dmcphoto wrote:
No conclusions here, but food for thought:
It's possible to put lots of effort into a lousy photograph that has no value. I've done it many times.
If photographs are images created by recording light on a light-sensitive surface, AI generated images are by definition not photographs. In spite of that, AI generated images that look like photographs are almost universally called photographs. Photorealistic art, which can be done in a number of different media types, is a more accurate categorization. Almost no one uses it, especially photographers.
The definition of a photograph has, at least historically, has made it the most reliably accurate representation of physical reality. I think that's why alterations, whether done in a darkroom or with a computer, have always been controversial.
It seems that veracity should play some role in the value of anything called a photograph. OTOH, some very abstract images can be created by recording light on a light-sensitive surface. One way is moving the camera in various patterns during an exposure. The result looks nothing like physical reality but, unlike an AI generated image, the result is a photograph. Unless we change the working definition of a photograph established at the beginning of this thread, the same is true of composite "photographs".
A digital camera does not "record light ON a light-sensitive surface." I detects the amplitude of light on bank of a digital sensors, converts that to digital data, and records those data in a format from which an image can be reconstructed using software.
Nothing about all of this is as simple and straightforward as some might imagine. :-)
Jan 12, 2026 at 03:07 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16965876 « from a photograph to an image »
