Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
Many photographers are artists. Pretending there is a dichotomy between artist and photographer is a nonsense.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Photography is ruined again
- Thread starter DeathArrow
- Start date
forest dream
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,930
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,588
AI powered digital actor/army in Lord Of The Rings movie
https://www.wired.com/2002/12/digital-actors-in-rings-can-think/
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
If you're doing photography for yourself, then the "trust" of complete strangers who judge you based on the actions of other complete strangers shouldn't matter. You can't have it both ways- you are either doing it for yourself or you're concerned about losing the public's trust.
Actually, I can have it both ways.
When doing photography personally, I don't care as the client is myself.
When doing photography at work, it's often published for consumption by others.
SteveinLouisville
Senior Member
Art can be propaganda. Many examples, though Guernica comes to mind first. Adding or subtracting things is at a minimum possibly deceitful. Depends on the context, I suppose. I added a blurred soccer ball heading toward a 8 year old goal keeper once, when I shot a kids soccer game. Printed it and gave it to the father. His kid, getting ready to block the shot. His dad loved it. I don't feel bad about doing this. It wasn't art, but it was fun, and his dad was in on the joke.
I saw a photo online this summer of a group of large, overweight, poorly dressed people standing in front a pickup truck. The most obese man in the picture was shirtless and covered in swastika tattoos, and a large confederate flag was on the truck. The other people had similar tattoos. There was a MAGA banner as well.
This photo was a fake. The original showed the people standing there, but no one had tattoos like that, no confederate flag or MAGA banner was present. This was propaganda, and nothing I could call "art."
There is no absolute "right" answer to whether photo manipulation is unethical or not. Lots of micro-answers, all conditional on other variables. Each of us gets to decide for him or herself.
Last edited:
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
I'm not talking about Lord of the Rings. Obviously CGI was used to great effect in this and other movies and again obviously software like that in the AI video will find its use in TV and cinema but we are discussing it within the context of stills photography and specifically landscape photography. Where is the creativity in creating garish landscape images using AI and why should it be seen as more creative than the photography of Thomas Heaton in the first video?
Mr Garibaldi
Leading Member
The image snapped by the camera is the content of the image. If, after the fact one is using post processing to replace large swaths of that image, then that person has done a very poor job of composing the image on the first place.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
Agreed and if they become over reliant on post production, then this could make them lazy and unwilling to spend the time and learn the skills to make them a good photographer.
JeremieB
Senior Member
I don't quite agree on this way of defining photography as just the physical recording.
I think there are a huge amount of choices, and skills, that are involved before and when you push the trigger.
You may choose a specific lens. A light (which may be: deciding the time of day, or the day, depending on the weather, etc). Decide about metering (default one, or alter it depending on something you want to obtain). You may put filters - or not. You decide an angle of view. A distance from subject. The framing you want. You may create motion blur - or miss your photo because of it. And of course, you may see that there is a photo to make, where another one won't see anything interesting at all.
Isn't there any creativity at all in all this ?
Then of course you'll understand that I don't agree at all that just keeping a photo as it is makes it a pure "documenting purpose". But well, discussions on art are traps anyway
Just because you could do some of this in post-processing does not mean doing it before pushing the trigger is irrelevant, and it does not mean you will get the exact same result in the end.
(The problem also with calling that "digital art" is that you could do similar things on film, and it was not at all digital at that time)
I think you can make art with just anything you want but that's probably another topic in the end. What is art has been pushed to the limits by artists during last decades ...
But I think little people now deny that photography belongs to art forms. That discussion was done more than a century ago already. Of course you have the right not to agree.
What is the end product of this "scenographic art" ? Do you often invite spectators to witness about how you set the light and directed the models, do you keep a video of it ... ? Whatever scenography was done, what you captured was really there. The scenography is not the end product in this case, the end product is a photograph.
Yes, "unique" is not the good word. Valuable is better I agree, though not the best either - but I can't find better. Maybe just "interesting".
As I said above, "good" images do not record themselves magically. Someone has to be there, see something, and make its best out of it. Because as you said, this moment you capture will forever be unique so you take the risk of not having a second chance. Or not, if you don't care.
... but again, you don't need post-processing or planned scenography to make art out of it, to get a photo that will provoke and inspire emotions to the viewer. And again my whole point was to try to distinguish between different methods of post processing, not to discuss what was art or not.
In your logic, what's the name of this specific art that you absolutely refuse to call photography, ie "record an image to make art from it" ? Painting ? I mean, "digital art" does not mean much. Music, photography, movies, all this could be called "digital art" and it would tell nothing about how these are made.
Yes I think those purposes faded and will continue to fade. But obviously as we don't agree on my premises we can't agree on my conclusion ;-)
Photos used to be something existing on a physical support, that you owned, and nobody was able to make a different development of your photo if you didn't want to.
