RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Vishnu-Somnath Temple (Goa) & Questions regarding AI | |
At a fundamental level, the image is drawn onto the capture medium by the energy of light transmitted onto it.
This is true whether it is digital, film or otherwise. After that ... the manipulations begin. That ranges from exposure and tonal adjustments to WB and saturation adjustments, those mostly covering the HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance) aspects of the image. In that regard, those are adjustments ... neither additions to, nor subtractions from the material construct.
Going back to the PROCESS of film, (et al), the capture is of a set amount onto the negative. The process of making a print, involves a host of different choices regarding how to present (beginning with film stock > chemistry > paper > exposure > D&B > masking > etc. the aesthetic of the capture, that was drawn by the light on to the medium.
At that point, the retention of what was drawn by light for the construction of the image remains essentially intact.
Now, enter the photographer and the (temporary) pimple. At this point, alterations (i.e. different from adjustments) to the image drawn by the light are effecting the material construction of the image. This now is the (imo) turning point at which the "ethical" aspects of the manipulative finishing aspects of the process begin.
The tools for manipulating the material construct of the image have evolved from manual efforts in the darkroom via multiple exposures (thinking of Adolf Fassbender) to produce images from a series of photographs ... to where we know have automated computer generated additions / subtractions of material construction.
The array of directions / perspectives that the subject embarks on can be vast ... and I certainly have my own opinions on what constitutes propriety. This takes me back to when I was being taught about how Ansel Adams used D&B techniques to achieve is imagery. My exclamation to my instructor was "HE CHEATS !!!", as I was an ardent chrome shooter (who had been futile in my attempts to emulate Adams style in camera).
It took me a long time to come to understand the difference between the capture and the print. I was a "late student", my formal studies brought me to the concept of "image making" ... whether that image be via a pencil, brush or lens. In the end, we are creating an image ... of our own choosing. Our tools are different (and evolving), but at the end of the day, we are still crafting our image, to convey what it is we want to convey.
As to the ethics of whether or not the presented image is materially the same construct as the capture (or as seen), that has been going on for a long time. Imo, things like PJ, sports, events, forensics harken to retention of the material construct as captured. At the end of the day, we put our name on our work ... the images we created. The tools and methods we choose to employ / deploy to arrive at our crafted image remain in our arsenal of choices. The decision to work like a magician and "never divulge" vs. like an "accountant" and always divulge ... that's a personal choice, where folks draw the line.
A magician, deceives for entertainment, while deception from an accountant is not perceived nearly so well.
As we create our images through the process of light > lens > finishing, I think the ethics of it lay in the realm of whether we ascribing to entertain through our creative processes or be factual (as possible) to the original, optical projection.
I didn't answer the question, directly ... but, I think the answer lies in the intent (and the harm / not) that comes from divulging / not divulging to tools involved, particularly as that pertains to ones own credibility.
Just some .02 on a perpetual matter that exists in our beloved craft. It's an age old question, that will always be with us as we are make images originating from the "drawn with light" photographic process. The AI additions available to the process ... remind me of shooting monochrome, and then hand tinting the print with paint. Meaning, we can do whatever we want in the realm of image making.
How far we extend beyond the "drawn with light" of a single capture ... that's a personal, artistic, creative (i.e. we are creating something) decision. The more we "create" of the image, the farther we extend from the origins of "drawn with light" ... to "drawn with light", plus other stuff.
Yeah, it's a question that's been with us for a long while, with each iterative, technological advancement and application as an adjunct to the origins of "drawn with light". And, it's gonna be around for a while, yet to come. 
|
