fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 4 5 end

from a photograph to an image

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · from a photograph to an image

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

Jan 05, 2026 at 11:15 PM

jay w
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · from a photograph to an image

When walking around art fairs, photo booths used to stress that their (film) photographs did not use Photoshop or other processing. I used to get a chuckle out of that since I think you can do what you want with your images. So I have no problem, actually enjoy your hawk example. I keep telling friends that people don't buy photographs anymore (I don't know that to be true, but assume it is), so I figure it's about doing what you enjoy and does it have a pleasing result. Even if you're selling, I'd say be loud and proud of what you do. Maybe the current question is, "Do you need to actually take the photo," meaning can you use AI to source your image? I'd think people are coming up with shows made entirely of AI imaging. Meanwhile, others are shooting large format and making tintypes.

Jan 06, 2026 at 08:55 AM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · from a photograph to an image

Tony, first, all photographs are not "distortions of reality" - they are ILLUSIONS of reality. As such, photography isn't fundamentally different from painting that also mastered the art of creating illusions of reality. In photography, the raw files are like dull sketches on a canvas that later can be developed into a richness of tones and colors by a skilled photographer.
Second, your example in the opening post adds to my feeling of increasingly losing interest in wildlife photography, and especially in bird photography. I don't mean this as a personal comment. This feeling is most likely a result of spending several years on FM and seeing too many bird photos - to the point that this genre of photography is starting to feel boring.
Third, regarding AI, I can see how a bird or animal picture can be made less boring by adding an interesting background. A manipulation of this kind "makes sense"; for example, a BIF picture can be "improved" by sky replacement. What I would be interested in is in attempts to make street photography more interesting by AI replacements. Is this possible? Can a significant part of a street photo be replaced to make it more interesting, without looking fake?

Jan 06, 2026 at 09:02 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · from a photograph to an image

jay w wrote:
When walking around art fairs, photo booths used to stress that their (film) photographs did not use Photoshop or other processing. I used to get a chuckle out of that since I think you can do what you want with your images. So I have no problem, actually enjoy your hawk example. I keep telling friends that people don't buy photographs anymore (I don't know that to be true, but assume it is), so I figure it's about doing what you enjoy and does it have a pleasing result. Even if you're selling, I'd say be loud and proud...Show more →

Yes, it is amusing what many people perceive to be reality with something that is not real. Many years ago I was selling photographs at a craft fair and someone really liked one of my photos. As they were about to hand me their money, he said to me, "We really love this painting." As soon as I told him it was not a painting but a photo, he did not want to purchase the photo.

Certainly today you can create AI images that people can't tell if they are real, not only with still images, but also with video. I will continue to take photos because I enjoy getting out in nature and photographing wildlife. I can look at a photo I took 50+ years ago and remember that real experience I had then. I have no problem with minimal post-processing my images or major post-processing them. "Variety is the spice of life."

Jan 06, 2026 at 01:25 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · from a photograph to an image

ruthenium wrote:
Tony, first, all photographs are not "distortions of reality" - they are ILLUSIONS of reality.

Well I guess Merriam-Webster and myself have a different definition of 'distortion' than you do:

1: the act of twisting or altering something out of its true, natural, or original state : the act of distorting.
"a distortion of the facts"

2: the quality or state of being distorted : a product of distorting: such as a lack of proportionality in an image
resulting from defects in the optical system.
"an image free of distortion"

As such, photography isn't fundamentally different from painting that also mastered the art of creating illusions of reality. In photography, the raw files are like dull sketches on a canvas that later can be developed into a richness of tones and colors by a skilled photographer.

Yes, because they are also a 'distortion'.

Second, your example in the opening post adds to my feeling of increasingly losing interest in wildlife photography, and especially in bird photography. I don't mean this as a personal comment. This feeling is most likely a result of spending several years on FM and seeing too many bird photos - to the point that this genre of photography is starting to feel boring.
Third, regarding AI, I can see how a bird or animal picture can be made less boring by adding an interesting background. A manipulation of this kind "makes sense"; for example, a BIF picture can be...Show more →

The problem is that so many more people are talking photos now that we are being inundated with photos, and so many are repetitious. Even the Nature & Wildlife Forum used to have a maximum of five images per post. Now you regularly get members posting around twenty or so, many of which are similar. Like ones showing a burst where all the images look so similar to each other.

