GeorgeBo wrote:
Samy - first, well seen. Did you develop that in monobath?
I didn't take a chance with it, first time shooting with this x-ray film. That roll went to thedarkroom. Now that I see the results, I may try developing the other roll I got myself. Siphiwe is right. its (the northern hemisphere) summer, need to get out and about and get some pictures.
I like that Hassy/Distagon shot! But Portra 160 for that much dynamic range is rough. Still came out really excellent.
We have indeed gotten too spoiled by those modern digital sensors, not challenging enough
GeorgeBo wrote:
I can imagine!
Problem I had and I knew it going in, was I was using Portra 160 and in very low light (heavily shaded by deep woods in a deep ravine waterfall. My experience with 160 is muddy shadows and colors when shooting like that. But it was what I had and needed to clear out of my stock due to the date of the film. I am going to restock with some ISO 400 and go back in a few weeks.
Here is an example of one of the better exposed shots (not Nikon)
DeltaSigma wrote:
My approach was the same as Glen's - lurched for a year or so before plucking up the courage to join and post an image or two from the only MF lens I had at that time - a 135/2.8 AI-S. My wallet took a regular hit for a couple of years afterwards as I built up my small collection of lenses. A big thing that unites this thread is that we are (generally) spread out geographically so each person presents a piece of their country/state/county/city to the wider audience. The thread also has enough active members to allow it to tick over since we all go through photography slumps or get pulled away by alternative gear.
Over the last two weeks, the old carpet was replaced with an 'engineered' floor, the bathroom and kitchen faucets, water closets, drains were all replaced. The windows had shutters ordered. Had to move all te furniture around. So tired I forgot today was the first day of cruising grand street.
Have not really used the new to me Z7, but gladly surprised that the rangefinder Nikkors hold their own even at 46MP,
Today just pulled the Z7 with a black 5cm 1.4 S.C. Nikon RF mount to see how it did.
It does well. Center decent at 1.4, better at 2.0, full frame only at 1:11 but it does still perform at 1:16.
That is the aperture for this shot of a row of olives I planted six months ago, full size at Flickr if you care to check the lens at this aperture.
And the aperture used in the portrait of my pride and joy, a now gigantic Arizona walnut tree planted 18 years ago. Too bad it is deciduous. The D200 sensor could not handle the dynamic range.
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
Ken Hill wrote:
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
You don't say. I'm gonna need it to create all the memories and fleeting moments of my family that I have photographed over the years. Then I will sell all my gear.
I think it will be beneficial for CGI and digital art projects, but it is not photography. IMHO.
photography
noun
pho·tog·ra·phy fə-ˈtä-grə-fē
: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)
Ken Hill wrote:
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
Ken Hill wrote:
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
For me a photo is a capture of reality, as soon as an image is manipulated beyond cropping, contrast, color ,and sharpness, it becomes a drawing, not a photograph. Even a circular fisheye image is an accurate capture of reality, as weird as it may look to some.
AI or photoshop generated images have their place in commerce or art, and may have been generated from photographs, but are not photos, they are computer assisted imaginary drawings.
Ken,
I do not think AI spells the death of photography or photographers. The building blocks of AI are pieces of already existing photos. I worked at newspaper as a marketing/advertising photographer sharing facilities with about a dozen editorial "light-scribes" - at least some of them liked to think that about themselves. We had this discussion for decades, and it peaked when a national sports photographer cloned out a lone fan's foot behind a cyclone fence as an outfielder caught a fly ball. (it cost him his job, and I was the only guy that thought it wasn't warranted) The foot had nothing to do with the context of the shot, because other fans were visible. It merely served to distract from the image - which normally is accomplished by framing in camera (crop), or after the fact in Photoshop to eliminate distracting elements, or not pertinent parts of an image (crop again). In my line of photography I was tasked with creating idealized version of reality. Condensation on a glass, steam coming off a cup of coffee in morning light etc. Some of the editorial photogs considered what I did as less pure than theirs. I pointed out that the camera captures colors and dynamic range that the human eye is incapable of seeing. That they crop out the context of reality adjusting it in ways that never are seen by the human eye - does not make it a true representation of reality. YMMV
Jim
Ken Hill wrote:
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
Ken Hill wrote:
Greetings all! A friend and I were talking about a shot he took and in fooling around he processed it using AI. It revealed a terrific picture with perfect lighting, shadows focus and framing.
We sort of agreed AI use spells the death of photography/photographers. I’ve attached a link which points out what we talked about and we’re thinking. Your thoughts!
I have used Adobe Firefly for text to image creation. It amused me for all of 30 mins. It did a pretty good job of creating sci-fi / steam punk / cats / dogs / kitten / cartoon type stuff using Adobe stock images but the photorealism was incredibly bad. Anybody else tried it?
I have not yet tried Photoshop Autogenerative fill which is central to the article you mentioned.
The AI is just speeding up the image manipulation process - something that a Photoshop expert would be able to do.
I guess my point is the “death” is the ability to believe what you see as something produced by a photographer using a camera. We here, “manual focus“ lens users appreciate the extra time, thought and effort to capture that moment in time. Capturing moving objects in good focus is truly a challenge. Athletes, motor sports, kids and pets always move.
There is no clue as to a shot that has been nicely photoshopped or is the product of AI even to the trained eye.
The viewer now has to wonder if it’s SOOC or a product of a mouse or a keyboard. That to me means the death of photography. I may be wrong, in fact I hope I am wrong … but time will tell.
Serge! Awesome. I have mentioned my rather blah view of fisheys, but you and Rafael along with a few other skilled users here absolutely knock it out of the park! Well handled and love it!
Saph - The thermometer readout was F, it was was an early morning in February.
Here's my AI rant:
In today's world how do you know what you know?
Most of my input is from 3rd party sources with their own spin and agenda.
I found the link interesting and the comment about politicians amusing since they all seem to be pathological liars. I doubt if AI is going to make me believe them..
By far the bleakest news I've seen to date about AI is Adobe's introduction to FIREFLY, where it shows cute forest animals sitting around a campfire reading stories instead of eating each other. The interviews with the creators of this ghastly travesty seem so pleased with themselves.
I don't think AI is much of a problem compared to tastelessness, it is just another tool.