I have no nostalgia, I don't shoot on film at all, and never did (apart from expandable cameras), I'm just saying that with digital this concept started to disappear a while back. Images now are expandable, replaceable, can be faked or reproduced, by just anyone. The line between a photograph and a picture has been blurred completely. And AI based algorithms just make it far easier than before, to make this, and to make it undetectable. That's where I consider photography (as it used to be) is marginalized: you can make a beautiful photo, something that would have been a best seller a long time ago, but nowadays anyone will be able to do the same or better thanks to heavy post-processing. So what you had, those skills that you summarized by "pressing a shutter", that allowed you to make this beautiful "capture", isn't important anymore. You, for example, do not value them the slightest. Why bother taking a good bird picture if you can take a bad one and some AI will sharpen it perfectly based on all the pictures of birds it learned from ? Why bother taking any photo in fact if you can just create them out of your imagination (or in fact, imagination of others) ?
And, I don't feel "insecure" about it or anything, it's just how I see it but it does not cause me any panic.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
And that doesn't include the cultural, social, political and/or conceptual values you bring to the image/images, which are the source of the artistic content in photography.
Isn't there any creativity at all in all this ?
Then of course you'll understand that I don't agree at all that just keeping a photo as it is makes it a pure "documenting purpose". But well, discussions on art are traps anyway
Just because you could do some of this in post-processing does not mean doing it before pushing the trigger is irrelevant, and it does not mean you will get the exact same result in the end.
(The problem also with calling that "digital art" is that you could do similar things on film, and it was not at all digital at that time)
I think you can make art with just anything you want but that's probably another topic in the end. What is art has been pushed to the limits by artists during last decades ...
But I think little people now deny that photography belongs to art forms. That discussion was done more than a century ago already. Of course you have the right not to agree.
What is the end product of this "scenographic art" ? Do you often invite spectators to witness about how you set the light and directed the models, do you keep a video of it ... ? Whatever scenography was done, what you captured was really there. The scenography is not the end product in this case, the end product is a photograph.
Yes, "unique" is not the good word. Valuable is better I agree, though not the best either - but I can't find better. Maybe just "interesting".
As I said above, "good" images do not record themselves magically. Someone has to be there, see something, and make its best out of it. Because as you said, this moment you capture will forever be unique so you take the risk of not having a second chance. Or not, if you don't care.
... but again, you don't need post-processing or planned scenography to make art out of it, to get a photo that will provoke and inspire emotions to the viewer. And again my whole point was to try to distinguish between different methods of post processing, not to discuss what was art or not.
In your logic, what's the name of this specific art that you absolutely refuse to call photography, ie "record an image to make art from it" ? Painting ? I mean, "digital art" does not mean much. Music, photography, movies, all this could be called "digital art" and it would tell nothing about how these are made.
Yes I think those purposes faded and will continue to fade. But obviously as we don't agree on my premises we can't agree on my conclusion ;-)
Photos used to be something existing on a physical support, that you owned, and nobody was able to make a different development of your photo if you didn't want to.
I have no nostalgia, I don't shoot on film at all, and never did (apart from expandable cameras), I'm just saying that with digital this concept started to disappear a while back. Images now are expandable, replaceable, can be faked or reproduced, by just anyone. The line between a photograph and a picture has been blurred completely. And AI based algorithms just make it far easier than before, to make this, and to make it undetectable. That's where I consider photography (as it used to be) is marginalized: you can make a beautiful photo, something that would have been a best seller a long time ago, but nowadays anyone will be able to do the same or better thanks to heavy post-processing. So what you had, those skills that you summarized by "pressing a shutter", that allowed you to make this beautiful "capture", isn't important anymore. You, for example, do not value them the slightest. Why bother taking a good bird picture if you can take a bad one and some AI will sharpen it perfectly based on all the pictures of birds it learned from ? Why bother taking any photo in fact if you can just create them out of your imagination (or in fact, imagination of others) ?
And, I don't feel "insecure" about it or anything, it's just how I see it but it does not cause me any panic.
Last edited:
JeremieB
Senior Member
What about replacing the sky in your picture by another sky of your choice ? That's a real feature of Photoshop and it's AI based.
AI is not about creating fictitious content, BUT it's a huge helper if that's what you want to do.
Another example from a real product :
As you can see, I'm not "twisting" anything.
By the way I'm not sure professional photographers realized how easy it was to remove watermarks ...
There's AI not only in smartphones but in a growing number of cameras, hybrids, compacts, and that's not new.
And it's not limited to the capture process, there's AI, more and more, in photography editing tools.
And there's a huge bunch of AI systems in research studies that are just waiting patiently to be implemented in consumer devices and softwares.
