Photography is ruined again

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened. Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

AI does nothing new to your photos - but it helps to get optimal settings for post-processing. And after you found them, it is up to you to reduce them to an extend you like. Everything AI does was possible with post-processing for most prgorams, before. The difference is: now, it became much more easy to do your postprocessing in an impressive way.

I always asked myself why there is no better automatic whitebalance in many post-processing programs - but now we can find ome that do better and much easier. And if it is not the setting you like, in most cases the setting found by AI is at least close to your optimum. I have ON1 and they have a few steps optimized by AI. You can use it for basic settings like contrast, whites, medium tones, blacks, saturation ...

They also have a good tool for masking. And the next version will include AI for portrait photography. It will make things easier and faster - but it will not change the look of your photo as long as you don't stop working after AI made its settings. Your next step would be to tweak it to your taste.

In most cases you will realize that you get your results quicker and maybe even better - but if it ends up with extremes is up to you.

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened. Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

It's nefarious because it's easy to be nefarious, and yes, digital processing makes it easy. And there is noting to blame unless it's to deceive. Photographic manipulations have always been around. The terms burning, dodging and vignetting are from wet darkroom processes.

Anyone who thinks photographs record reality (recording the moment) only has himself/herself to blame. Photographs are like any other recording medium; they only record representations, not reality.

CMCM said:

1. CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Phil A Martin said:

Phil A Martin said:

1. CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

It would me too IF I remember it isn't "my sky". Years pass and many photos get taken. Memory fades on such things. However, I tend to save the original image and if I take the time, it is available. I suspect many don't save a substandard image after years pass by.

Phil A Martin said:

Phil A Martin said:

1. CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

By some peoples logic on this forum, it should have been ruined some time ago as in here:

I have always been interested in expanding my range of photographic experience (for lack of a better phrase) - things like infrared, strobes, fisheye lenses, etc., fascinate me. The technologies and techniques can add to photography if used creatively and tastefully, and sometimes produce interesting results in combination. So I didn't dismiss sky replacement at once, even purchased Luminar and replaced a few skies. My goal was not to get serious results but to achieve obvious falseness just for fun (Mount Everest in my backyard) . After a few chuckles I grew tired of it.

Some of my favorite captures are from Zion and Yosemite. The photos have taken on increased meaning over time not just for the quality of the capture, but from the memory of the efforts that we went to to get the perfect light.

digitallollygag said:

I know there may be Photoshop users who've spent hundreds of hours on enhancing, retouching, manipulating their images who may feel cheated by the new power of "quick fixes" via AI in Photoshop. That is one thing.

Beyond that, is there going to be so much increased image manipulation going on that we can no longer believe much of anything we see? This encompasses virtually all areas of life: advertising, politics, religion, etc. When and where have we crossed a line?

Click to expand...

Adding things that weren't there, or subtracting things that were, is propaganda. Every photo I have taken with a digital camera has been manipulated in some way. Cropped, exposure balanced, colors corrected, sharpened, etc.

CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

CMCM said:

1. CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

Yes but a specific sky is a product of the microclimate derived from the landscape underneath it. A sky photographed above a mountain range would not be the same as a sky taken at sea level. Also the sky influences the quality of light falling on the land and if there is a mismatch between the two, it would just look wrong. Now this might fool some people but anyone with an understanding of climate and the environment, would see right through it.

gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened.

Click to expand...

How does the manipulation of photographs by others impact your photography?

gary0319 said:

Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

I have never been accused of manipulating my images.... have you?

sportyaccordy said:

gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened.

Click to expand...

How does the manipulation of photographs by others impact your photography?

sportyaccordy said:

Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

I have never been accused of manipulating my images.... have you?

Click to expand...

There are manipulations and there are nefarious manipulations. I think he was talking about nefarious manipulations.

mamallama said:

sportyaccordy said:

gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened.

Click to expand...

How does the manipulation of photographs by others impact your photography?

mamallama said:

Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

I have never been accused of manipulating my images.... have you?

Click to expand...

There are manipulations and there are nefarious manipulations. I think he was talking about nefarious manipulations.

Click to expand...

