at every turn. I'd love to hear what you think. You will have to watch to the end to get the whole "picture."
Another lecture/discussion by someone who appreciates Leitner and has the words to talk about it. But after a minute or so I started fast forwarding and never bothered to get to the end. Each to one's own.
Feb 4, 2023 14:06:50 #
m43rebel wrote:
I had been struggling with one of my photos. I liked the composition but the day I took it was dull and overcast. . . . .
I appreciate any feedback you could give me ... even derisions. LOL
I appreciate any feedback you could give me ... even derisions. LOL
Looking at all the comments, I notice that none of them, even mine, mentioned the change in composition between your first and second images.
I feel you lost more than the mountain tops when you clipped them; bring them back.
Feb 3, 2023 23:14:23 #
m43rebel wrote:
I had been struggling with one of my photos. I li... (show quote)
Sorry, but I Greatly prefer the original! It could use some work, but your processed image is way overdone. Of course, your mileage may vary. Hope you're not angry.
Jan 27, 2023 12:40:49 #
Fstop12 wrote:
I actually used one of my Drop Shadow Creations with the base AI image to create the composite. Textures and paint etc were added in Photoshop. I really don't see much difference when using a Adobe Stock image as a base for doing a composite. As far as your State Fair, I agree, because this type of image is actually digital art, not something that was taken with a camera. I guess, in the end, it's not a photograph, it's a digital Art piece.
Well, if you’re arguing that it is your own art piece, then why did you ask the question??
What’s the difference between your using the online service and just calling a friend to make a drawing of a rabbit in the woods and “improving” the drawing?
Take your own pictures if you want to claim credit.
.
Jan 27, 2023 10:50:51 #
Fstop12 wrote:
. . . So is the Dal-E-2 image my work because I used my vision in Text? Is this any different that using a Stock Image off the internet as a base starting image for my composites? Anyway, I'm starting to have fun with this AI stuff.
My personal feeling is that you should not claim it's your art. Call it something else, like Modified Download or something else. The idea of the foreground rabbit in the woods is not yours.
I know that some legal beavers would disagree with me.
.
Jan 26, 2023 14:17:05 #
Jim-Pops wrote:
Looks better, a little more blur on the shadow to ... (show quote)
Good start, and good follow up commentary.