People ask me why I have mostly bird photos. My reply is because they form 95+% of the wildlife that I have access to where I live. I have no interest in going to Africa or South America to shoot different wildlife, nor do I have any interest anymore in viewing others' photos of such wildlife. I can watch videos on TV nowadays that are of such high quality that I find them more fascinating than still images posted here.

What I would be interested in is in attempts to make street photography more interesting by AI replacements. Is this possible? Can a significant part of a street photo be replaced to make it more interesting, without looking fake?

Of course it is possible, and I bet there are thousands of such images already existing.

Jan 06, 2026 at 01:48 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · from a photograph to an image

If someone is happy with image 2, so be it, it's their image. It has all the telltale signs of shoddy AI post processing and immediately reveals the creator a low-nuance, and probably low-skill and low-standards photographer. If that's how you want to put yourself out into the world, that's entirely your prerogative. In no world does it look natural or pleasing.

Jan 06, 2026 at 05:38 PM

ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · from a photograph to an image

Tony, we are talking about visual "reality."
The problem is that what we see is not 100% objective.
Your visual perception of the surroundings cannot be the same as mine. At least, this is unlikely that you are exactly as short-sighted as I am, and it is unlikely that your perception of colors is the same as mine (it is also extremely unlikely that you have vision in one eye only, as this is the case with me).
When I take a picture, I process it to realize my vision - to create an illusion of what I have seen while looking through the viewfinder, and possibly to create a matching emotional response.
The same, I expect, is what you do.
I suggest that describing the process of photography as creating an illusion is better than calling it, for example, producing a distortion. To me, "distortion" has a negative connotation that I don't like, But more importantly, one cannot distort something that isn't objectively defined, or might not even exist after the picture has been taken. Every photographer working on an image is guided by the inner vision.
Obviously, this is not a case for arguing, and if you better like describing photography as creating distortions of what you see while taking pictures - who should object!

Another thought about the two images that you posted: the replaced (fake?) background changed the nature of the picture, That second image has become more like a landscape with a bird in it. You like it probably because it is a nice landscape. The bird isn't important there. Try replacing the bird with a chipmunk, a squirrel, another fitting life-form, and I expect the picture would still look nice. What I am suggesting is this: maybe try to take nice landscape pictures and ask the AI to add a bird or an animal there. I think this should work better than the other way around.

Jan 06, 2026 at 05:43 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · from a photograph to an image

ruthenium wrote:
Another thought about the two images that you posted: the replaced (fake?) background changed the nature of the picture, That second image has become more like a landscape with a bird in it. You like it probably because it is a nice landscape. The bird isn't important there. Try replacing the bird with a chipmunk, a squirrel, another fitting life-form, and I expect the picture would still look nice. What I am suggesting is this: maybe try to take nice landscape pictures and ask the AI to add a bird or an animal there. I think this should work better...Show more →

Bottom line is "Different strokes for different folks". You make your final images the way you want, and I will make mine the way I want.

Of course if you are going to pay me to take an image the way you want, I might do that.

My second image was done the way I wanted. Some like it and some don't. Such is life. Of course you will also get some that make derogatory comments about the seconds image, which makes me laugh when I see their pathetic realistic boring images.

Jan 06, 2026 at 06:32 PM

chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · from a photograph to an image

It�s going to come down to why even go out and take photos when one can sit at their keyboards and create images.

Jan 06, 2026 at 10:01 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · from a photograph to an image

RoamingScott wrote:
If someone is happy with image 2, so be it, it's their image. It has all the telltale signs of shoddy AI post processing and immediately reveals the creator a low-nuance, and probably low-skill and low-standards photographer. If that's how you want to put yourself out into the world, that's entirely your prerogative. In no world does it look natural or pleasing.

Out from under your rock again to cast slurs on another member. No doubt you are under the misconception that your own images are of higher standards than everyone else.

Nothing appealing about your moon shot:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1823063/75#16962196

Maybe try improving it and making it look more pleasing with some competent post-processing or AI.

Maybe you could also have someone translate the FM Forum rules and guidelines to you so you can raise your low-standards when commenting on other members' images.

Be courteous, and polite. Do not use profanity, viciously bash others, be rude, hateful, threatening, abusive, invasive, or otherwise violate any laws.

Jan 06, 2026 at 10:15 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · from a photograph to an image

chez wrote:
It�s going to come down to why even go out and take photos when one can sit at their keyboards and create images.

As already mentioned, how about because you have the option of doing both. Not rocket science. We don't need others telling us how we must create our own images regardless of the methodology used.

Jan 06, 2026 at 10:20 PM

chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · from a photograph to an image

Imagemaster wrote:
As already mentioned, how about because you have the option of doing both. Not rocket science. We don't need others telling us how we must create our own images regardless of the methodology used.

You have your opinion, I have my opinion. What exactly did you expect when you threw this out.

Jan 06, 2026 at 10:23 PM

RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · from a photograph to an image

Imagemaster wrote:
Out from under your rock again to cast slurs on another member. No doubt you are under the misconception that your own images are of higher standards than everyone else.

Nothing appealing about your moon shot:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1823063/75#16962196

Maybe try improving it and making it look more pleasing with some competent post-processing or AI.

Maybe you could also have someone translate the FM Forum rules and guidelines to you so you can raise your low-standards when commenting on other members' images.

The AI-i-fied photo is objectively poor by modern photographic standards. Just because someone has the forwardness to say it out loud isn't an attack. You crying about being attacked is a broken record.

You DO understand the difference between getting feedback on a relevant photo you posted for discussion and just picking someone's random photo to bash, no? Of course you don't.

Why would I waste my time re-AI-i-fying a shot that was taken from an inopportune angle and ultimately is a write-off? Half the battle is knowing when you have good source material for a ballsy edit and when you don't. This one isn't it.

Jan 06, 2026 at 11:38 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · from a photograph to an image

chez wrote:
You have your opinion, I have my opinion. What exactly did you expect when you threw this out.

I expected my opinions and those of others. Just what I got. What is your problem, that mine differs from yours?

You asked a question - chez wrote:
It�s going to come down to why even go out and take photos when one can sit at their keyboards and create images.

and I gave my answer. My bad.

Jan 07, 2026 at 12:01 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · from a photograph to an image

RoamingScott wrote:
The AI-i-fied photo is objectively poor by modern photographic standards. Just because someone has the forwardness to say it out loud isn't an attack. You crying about being attacked is a broken record.

You DO understand the difference between getting feedback on a relevant photo you posted for discussion and just picking someone's random photo to bash, no? Of course you don't.

Why would I waste my time re-AI-i-fying a shot that was taken from an inopportune angle and ultimately is a write-off? Half the battle is knowing when you have good source material for a ballsy edit and when you don't....Show more →

Ah, the big man can dish it out, but can't take it.

I must have spent a whole 5-10 minutes on a rainy day to show an rough example to other members, not spending hours creating a masterpiece. Pretty sure I never claimed it was a masterpiece or that I am competent at post-processing or using AI. Yet here you are whining about another member's image. Some people happen to like the altered version. Do you want to go and throw rocks at them for their poor taste that does not meet your standard?

Want to see what I consider to be an excellent example by an FM'er? Have a look at: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1853998/0?keyword=x#16524514

Aren't you fortunate that other members don't have your 'forwardness' to critique your many photos. And if I was in need of serious critique, I would have posted that image on the Critique Forum.

You don't like the image, whoopee. Why are you still here and still whining about it? You can't move on because you are just too 'forward'.

Since you are an expert on how one should use AI to create a masterpiece, why don't you show us all how do do it

Jan 07, 2026 at 12:44 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · from a photograph to an image

Long before AI came around I was in my art classes in school.

Imo, the hierarchy is that we are making images ... by some method.

Painting ... paint and brush on paper / canvas, etc.
Oil
Acrylic
Watercolor

Drawing ... pen / pencil on paper

Photography ... light and lens on film / digital > paper

CGI ... keyboard and pixels on LCD > paper

AI ... keyboard and words (or sample imagery, etc.) to construct suggestions to an algorithm to produce pixels on LCD > paper

Silkscreen printing, et al provide differing methods for producing an image. Image making is not relegated to any singular process or method ... and that makes everything "fair game" when it comes to "image making".

Recognizing the semantics / definition of "image making" encompass the universe of potential methods and includes, mixed media combinations, etc. ... when we embark on the definition of ONE of the subset methods ... the definition of that method is specific to its process.

Case in point, our beloved craft includes the broader "photography" as defined by light / drawing, and the process is projected light onto the capture media (origins to film), through a lens (typically). When we changed the process to digital, we changed the name to "digital photography" to properly define the process as differentiated.

Imo, you can use all the AI you want to do whatever you want to make any image you want. But, in doing so, you are now in mixed media, not photography / digital photography ... and if you're hanging it on your wall, you already know that. But, for integrity of reference to the creative process used ... I don't think it is appropriate to call an image a photograph, without acknowledging it as mixed media when using multiple processes in combination.

Was the image AI generated ... was the image photography generated. Imo, this kind of thing is AI augmented, or photography augmented (depending on which was the relationship of major / minor lift).

If you want to play semantic circular loophole games and call an AI augmented image a photograph ... I think that is disingenuous, and just an attempt to hide the use of AI vs. the entirety of the process being photographic.

Connotatively, and society / culturally ... many folks have (incorrectly) assigned image making and photograph to be synonymous or interchangeable. One is the outcome, the other is the process.

When painters paint images that "look like a photograph", and when photographers shot an image that "looks like a painting" ... the image can be darn near the same image. They variant styles of painting, can similarly be created via photographic endeavors. And, even if a photograph looks like a painting, it is still a photography (defined by the process).

In the world of Amazon publishing ... there is a requirement to denote if the author used AI or if the creative work was solely the author's. Think about that for a moment ...

Imo ... image making includes everything is fair game. No blood, no foul.

Just don't try and play word games to hide the use of AI in your work. Amazon will ban authors for such disingenuous, lack of disclosure. If you are using AI, tell folks you are using AI / mixed media / etc.

If you are using Digital Photography (and the tools therein), so be it. Although, I can see where some software incorporating AI tools into the digital photography software package convolutes things a bit.

That said, we have long disclosed when we have "cloned out" some things ... or, when we have cropped extensively (or made multiple exposure compositions). Each to disclose that the created image was altered in a way that does not reflect the original capture content. If we are using AI to embellish the photographic process ... fine, do whatever your heart desires. Just don't call it a "photograph" and expect folks to herald the integrity of doing so, without inclusion of the fact that the process was photographic ... AND ... AI.

Image making, includes everything under the sun is fair game.

Photography / painting / drawing / CGI / AI ... those are processes that were used for creating the image.

Simply put ... call it like it is if you're gonna call it anything. AI augmented photography (or similar) ... or, just hang it on your wall and don't call it anything. But, the moment you start talking about ... be genuine about it.

YMMV

P.S. Yes, ALL image making is (by definition of "image") representational. However, that semantic truth doesn't give license / liberty to disingenuous non-disclosure / mis-representation (imo) regarding the process of creation. Understand the difference and folks will embrace your work as long as they feel you are genuine about it.

If you're gonna talk about the process of creation utilized (which you immediately do, the moment you aspire to constrain to calling it a "photograph") ... imo, photograph + AI does not equal photograph.

It equals photograph + AI ... which, is still an image.

Jan 07, 2026 at 08:30 AM

jay w
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · from a photograph to an image

These ideas make sense in terms of prints on the walls of galleries, but what about images posted digitally here or on social media?

Jan 07, 2026 at 09:30 AM

chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · from a photograph to an image

jay w wrote:
These ideas make sense in terms of prints on the walls of galleries, but what about images posted digitally here or on social media?

There is a place here are FM for these AI manipulated images called Digital Art�put them there and not pollute the other image presentation boards.

Jan 07, 2026 at 09:41 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · from a photograph to an image

chez wrote:
There is a place here are FM for these AI manipulated images called Digital Art�put them there and not pollute the other image presentation boards.

Nobody appointed you as Moderator. Any member can post comparison images on any forum they want. I guess you think members can only post their B&W images on the B&W Forum. Are you also going to tell members they can't post AI manipulated images on the Photo Critique Forum? It is up to Fred to decide where AI images can be posted.

Jan 07, 2026 at 10:36 AM

spinosaurus
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · from a photograph to an image

Lots of thoughtful responses here for sure. I think back to what attracted me to photography and it was seeing Ansel Adams prints in person in Yosemite and being amazed at the images. He had no digital manipulation although he did have very complex developing, and enlarging �recipes� which he wrote down to be able to reproduce the print or tweak it, but had no ability to actually manipulate the image. It meant he wrote down notes to keep track of lighting, moon and sun positioning according to the calendar etc. He was certainly someone I thought would be a great mentor. Not sure what he would think as well as the other greats of his time about our abilities now to totally manipulate an image. Yet if you have an idea you want realized that would be fine and certainly at least considered a work of art. Not sure if it makes a difference to call it a photograph or an image or a piece of art.

Jan 07, 2026 at 12:38 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end