What I understand is that you don't plan to explain
mamallama
Forum Pro
No. You are thoroughly confused and unclear on the concept of what was meant in the original statement.What about replacing the sky in your picture by another sky of your choice ? That's a real feature of Photoshop and it's AI based.
AI is not about creating fictitious content, BUT it's a huge helper if that's what you want to do.
Another example from a real product :
As you can see, I'm not "twisting" anything.
Smartphones are the only current consumer level cameras with enough processing power to carry out meaningful AI and computational photography.
Yes, waiting and waiting and waiting for devices to get enough processing power.
I've explained it already. You just don't seem to comprehend.What I understand is that you don't plan to explain
Overrank
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,917
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 4,435
Doing quite well - Kodak has had to increase the shifts to keep up with the demand
If monoculture ever was a thing, it's certainly over now.
So, while some fraction of people will probably like idiotic future things or get pushed into various stupid future developments, the likelihood that their choices will reach me or affect my life is smaller than ever.
I suspect photography has already been dead for a long time for many people; but I don't know any of those people, I don't care what they like or what they want, and I won't ever have to. Neither will you or anyone else, if you don't want.
If I were interested in shooting film, for example: there's enough film equipment in circulation to keep the niche going until kingdom come. And there's apparently enough interest to keep some niche manufacturers and labs in business, now 15 - 20 years after the advent of digital. So film's here to stay for those who like it; doesn't matter what other niches do or want.
Or let's say I'm interested in digital photography with DSLR system cameras and manual (non-AI) RAW processing? Same thing. There's more than enough equipment in circulation for my lifetime (and I'm young!). There are more than enough camera bodies and lenses and old computers and old copies of standalone Lightroom or Capture One or whatever hanging around. I'd be fine to just do my thing in perpetuity. Other people are using new tech? Good for them, tell someone who cares.
(For the record, I'm using new tech, but why would I care whether other people also do or not?)
There is no one, single future for photography or the future of imaging, except this: there'll be no consensus on the future of photography and imaging. There are just many futures, one for every little niche of imaging interests people care to pursue. Nobody gets to decide what's "relevant," except to them. Does Instagram decide what's relevant? Only if you care about Instagram. Not everyone does. Does Apple decide what's relevant? Only if you care about Apple. Not everyone does.
Life isn't a popularity contest. Popularity and happiness aren't the same thing. Popularity and success aren't the same thing.
Other people or companies or media conglomerates or whoever . . . they don't decide what's relevant, friend. You do. That's the heart of art and creativity of any kind: your choices, your interests, your resourcefulness. YOU. Not some drummed up "consensus."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
There are still connoisseurs who appreciate the fine qualities of analog photography and printing
https://www.silverprint.co.uk/
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
Here's how much of an impact it's had so far. Not even a single glorious sample from a thread on a "photography" forum.
LOLzlooooolzHelicoters&melodrama
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4527960#forum-post-64493791
LOLzlooooolzHelicoters&melodrama
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4527960#forum-post-64493791
Last edited:
Because I spent thousands of dollars going there and every day was a sunny day, when I wanted a moody sky. I hate getting up early so there lots of people when I want to go out, so i had to clone out a dozen people. I am also too embarrassed to admit that I chose the worst time of year to go and the ground doesn't simmer when I went, so I faked the steam. And last but not least, the real spring was infected with algae so it was a puke green color, so I took artist license to color it blue. I won't be denied the image of my dreams and I can't afford to go back, so I'll use whatever trick in the computer to achieve it! Fake it until you make it!Why would you lie?
If I show this image to someone, I'd like to think that that person would believe that such a geological feature exists, it's in a place called Yellowstone, it really is blue, and there is steam coming out of the ground. If they accept it, then I have earned their trust. How would they feel if I later revealed that it really is colorless, the spring was lifted from another part of the world, steam added for additional drama, and I made up the name?
...of course, I made all of that up. But I'm not that far off from people who collect skies and cloud patterns (and tomorrow, foreground features) for compositing. The genie has been outta the bottle for a while now, and we'll just have to continue to evolve with it. Each of us has a choice to use these products or not. But I can't help but wonder how it will change the future generation of photographers who face incredible temptation to deceive because the competition is so vicious.
Last edited:
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
The sky has been falling for 8 months. I wouldn't worry too much. No one is going to mistake the samples in the thread below for anything close to reality. Even at the super small file size you can see the obvious and clunky AI. It kinda reminds me of a total newbie poobie experimenting with LR. I sure hope Adobe does a better job. I bet they will.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
All photographers don't have to join in your choice to subject yourself to arbitrary judgment by a largely uninformed and non-invested public.
Why should I be concerned with the opinions of people who know nothing about me or my photography, and will make judgments on both via the actions of photographers I don't know and have no control over? It's a stupid thing to worry about.
Gary Martin
Veteran Member
Sorry, I thought the sarcasm was obvious.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum