Photography is ruined again

There recent developments of Luminar AI and new new features in Photoshop gave birth to a wave of unhappy grumblings on the internets.

Here's an example:



Some people are again convinced that photography will be ruined.

What are your thoughts? Just because software makes it easy to do some things that already were done but necessitated a bit more skills, means that photography is ruined?

Was photography ruined by the invention of film? Was it ruined by the invention of autofocus? Was it ruined by the invention of autoexposure? Was it ruined by hig frame per socond? Was it ruined by the transition to digital? Did the invetion of Photoshop ruin it many years ago?

What are your thoughts?

DeathArrow said:

Was photography ruined by the invention of film?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

Was it ruined by the invention of autofocus?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

Was it ruined by the invention of autoexposure?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

Was it ruined by high frame per second?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

Was it ruined by the transition to digital?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

Did the invetion of Photoshop ruin it many years ago?

Click to expand...

No.

DeathArrow said:

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Only you can decide where to draw the lines between photography, art and fraud. If you're going to superimpose fake skies, add a few poppies to foregrounds, even alter people's facial expressions (which I believe the latest iteration of Photoshop can do), good luck to you. It will get to the stage where people's "holiday snaps" will be nothing like what they experienced. But they do this in the brochures all the time. How many times have you heard people, returning from a holiday, say "It was nice, but not as nice as in the brochures"?

--
www.grahammeale.info

I’ve tried the new Sky Replacement in Photoshop and have two initial impressions.

First, I am amazed at how well it works, especially in retaining the foreground details when delecate subjects intrude into the sky area.

Secondly, after about 3 or 4 tries it is really pretty boring and I doubt I would use it routinely.

Seems to be a great bit of technology that will seldom get used except in commercial applications.

For paid job, only customer can decide what is art. Customer paid for his art not photographer art. If customer more happy with these AI modified image, then Luminar success.

There's something in old photos I never see in the newer perfect photos. They feel "now".

I'm curious... where are those people who are saying optional choices in software are ruining the field of photography? Or is that just hyperbole?

I think those people are unsecure. They like one way of working and they might feel is hard for them to get good results working in the way they are. They are afraid other people would get good results easier.

Generally NO. With Photo Shop, there is a great deal of artistic expression potential if you are willing to take the time with images. I generally prefer a more natural look.

DeathArrow said:

I think those people are unsecure. They like one way of working and they might feel is hard for them to get good results working in the way they are. They are afraid other people would get good results easier.

Click to expand...

I just asked where they are. I'm not convinced they exist.

It is quite impossible to get realistic photos with film, but it is much more possible with digital. The irony of these is that when digital became popular, desired results are being pushed more and more away from realistic towards film types or other type of fantasy like computer graphics.

Seems that photos are nowadays rarely used to have a photo of something, but to have a canvas where you build your fantasy. The downside of this is that history is being recorded from a distorted perspective which all cannot share. It gives you a dream of the subject rather than an image of the subject. In film ages there was not much choice, but now it would pretty possible to make references where all can relate. The reality gives everyone the same light.

When talking about more artistic approach of photography, I generally prefer film photos. Not because of the film, but because they are generally more well made than the overwhelming chaos of digital snapshots everyone can easily see. When some older people share their film photos of youth and then comparing those to digital photos people shoot today, the difference is very clear. Much more keepers in film photos.

Not my photography as I'm not doing PP. For the the rest is up to you wheather you do photos or pictures..

Fotoni said:

It is quite impossible to get realistic photos with film, but it is much more possible with digital. The irony of these is that when digital became popular, desired results are being pushed more and more away from realistic towards film types or other type of fantasy like computer graphics.

Seems that photos are nowadays rarely used to have a photo of something, but to have a canvas where you build your fantasy. The downside of this is that history is being recorded from a distorted perspective which all cannot share. It gives you a dream of the subject rather than an image of the subject. In film ages there was not much choice, but now it would pretty possible to make references where all can relate. The reality gives everyone the same light.

When talking about more artistic approach of photography, I generally prefer film photos. Not because of the film, but because they are generally more well made than the overwhelming chaos of digital snapshots everyone can easily see. When some older people share their film photos of youth and then comparing those to digital photos people shoot today, the difference is very clear. Much more keepers in film photos.

Click to expand...

Amen! And much to the dismay of those preaching that digital can do everything it cannot beat the genuine look that film can - it can only hope to mimic and most often cannot match it. That is why many of us who began with digital in the 90's after working with film for decades continue to use both - they each have their place no matter how much either camp says one or the other is "better" than the other - they are distinctly different. Film doesn't replace digital; it never will nor can, but it augments digital for many. Sure, film takes more time and effort which is why many rightfully say they'd never go back, but for a subset of folks the joy of the process and the results are well worth the time and effort.

MFL

Fotoni said:

It is quite impossible to get realistic photos with film, but it is much more possible with

Click to expand...

Maybe, but people have tried - https://munsell.com/color-blog/colo...hy-printing-television-40-years-colorchecker/

Fotoni said:

digital. The irony of these is that when digital became popular, desired results are being pushed more and more away from realistic towards film types or other type of fantasy like computer graphics.

Click to expand...

How can a product one doesn't use ruin their photography?

*EDIT* What the @#$& can this dude POSSIBLY say about this for HALF AN HOUR? This almost feels disrespectful.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

DeathArrow said:

There recent developments of Luminar AI and new new features in Photoshop gave birth to a wave of unhappy grumblings on the internets.

Here's an example:
Some people are again convinced that photography will be ruined.

What are your thoughts? Just because software makes it easy to do some things that already were done but necessitated a bit more skills, means that photography is ruined?

Was photography ruined by the invention of film? Was it ruined by the invention of autofocus? Was it ruined by the invention of autoexposure? Was it ruined by hig frame per socond? Was it ruined by the transition to digital? Did the invetion of Photoshop ruin it many years ago?

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

My thoughts? the guy's a twit. Getting wet didn't make his photos any better. He's obviously lacking a bit in education too. Much of landscape photography is anything but intuitive, as he claims (although I suspect his shot might be luck). Read any bio of say Ansel Adams and look at the work, planning, analysis and rationality that went into his iconic shots.

Not only that, but he's naive to swallow the "AI" hype. AI is now marketing-speak for any algorithms that process something. Yes, it does exist, and sometimes only in terms of developing the algorithms that live on your desktop. But it's not a whole lot different than what's going on in that machine on the tripod behind him.

And the bizarre thing is that by extolling the virtues of being "in the moment" and snapshooting vs careful work from plan to shot to post processing, he doesn't seem to realize that this means letting the machines, the camera processor and whatever he uses on the desktop, do the work for him. At least someone doing sky replacement is working on improving the image.

Can "AI" be overused? sure. But so can that camera he left out in the rain. It's just a tool, like the others you mention. At the end of the day one can use all sorts of stuff, or none, and the key decision is whether you've ended up with a worthwhile shot or not. We share images, not our exif/XMP/IPTC shooting and editing histories.

DeathArrow said:

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

If the resulting photos aren't oversaturated, over crushed, over haloed, over artifacted looking amateur garbage, which I'm sure they will be, and they hold up at larger sizes, which I'm sure they won't, and they don't look like they're from a crappy video game cutscene, which I'm sure they will, I'll pay for it and use it.

Anyone have their own samples at ~3000 pixies or larger they'd like to plaster up? I'd love to be wrong. It would be such a unique experience for me.

Personally, I think making a scene digitally that never existed in real-life is okay as long as it's clearly advertised as digital art and not photography. For me, photography is about real-life. I think using Liquify to slim or otherwise change the geometry of a person's body is dishonest (and I NEVER do it), and replacing skies is a step worse - unless it's advertised as being fake as I said above.

Now, that doesn't mean I never do heavy editing - I do. But it's always in an effort to make the final image look MORE like it looked to my eye, not less.

Jonsi said:

I'm curious... where are those people who are saying optional choices in software are ruining the field of photography? Or is that just hyperbole?

Click to expand...

Right here.

The public no longer trusts pictures or videos as being true-to-life representations. That's because there have been so many instances of people intentionally distorting reality for their own purposes, whether shaping their bodies, making political statements or creating false images and representing them as true.

The loss of trust is a MAJOR blow to the field of photography, in my opinion.

Pure photography is a system of picture-making that describes more or less faithfully what might be seen through a rectangular frame from a particular vantage point at a given moment. -

John Szarkowski

On YouTube, there's a very interesting video of the English landscape photographer Fay Godwin at work photographing in the landscape. In it she describes the importance of observation in landscape photography. Waiting for the sun to illuminate the land so its form will be clearly seen and for the clouds to move into a pleasing arrangement that complements the land. This process could take several minutes or more but when the balance is right, she then takes the photograph.

This is important because the land and the local weather systems which give rise to the clouds, are intricately linked.

Sure you can take any random landscape and splice in any random sky but it wouldn't be an act of observation and it wouldn't be a pure photograph. At best it would be little more than a photomontage and if the sky bares no relationship to the land, a pretty poor montage at that.

robgendreau said:

DeathArrow said:

There recent developments of Luminar AI and new new features in Photoshop gave birth to a wave of unhappy grumblings on the internets.

Here's an example:
Some people are again convinced that photography will be ruined.

What are your thoughts? Just because software makes it easy to do some things that already were done but necessitated a bit more skills, means that photography is ruined?

Was photography ruined by the invention of film? Was it ruined by the invention of autofocus? Was it ruined by the invention of autoexposure? Was it ruined by hig frame per socond? Was it ruined by the transition to digital? Did the invetion of Photoshop ruin it many years ago?

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

My thoughts? the guy's a twit. Getting wet didn't make his photos any better. He's obviously lacking a bit in education too. Much of landscape photography is anything but intuitive, as he claims (although I suspect his shot might be luck). Read any bio of say Ansel Adams and look at the work, planning, analysis and rationality that went into his iconic shots.

Click to expand...

When I was in university one of our tutors told us about one particular terrace of houses he wanted to photograph but he worked out that these houses would only be illuminated by the sun on one particular day of the year. He worked out the date and went back year after year on the same date, until the weather and the sun cooperated and he managed to get the photograph as he'd planned it.

robgendreau said:

Not only that, but he's naive to swallow the "AI" hype. AI is now marketing-speak for any algorithms that process something. Yes, it does exist, and sometimes only in terms of developing the algorithms that live on your desktop. But it's not a whole lot different than what's going on in that machine on the tripod behind him.

And the bizarre thing is that by extolling the virtues of being "in the moment" and snapshooting vs careful work from plan to shot to post processing, he doesn't seem to realize that this means letting the machines, the camera processor and whatever he uses on the desktop, do the work for him. At least someone doing sky replacement is working on improving the image.

Can "AI" be overused? sure. But so can that camera he left out in the rain. It's just a tool, like the others you mention. At the end of the day one can use all sorts of stuff, or none, and the key decision is whether you've ended up with a worthwhile shot or not. We share images, not our exif/XMP/IPTC shooting and editing histories.

Click to expand...