I know. It doesn't matter. Someone I don't know manipulating pictures I've never seen has no impact on my photography. So I'm confused as to why it should have an effect on anyone else's. This is like saying 1 doctor committing malpractice fraud kills the whole profession of medicine. I would just take that as a calling to be a better doctor.

With AI you can generate a full, photorealistic image, based on a bunch of existing pictures used to train the algorithm. For now a bunch is required - maybe in the future only a few will suffice.

So you can create something, that is not yet but will some day for sure, be impossible to differenciate from a "real" photo, and where none of the pixels were computed based on photons hitting a sensor. Of course one day, it will also be able to create a beautiful "photo", vaguely inspired by an original photo, removing automatically ugly stuff, blurring background as needed, creating details where required, changing the frame, the angle of view, the depth of field, ...

Would you call this, "photography" ?

I wouldn't.

If you agree that photography exists as an art, then it means that even if fuzzy, there IS a limit to the amount of "post processing" you can do while still calling the result photography. And well, that's ok, but it's not the same thing, and not the same intent.

I would say photography is a frame cut from reality and altered by chained transformations applied on the captured frame as a whole (starting with lens and sensor) - but the aim of photography is to base itself on the best captured frame of light from a specific point in space and time, and make it something unique.

While now and more and more, intent becomes making the best looking image at all cost, whatever the source material, changing pixels if needed.

With this idea stuff like focus stacking or panoramas stitching remain photography because the intent is the same - but you use tricks to compensate for limitations in depth of field or angle of view of the sensor+lens. But when you replace a sky by another one, or remove those phone cables, your intent clearly is not the same anymore.

What I think, photography may not be ruined, but it will become further marginalized.

Just like how photography ruined painting. Isn't it normal for every art form to be occasionally "ruined" by technology?

JeremieB said:

With AI you can generate a full, photorealistic image, based on a bunch of existing pictures used to train the algorithm. For now a bunch is required - maybe in the future only a few will suffice.

Click to expand...

But this same thing has been possible with film for well over a hundred years. Movies in particular used mattes all the time. Watch The Towering Inferno -- the Glass Tower didnt' exist in real life, but it sure looked like it did in the movie. We just have tools that make it a little easier.

JeremieB said:

What I think, photography may not be ruined, but it will become further marginalized.

Click to expand...

I still say nothing's changed. I've read lots of "Photography is dead!" either because of AI or phones or EVFs or whatever, but these are not new arguments. Roll film, color, disc, compact 35mm -- they were all going to kill photography for us pro-ams, and yet they managed not to.

Aaron

You can be awed by the authentic reality of nature, or you can be awed by the power of software.

sportyaccordy said:

mamallama said:

sportyaccordy said:

gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened.

Click to expand...

How does the manipulation of photographs by others impact your photography?

sportyaccordy said:

Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

I have never been accused of manipulating my images.... have you?

Click to expand...

There are manipulations and there are nefarious manipulations. I think he was talking about nefarious manipulations.

Click to expand...

I know. It doesn't matter. Someone I don't know manipulating pictures I've never seen has no impact on my photography. So I'm confused as to why it should have an effect on anyone else's. This is like saying 1 doctor committing malpractice fraud kills the whole profession of medicine. I would just take that as a calling to be a better doctor.

Click to expand...

First off, of course I manipulate my images, perhaps only to remove noise, add sharpness, boost shadows, etc. Sometimes I even contact aware out an ugly power line. But I don’t use my photographs for deceitful purposes.

I submit that the manipulation of images, or videos for deceitful purposes does tarnish the whole of the art.... the same as pedophile priests, harm a religion; or rogue police actions destroys public trust, or lying and manipulative civic leaders damage society as a whole. Does it mean my photography is directly affected, perhaps not. But once the seeds of suspicion are planted we all lose a bit,.... just my opinion, of course.

Everyone is capable of ruining a photograph and no particularly technology is needed to do it. I suppose a lot of photographs that I consider ruined are well loved by the photographer and possible many admire him or her. When I scroll through Flickr images, I often notice that a pic I consider over processed in one way or another has a great number of faves and comments. I guess it is up to each photographer to determine what sort of photographs they want to create. Technology such as Luminar AI is available. Most will never know it exists. Some will play with it once in a blue moon (not sure if the moon will be fake or real). A few will make it a regular playground for their processing. It's not like a pandemic or something.