Many alter their RAW photographs to images that may be slightly different, to ones that may be radically different. It can be from subtle adjustments to color, white-balance, contrast, sharpness, etc., etc. It can also be just removing small spots by cloning, to removing large objects than one would not prefer to see in the images. Do any of these changes mean those photographs are no longer photos, but now images?
The owners of photographs can make whatever changes they want as long as they are not violating any laws or rules in effect where such photos are posted or published. Just as you may alter a photo with minor cloning, who is to say you can't make major changes and even use AI to make an end product that appeals to yourself or anyone else?
JMO
First image is a mediocre shot of a hawk on ugly telephone cables.
Second image has Photoshop and Topaz filters applied as well as Photoshop's AI Generative Fill.
Strictly as an image that I would prefer hanging on my wall would be the second image, and certainly not the first one.
"All photographs are distortions of reality. Some are just distorted more than others." Tony Markle
This is a situation we are all going to be faced with sooner than later. Hats off to you on your processing skills to make a beautiful image out of a photograph that didn't quite have the appeal we all want.
I think Karl may have hit on it by saying: will we even need to take photographs soon. I sure hope it doesn't come to that.
Tony,
A good topic, with the many tools we have in LR and PS that make a so so image to a masterpiece, it is the times we live in. Keeping it realistic without getting extreme I think works, but with all the new technologies aren't making it easy.
Your #2 shot is beautiful
Chris S.
louie champan wrote:
This is a situation we are all going to be faced with sooner than later. Hats off to you on your processing skills to make a beautiful image out of a photograph that didn't quite have the appeal we all want.
I think Karl may have hit on it by saying: will we even need to take photographs soon. I sure hope it doesn't come to that.
Thanks Louie. AI will never replace our experiences of getting out and enjoying nature.
But I for one could not live with myself for sharing/using such an image. To me it is an outright lie, to myself, and to the craft of photography. Why bother going out with a camera if you are going to just let the computer create an image for you anyway? I shoot for the joy of the capture.
But that's just me and the choice I live with. We all having varying degrees of what we will except.
jamesdak wrote:
But I for one could not live with myself for sharing/using such an image. To me it is an outright lie, to myself, and to the craft of photography. Why bother going out with a camera if you are going to just let the computer create an image for you anyway? I shoot for the joy of the capture.
But that's just me and the choice I live with. We all having varying degrees of what we will except.
What other's do is their business.
I guess if one is still in the dark age of photography, any post-processing whatsoever is a lie. A photo of a bird in flight, a cheetah running, or an airplane in flight are all lies because still photos show no movement.
One can still enjoy going out and capturing images and then post-process those images to any degree they wish. If you don't want to do that it is your business. If you don't think post-processing to any degree other photographers wish to do that is your prerogative. You just don't have the right to tell other photographers what they can do with their own photos.
Ansel Adams created his images both in-camera and in the darkroom, and here today you object to others using a computer to work in conjunction with the images from their cameras. Give me a break.
A camera and a computer can work hand-in-hand to create a better image than just using a camera. Just my opinion and that of millions of others.
I saw a strange documentary about a chinese man who was doing Van Gogh copies. He had a small group of "students" helping him make the paintings and even his wife was in on the game. He was producing dozens of images a month, often making hundreds for a single order. The interesting thing was that they went into the Van Gogh museum in the Netherlands and they had a number of this guys paintings in their collection. Then I wondered something really weird, what if there weren't any real Van Gogh's anywhere? What if Van Gogh himself was completely made up and has always just been a chinese guy... Crazy thought right? And then I thought... what if AI has been around a lot longer than we're being led to believe... what if American history was all AI generated? Pretty interesting.
shawnphoto wrote:
And then I thought... what if AI has been around a lot longer than we're being led to believe... what if American history was all AI generated? Pretty interesting.
Yeah, you are probably an AI-generated person and not real.
shawnphoto wrote:
I saw a strange documentary about a chinese man who was doing Van Gogh copies. He had a small group of "students" helping him make the paintings and even his wife was in on the game. He was producing dozens of images a month, often making hundreds for a single order. The interesting thing was that they went into the Van Gogh museum in the Netherlands and they had a number of this guys paintings in their collection. Then I wondered something really weird, what if there weren't any real Van Gogh's anywhere? What if Van Gogh himself was completely made up and has always just been a chinese guy... Crazy thought right? And then I thought... what if AI has been around a lot longer than we're being led to believe... what if American history was all AI generated? Pretty interesting. ...Show more →
Imagemaster wrote:
I guess if one is still in the dark age of photography, any post-processing whatsoever is a lie. A photo of a bird in flight, a cheetah running, or an airplane in flight are all lies because still photos show no movement.
One can still enjoy going out and capturing images and then post-process those images to any degree they wish. If you don't want to do that it is your business. If you don't think post-processing to any degree other photographers wish to do that is your prerogative. You just don't have the right to tell other photographers what they can do with their own photos.
Ansel Adams created his images both in-camera and in the darkroom, and here today you object to others using a computer to work in conjunction with the images from their cameras. Give me a break.
A camera and a computer can work hand-in-hand to create a better image than just using a camera. Just my opinion and that of millions of others. ...Show more →
How did you jump from someone saying that they could not live with themselves for sharing junk AI images to them telling you you don't have the right to post junk AI images? They even post " What other's do is their business. Heavily edited AI anything is not art in any form in my opinion its junk.
Tony, you will appreciate this -- and you may be very familiar with this image. I was fortunate enough to see one of Henry Peach Robinson's actual prints of this amazing image, "When the Day's Work is Done". It was a large print, and was one of the most amazing prints I've ever seen. Robinson created this in the darkroom in 1877, using 5 negatives to create this 'photo montage'.
The second image is also one of Robinson's composites using 5 negatives. The title is "Fading Away".
I also have always been a big fan of Jerry Uelsmann, and have been to one of his print exhibits -- also all done in the darkroom in those days.
I'm with you Tony, of course most of us who use PP tools will experiment with them, and at times create beautiful and meaningful (at least to us) images like your #2. For myself I haven't printed one taken that far, and at this point don't think I ever will.
Thanks for posting those master pieces of old darkroom magic Greg. I too was inspired by Jerry Uelsmann, who achieved incredible surreal results BITD.
One aspect of PP that has long bothered me (before AI) is beauty and advertising that falsely portrays models with perfect skin, hair, and bodies. As a retired teacher I worry about children, esp. girls, growing up with a distorted body image that they can never live up to. I know some magazines and companies have tried to rectify this to a small extent, but it remains a real problem. Obviously these AI tools will make it easier for anyone to alter their own images to post on social media, exacerbating the problem.
