Sticky
AI - Where Are We Headed?
John-Pa:John, i completely agree with every single word that you wrote here. I often talk to photographers, afraid of AI. Telling me, it´s evil things ... at the same time using photoshops AI remove or upscaling tools ;) ... I love also doing AI work. But i want it to be tagged as AI. And do it myself. AI can be art. As photography can be art. Both are different crafts. That can help us to express ourselves in a creative way. Punto y basta :)
ski 9:narrowly answering your question: you added an AI face to the window: is it ok?
to me, it is like making a technically perfect composite, adding a piece of image that is not yours: a stock photo, for example.
Imagine you made a great composite with a fantastic milky way... and then you tell your audience that the milky way is not yours. I think they would react in a similar fashion.
ski 9:Interesting discussion! Personally, I have more of a "problem" with the fact that almost nothing transformative has been done to this photo of the art, or- too much OPA.
I plan to use your questions in today's (July 27, 2025) Zoom meeting. Of course, it all depends on who shows up and how many, etc. However, I think your questions are well-constructed and very much worthy of consideration.
ski 9:My answers to your first question:
1- Is using AI “okay” as long as no one knows it’s there?
First of all- just to be clear -If we are talking about photojournalism, this would be an entirely different discussion! Using AI for journalism is absolutely not "OK."
Jeff Miller and I had a fun conversation about your questions during the July 27, 2025 Zoom meeting. Jeff could only attend the first hour of the discussion, but we only got a little over halfway through your questions!
As with most things new (like AI) it can take a long time for the general consensus to be very conclusive, so the more discussion we have about this stuff, the better!
It depends on the type of AI combined with your honesty, or how you define yourself as a photographer.
Generally, If no one knows it's there, nobody is likely to complain.
A computer user creates an image by using only text prompts, where AI algorithms generate an image based on the user's prompts. Then the user submits and claims that this image was created by them at a physical location, using a camera where they chose the camera settings, and did the post-processing. Suppose they don't tell anybody and nobody can figure it out after the fact. In that case, most will assume they did the process of using a camera to capture an image on a light-sensitive surface, and the image wasn't a whole-cloth creation by an AI algorithm, which is totally dishonest. If that scenario occurred, why is this person even bothering with the dishonesty by calling themselves a "photographer," and how do you suppose their future as a "photographer" will pan out in the long run?
Of course, this is at the far end of the AI usage spectrum where an image is created with 100% AI at the right end and no AI at the left end.
Many of us fall somewhere between those extremes. Most of us probably (just guessing here!) will be 1/4 of the way from left to center.
Anyways, I say that "some AI" is OK and doesn't need to be mentioned. Hopefully, the concept of "some AI" can be better understood or discredited in these discussions.
I will respond to the next question tomorrow. Jeff Miller made some very good points during today's Zoom, about the next question!
Some thought provoking points so far. As well as divergent points of view. 
, I'll take a look at the video...sounds interesting. I'll circle back after having watched it.
As to OPA....a long-standing topic here, and after considerable thought....I remain in opposition to your point of view. I'm sure this will not be the end of that discussion ;-)
, I'll take a look at the video...sounds interesting. I'll circle back after having watched it. As to OPA....a long-standing topic here, and after considerable thought....I remain in opposition to your point of view. I'm sure this will not be the end of that discussion ;-)
ski 9:With your second question:
How much AI is too much?
Some will argue that any post-processing, whatsoever, is dishonest. Others will argue that a computer-generated image, completely created by "AI," Is just the same as someone using a camera and should be thought of as a photograph.
Most of us live between those extremes. While I think that heavily manipulated photos, illustrations, or digital paintings can be equal in artistry to any other art, including photography, I prefer to live in the world of photography, and I don't really have the time or desire to spend the time to study and claim any expertise in those other art forms. However, all of those other artists are participating in a well-thought-out and educated (to some degree) process of personal creation that is a large part of the core of what makes us human. Someone asking a computer to create a work of art is in no way, shape, or form part of that equation.
Being a fan of Isaac Asimov's "Robot Novels" since I was a child, I envision a day when there will be real artificial intelligences that will not require text prompts, yet create unique and valuable works of art based upon motivations from a sentient, although artificial, “positronic" brain. I often say that a robot with a camera head capable of visiting locations like landscapes at the right time of year, day, and weather, and making decisions about composition, lighting, and exposure, would be a true AI photographer. Simply asking a computer to create an image has absolutely nothing to do with photography.
In my opinion, the more actual photography work, behind the camera and in post, is done by the photographer, the better. If a computer or "AI" is doing most of the work, then that's when using "AI" is too much.
Teddy Alfrey:You and Jeff both made some interesting and salient points. Suffice it to say, when it comes to photography and AI, I think we’re in a period of transition—and very much in a state of flux. What’s true now won’t necessarily hold in the future. The continuum keeps stretching outward, and each photographer has to decide where they fall on it... with ongoing reevaluation.
With that in mind:
"In my opinion, the more actual photography work—behind the camera and in post—is done by the photographer, the better. If a computer or "AI" is doing most of the work, then that's when it becomes too much."
If I spend 30 minutes behind the camera, and two hours in Lightroom, Photoshop, etc., refining the image to match my vision—does that count as too much "AI"? Or, since I’m the one making the decisions—both behind the camera and at the computer—does that mean the image still qualifies as photography? Put another way, is the amount of camera use that goes into the image that makes it a "photograph", or is it something else....like the extent of user input?
ski 9:I spend a LOT more time in post, than I do shooting. But that includes:
1- Organizing lots and lots of focus stacks, along with any other single images. I shot almost 5000 images this morning in my wife's garden, shooting between raindrops. This gave me 51 folders of focus stacked images.
2- Keeping all my folders and files properly named.
3- Culling.
4- Refining stacks, by zeroing in on the depth of field I want to utilize.
5- Determining which images are worth my immediate attention (ones I think I like!)
6- Editing out stacking artifacts- there are quite a few undesirable artifacts in the focus stacking process.
7. Remove any distracting elements, mainly around the edges. If there's a distracting element smack dab in the middle of the image, I delete the image. I do not believe in heroic processing simply in an attempt to recover a photo that more than likely sucked to begin with. I've done this distracting object removal process way before the term "AI" was used in post-proccessing. What the now call "AI" is pretty cool and does make it more likely I will have quicker removals, but these will be identical to what I whould have ended up with before the marketing folks started exploiting the "AI" term. Of course, some will say that even the old type of object removal is "too much," which is fair. However, I feel like what I do is true to the original scene, and there's a big difference between removing things along the edges and adding things, but I have sometimes added negative space along the edges in my next step.
8- I take a look at the overall balance and feel of the framing and about 1/4th of the time I will add area around the edges of the image. Again, I did this WAY before the "AI" think kicked in, and even though I believe these added negative spaces are true to the original scene, some will claim that I'm cheating. So, maybe I am?
9- Sometimes I do this earlier, but more and more I do this next step AFTER the edits in step 7 and 8- I adjust the exposure, tones, etc.
Specifically, I believe that sky replacements, textures that weren't in the original scene, using over-processing artifacts as an effect, or adding new non-negative space elements to an image is more digital painting (rotoscoping) than photography. However, as in your first question, If nobody knows, what's the difference? I feel like if a photographer gets into the habit of adding concrete elements to an image, eventually somebody will figure it out, and I wouldn't want that to happen to me.
I have experimented with techniques (like you have) where I have flipped and pasted parts of one photo onto the original, creating a kaleidoscope effect. However, it's very obvious, and I'm engaging in digital painting when I do things like that, but I don't do that very often, like a couple of times a year.
Teddy Alfrey:Just for fun, I asked AI for an answer to the above question. Here is what it sent back:
Key Questions to Consider
Was a camera involved in the creation?
Did a real-world scene exist at some point?
Who made the decisions—the human or the algorithm?
Is the image presented as a document, an interpretation, or a fiction?
Then, it offered three approaches to defining photography in the modern world:
1. Intent-Based Definition
Photography is the intentional act of capturing and presenting a visual representation of something that existed in front of a camera.
Here, the human decision-maker—before and/or after the shutter—is central. Even if tools assist, if the final image is grounded in a real-world moment and the choices are made by the photographer, it counts.
2. Degree-of-Intervention Framework
Some propose a spectrum, from:
Straight photography (little or no manipulation), to photo illustration (heavy compositing or AI generation), to synthetic images (purely AI-generated without a photographic base).
This way, we don’t need a single definition—just clearer labeling.
3. Expanded Definition
Photography is the practice of creating images through the interplay of light, lens, and digital tools, including AI, where the photographer retains creative authorship.
This acknowledges new tools as part of the process without dismissing the photographer’s role.
I see myself as falling in the #1 and #3 camps. Based on your musings, I'd see you as more in the #2 arena.
ski 9:3- Does it depend on the genre or purpose of the image?
This can vary, depending on how much "touching up" (like my removing distracting objects) is used and whether or not whole objects/elements are being added to a particular genre/purpose of an image.
I'm not a birder, but I assume that someone who is never going into the field with a camera, but using text prompts to create images of specific types of birds, would not make any sense, whatsoever. Almost the whole point of bird photography is scouting locations, knowing where the birds nest or migrate through, and then doing all the usual "photographer" craftwork to create stunning, sharp photos of their prey.
It would be easy for someone, in the comfort of their home, who fancies themselves as a "photographer,” to ask Chat GPT to create an image of a bird. Maybe a very rare and on the verge of extinction, Blue-eyed Ground Dove, for example. That same "photographer" could then loudly proclaim that they are among the best ever bird photographers! To someone like me, that scenario is absurd, but I worry that more and more people will find this situation acceptable or even encouraged.
Of course, there will be some who fantasize about being a great photographer, and let their "AI" algorithm partner gently pat them on the back, and whisper into their headphones how they so elegantly crafted their text prompts, and how wonderful it was last night when the climactic image was finally shared! If that's your thing, knock yourself out. But, if anyone expects the general society of photographers to share their delusions, they will be in for grave disappointments (I hope)!
If the "purpose" of the image is to communicate a realistic (pure photography) image of a real scene, captured by a real camera, the idea of "AI" as the "engine of creation" for that image is contradictory. It would be like a wannabe fisherman using "AI" algorithms to create a picture of a fish instead of actually catching a fish in the real world. With "AI" the fish never gets away, but then... with "AI" the fish never existed (superposition?) in the first place.
JanStreetphotographer: looks like we both got back some interesting responses from ChatGBT. I opened your link above and continued the conversation with ChatGBT, asking, where will it all end?. I got several possible scenarios in response. I don't think they are mutually exclusive:- Parallel Worlds: Real and Synthetic Coexist
- Blurring Lines and Erosion of Trust
- Human Skill Becomes a Mark of Rarity
- Rewriting What “Creativity” Means
and.....It may not “end” at all — just evolve.
But your question hints at what really matters:
What do we want to protect?
What will we still value when anything can be faked?
And how will we define truth, craft, and authorship in a world where machines can mimic everything except having lived?
That’s not a technical problem — it’s a human one. And it's one we all get to shape.
Sounds like ChatGBT is including itself in that we...
ski 9:Question #4- Does the type of AI use matter? Background tweaks are fine, but altering the main subject crosses a line?
I touch on some of this with my answers to the previous questions.
It will depend on what "altering" is going on with the subject. Certainly, altering the main subject is a legitimate artistic pursuit, but it goes beyond photography, and the resulting image will be more of an illustration or digital painting. The "line" for me would be whether or not the image is still a "photograph."
It's not unusual to "alter" a subject by masking it and changing its brightness, color, tones, etc., and that's been going on since the film days. Using film and a darkroom enlargement, it's also possible to mask one person in an image by literally using a mask over the outline of the person while the print is being exposed. The piece of paper/cardboard that the mask was created would then have a hole in the piece it was cut in. That whole piece is yet another mast that can be placed on top of the enlarging paper, allowing for the originally masked area of the enlarging paper to be exposed a second time. As long as proper registration of the two masks and the correct position of the paper is employed, a different negative could be used to expose that small hole in the second mask. If the right negative was used and its position was adjusted correctly, a different person could be introduced into the unmasked area. Of course, this is far from any kind of "truth" or "authenticity." Photos of this nature might be fine for entertainment purposes, but have never been eligible for photo contests or for other exhibitions where the art of photography was the central theme. Sure, there might have been "trick-photography" contests, but then the whole point wouldn't have anything to do with authenticity.
Using film in a darkroom for masking is a very fussy process, and it’s hard to make the resulting image not look like it's been tampered with. With digital post-processing, the masking process is much easier! I've taken a few group photos, always taking several shots to ensure everyone's eyes are open and nothing weird is happening with their face. I also use a tripod to ensure good registration. Once I choose my best-looking photo, but then discover that someone has their eyes closed, it's easy-peasy to layer one of the other shots beneath the favored one and feather in the right face by using the eraser tool. When I did this, the result was not an exact representation of the scene, but it was "faithful" to the scene. I consider many of my images to be not an absolutely truthful capture of a scene, but they are "honest," and/or "faithful" to the scene. I've been playing with the two words, "truth," and "authenticity, lately." Possibly, I'm using these words in a ham-handed way to convey my message, but for non-photojournalists, many of us aren't striving for absolute "truth"; we usually want our images to convey an "authenticity."
My iPhone does an excellent job of making very realistic images, and I believe they often have great authenticity. However, once I start shooting in low light, things get weird. People's faces often resemble cartoon characters, and the world can seem like it's a different planet. I don't find much realism or authenticity in those images. They are fine for record keeping, but not much for serious photography. For those so inclined, various filters and artistic effects can be employed to delve even deeper into non-authenticity. While those things can be fine and a lot of people get great enjoyment from their phones, taking great liberties, I certainly believe that if these images were submitted to a photography contest, those deciding to accept or deny their entry will likely find their images have "crossed a line," and thus be rejected for entry.
While I think that film has been relegated to antiquity, it will never be more than a curiosity or hobby from this point on. However, I don't believe that photography will get to that point. Indeed, many in the photography business will be hurting, as "AI" can create many of the headshots, and artificial models can easily replace real-life ones. I sometimes think of the old Sears Roebuck catalogs and the models in the clothing sections. You no longer need real people for this kind of thing, and the camera/accessory business for professional photographers will diminish.
But, No matter how cool "AI" images of an "ideal" Grand Canyon, phony lava flows of Iceland, fake people in a street photo, When the Sun appears at an unnatural/impossible angle, illuminating buildings, mountains, or seascapes, that will only be a dead-end of possibilities, and the world of images that were once created by photographers, with cameras, will never evolve.
Maybe, there is great joy (I just can't imagine the thrill!!) in typing text prompts to arrive at images! But, where's the wind in your face looking at a mountainside as thunder is approaching above the tree line? Where is the tickle of creativity as you move and twist your camera as it's pointed up at a skyscraper and wonder when those sunbeams are going to roll across the windows? If you're a birder, the act of learning about the bird, where and when they are supposed to be, and where they can stake out a great angle. Then, when reviewing your images in post, the excitement of seeing that one fantastic shot, out of the dozens that were so-so, and then crafting it into a piece of art, even if it's only mediocre in the long run.
The "line" between creating images with text prompts is a mile high and a hundred miles wide between that and actual photography. Of course, if you get a real kick out of letting your computer or cloud server do most of your thinking for you, with no unpleasant bending or getting your fingers pinched in a tripod, then you should stay on your side of that line, but please don't call it photography.
Still, there is a spectrum with no computer-assisted editing on one end and all “AI” at the other, and many will say that what I do is over-processing or too reliant on computer algorithms.
Teddy Alfrey:Still, there is a spectrum with no computer-assisted editing on one end and all “AI” at the other, and many will say that what I do is over-processing or too reliant on computer algorithms.
Suffice it to say...as the future unfolds, the line between acceptable use and over reliant will be a moving target.
In that regard, a few excerpts from around the Internet:
Nick_Knight
When photography first appeared , painters and artists derided it in just the same way a lot of the anti AI discourse happens now ; "it’s just a machine , it can never replicate the human emotions of painting ! "Just like photography which spent the first 50 or more years of its existence trying to imitate painting until in the 1930s it realised that photography was its own medium and didn’t need to imitate painting to be recognised as a true art form , well isn’t that exactly what we are doing with AI now , using it to copy photography and film ?
AI should be its own art form !
Science News Today
The Role of AI in Enhancing Human Creativity
While AI is often seen as a tool that replaces human creativity, it is more accurately described as a collaborator that enhances and augments human creativity. Instead of replacing artists, AI empowers them by automating certain repetitive tasks, offering new possibilities for exploration, and providing instant feedback.
AI as a Source of Inspiration
One of the most significant ways AI is enhancing creativity is by serving as a wellspring of inspiration. AI systems can generate ideas or elements that artists may never have conceived on their own. This could be in the form of color palettes for painters, musical motifs for composers, or plot twists for writers. Artists can then build upon these ideas, using AI as a springboard to dive deeper into their creative pursuits.
The Future of AI
AI is transforming the landscape of creativity and art in profound and exciting ways. From music and visual art to literature and design, AI is enabling artists to explore new horizons and produce works that were once unimaginable. As this technology continues to advance, the lines between human and machine creativity will likely continue to blur, raising questions about the nature of art, authorship, and the future of human creativity itself.
Forbes
AI is not replacing human creativity but enhancing it. Generative models act as collaborators, providing new tools and perspectives for creators across various industries. They handle repetitive or complex tasks, allowing humans to focus on higher-level creative decision making.
As AI continues to evolve, we can expect even more innovative applications that will redefine the boundaries of creativity. The key is to embrace these technologies responsibly, ensuring that ethical considerations are at the forefront of their development and deployment.
ferlopez: Unsurprising. We've seen this happen over and over again but with significant differences. At the time of the initial spread of the 'net, the architecture itself was somewhat neutral and the abusers were moving against the established norms/customs (EG: the first major spam incident on usenet was _not_ what that architecture was designed for). Now the 'platforms' are actually designed to both keep their users captive and maximize engagement. So AI-corrupted visual content with AI-generated fibs might actually be something the platforms like, because it's likely to be fine tuned to engage more users for a longer time. It isn't just 'some people' in its usual sense, as in some bad apples and whatnot. But it is 'those people' (or entities) that the platform favors as content-creators.
bb1mm1:I agree, and also those who avidly consume that nonsense
Humanity has virtualized real life into a fable where everyone pretends to be a rock star and to live accordingly. What started as, lets say, fun or entertainment, has developed into a full economy, an industry where "content creators" and "influencers" work their way up like modern preachers harvesting enough followers and subscribers to eventually become millonaires.
AI generative tools fit right into this model. The process moves fast, at the speed of light, it has started already and is unstoppable
I Uploaded 1,000 AI Images To Adobe Stock in 24 Hours and Here's What Happened
Bjørn Christiansen:Digital image creation is one thing. For people interested in digitally manipulating pixels to arrive at images, that's as fine an artistic interest as anything else.
One could argue that photography is just another kind of digital image creation. My argument against that will be that photography requires "capturing" an image, not making one out of whole cloth or cobbling together small pieces of other images strewn across the web.
Sentient beings (and I'm not leaving out robots) using a camera, or some other device, for capturing images on a light-sensitive surface is what photography is. Digital paintings or illustrations are perfectly valid forms of art, but they are NOT photography.
Human, or possibly synthetic, algorithms are used to make decisions about what, why, when, and where to shoot. Those same decision processes (algorithms) can be used to determine exposure duration, aperture, ISO, etc. Those are a FAR cry from an "AI" creating illustrations or digital paintings.
One ot the most important aspects of capturing instead of creating an imaginary scene is that there will always be surprises waiting in nature or the real world in general that have the potential of expanding how we view the world. Always relying on what someone else has imagined or already shot, rather than finding something new, is one of the disadvantages of what's currently provided by "AI."
I realize that "AI" is being used for things like head shots, product layouts, etc. These things will displace many photographers. However, what those particular "AIs" do is still NOT photography.
Eventually, there will be sentient, photographer robots. Until then, "AI" will not replace photography, no matter how spectacularly the marketing folks present it, or how fantastic the images might be.
Gee whiz! Wouldn't it be wonderful just to type in a few text prompts and have our cell phones create stunning images!
Finally! We will never have to go out in the real world, wielding our precious cameras as if they were musical instruments, capturing the essence of reality. Who wants to do that? And then there's that depressing feeling when we discover our craftwork improves the more we shoot- I hate it when that happens! Plus, there's that sickening dissatisfaction when we see a successfully shot and processed image. Yuck!
How joyful it must be to let "AI" do all that pesky stuff!
ski 9:On your fifth question:
"Is it fair game to use AI when photographing other people’s art (OPA), to make the image feel more your own?"
I'm not sure what the point would be, using "AI" to change other people's art to gain ownership of some kind.
I think it's unfortunate that a person would have so little imagination as to rely on "AI" changes to make OPA more palatable, but if that's what floats their boat- go for it.
There's a whole world out there! To rely on regularly using OPA to generate your art seems claustrophobic, and the cynical side of me might think that those folks are too timid to engage in totally original creation. However, as Andy Warhol said, “Art is what you can get away with.”
Using "AI" to manipulate other people's art is resigning artistic tasks to a third party ("AI") as it farts around with someone else's work. There should be MUCH better use for an artist's time, by not delegating 100% of their creativity to others. It reminds me of the old commercial "Shake 'n Bake" commercial where the little girl says "... and I helped!"
ski 9:except when people and governments start relying on it to make decisions that people should be making.
Oh, if you want to go there, _that_ was part of the dream before the AI winter (disclosure: I used to be an AI guy in a different century). In fact DoD (US DoD, through ARPA/DARPA) was funding such projects. The battlefield stuff I don't know about (that'd be classified and I'm foreign), but research on planning and logistics assistance etc. was consistently funded in universities. Including 'natural language' interfaces. Where that stuff (and its classified parallels) was taken to after decades and zillions of dollars, I leave it up to your imagination.
All that we more or less could extrapolate from when I was actively in the field. What caught me off-guard was the application of things like voice recognition, text-to-speech, grammar checking etc. as cheating tools bypassing (now 'classical' I suppose) education. That's probably dangerous in ways we don't know about because it'll lead to widespread latent functional illiteracy hidden by 'phone AI.'
John-Pa:I pretty much agree with everything you have to say, except that my artistic goal is photography, rather than any other form of image creation. It's not that photography is superior to other kinds of art, but using a camera to capture the light of a fleeting moment of reality —at an actual physical location— is where I want to be, and what I am interested in.
I believe that eventually, sentient artificial intelligences will be able to operate cameras, just like humans, and that's when real AI photography will become a reality.
Computer-generated images (illustrations, digital paintings, etc.) have already been around for a long time, and that's a perfectly valid, and equal form of art, it's just not photography.
John-Pa:Verbose shmerbose!
Photography isn't the same thing as painting, either. If someone were to call a Van Gogh or Vermeer painting a photograph, that would be highly misleading, and to call a graphical illustration, like on a cereal box, a photograph would be equally misleading.
However, there is a thin gray area, which I think warrants a more in-depth discussion.
The following is my personal opinion which may or may not reflect what other admins think and should not be understood as a WEEKLY group policy on the subject.
------------------------
John-Pa:
I'd say you hit the nail in the head... I would add the human tendency of taking ownership of the meaning of a word (photograph) according to our own understanding of what such word should mean, as another contributing factor.
Change is usually perceived as a threat, so people feel safer holding onto traditions and well established ways.
"Photography" has always meant the recording of light on a photo-sensitive medium.
This process happened twice, first at the moment of capture, later at the moment of rendering the recorded image, permanently, on a physical medium.
The result of both actions was called a "photograph" and because the technology was unique for over a century, there was no ambiguity. "Taking a photograph" would only lead to a "Photograph", this being a photographic print on a physical medium (including a slide), and a photo-realistic image printed on a physical medium could only be a photograph, product of a photographic process and technology. Each unique.
Computers broke this, not digital cameras. Graphic computers gave us the technology to create photo-realistic images by means not-photographic, and computer monitors offered a way to render photo-realistic images by means not-photographic. Digital cameras came much later, together with photo-printers, but the root of the problem is not how the image is processed (film vs digital) but how the image is created (recorded or artificially generated) and rendered (permanently printed on physical medium vs virtually displayed on a computer monitor)
As technology and computers evolved, here comes AI making image generation possible from a simple verbal description... computers can now render what we imagine as long as we can articulate a very detailed description. And if this image is photo-realistic, it is automatically recognized and accepted by the public as a photograph... because photographs have been associated with the virtual photo-realistic images we've been enjoying in our computer monitors for over two decades now.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is what is considered a "photograph" and what not.
CGI have not been photo-realistic until now... but that has changed forever... and CGI is now completely undistinguishable from the computer-rendered image of a photographic capture. So like it or not... CGI can now render photographs because that type of image is what we recognize as such.
At the end of the day, all we do here in WEEKLY is look at the photo-realistic images virtually rendered on our computer screens. We asume, trust, hope these images were created by human beings by photographic means and processes (analog or digital) but there are no ways to proove or guarantee that is the case... there is no way to enforce it either except when the image is visually recognizable as not photo-realistic.
Summarizing... I think it is time to accept a "photograph" is no longer associated with a "photographic capture" or a "photographic process" in the same way we naturally accepted 20 years ago, the virtual image we see in our computer screens and we call "photograph" is not the repersentation of a physical entity, tangible and permanent, that exists somwhere. Most certainly in most cases what we see will never ever come to exist in a form other than virtualization.
------------------------
John-Pa:I think that the source of the problem is the sloppy use of language
I'd say you hit the nail in the head... I would add the human tendency of taking ownership of the meaning of a word (photograph) according to our own understanding of what such word should mean, as another contributing factor.
Change is usually perceived as a threat, so people feel safer holding onto traditions and well established ways.
"Photography" has always meant the recording of light on a photo-sensitive medium.
This process happened twice, first at the moment of capture, later at the moment of rendering the recorded image, permanently, on a physical medium.
The result of both actions was called a "photograph" and because the technology was unique for over a century, there was no ambiguity. "Taking a photograph" would only lead to a "Photograph", this being a photographic print on a physical medium (including a slide), and a photo-realistic image printed on a physical medium could only be a photograph, product of a photographic process and technology. Each unique.
Computers broke this, not digital cameras. Graphic computers gave us the technology to create photo-realistic images by means not-photographic, and computer monitors offered a way to render photo-realistic images by means not-photographic. Digital cameras came much later, together with photo-printers, but the root of the problem is not how the image is processed (film vs digital) but how the image is created (recorded or artificially generated) and rendered (permanently printed on physical medium vs virtually displayed on a computer monitor)
As technology and computers evolved, here comes AI making image generation possible from a simple verbal description... computers can now render what we imagine as long as we can articulate a very detailed description. And if this image is photo-realistic, it is automatically recognized and accepted by the public as a photograph... because photographs have been associated with the virtual photo-realistic images we've been enjoying in our computer monitors for over two decades now.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is what is considered a "photograph" and what not.
CGI have not been photo-realistic until now... but that has changed forever... and CGI is now completely undistinguishable from the computer-rendered image of a photographic capture. So like it or not... CGI can now render photographs because that type of image is what we recognize as such.
At the end of the day, all we do here in WEEKLY is look at the photo-realistic images virtually rendered on our computer screens. We asume, trust, hope these images were created by human beings by photographic means and processes (analog or digital) but there are no ways to proove or guarantee that is the case... there is no way to enforce it either except when the image is visually recognizable as not photo-realistic.
Summarizing... I think it is time to accept a "photograph" is no longer associated with a "photographic capture" or a "photographic process" in the same way we naturally accepted 20 years ago, the virtual image we see in our computer screens and we call "photograph" is not the repersentation of a physical entity, tangible and permanent, that exists somwhere. Most certainly in most cases what we see will never ever come to exist in a form other than virtualization.
ferlopez:I am unsure about your use of "accept a photograph," and what it has to do with this discussion.
It sounds like your definition of what I do as a photographer is the same thing as what someone does as an illustrator, painter, or what is created by an AI. To me, that is a definitionally "sloppy use of language."
It will take a significant amount of explanation for me to agree that when I take my camera to a physical location, adjust its settings, and then capture an image on my light-sensitive surface, it is the same thing as someone typing prompts into an image-creating AI website. I'm afraid I'm going to have to say NOPE to that one.
I'm not saying anything close to suggesting that a photograph is superior to other types of images. A photograph is specifically not one of those other types of images, and those other types of images aren't the same as each other. The variability between these types is essential, and if society is to decide they are all the same thing, we will be losing part of our humanity.
Why would painters, illustrators, sketch artists, cartoonists, digital painters, or those tweaking AI prompts insist that their work is a photograph? I'm sure a painter would be insulted if someone were to call their work a photograph.
If someone wants to believe that all two-dimensional images are photographs, I say that they should go for it, but I seriously doubt that's going to fly.
Possibly, the disagreement we have here is, "accept a photograph," as in AI images, drawings, paintings, sketches, or digital paintings should be "accepted" in the WEEKLY? I will abide by whatever rules the admins agree to, but personally, I will only review photographs. I won't complain about the rules, but I won't be coerced into reviewing images that fall outside my area of expertise.
Teddy Alfrey:Possibly, the disagreement we have here is, "accept a photograph," as in AI images, drawings, paintings, sketches, or digital paintings should be "accepted" in the WEEKLY?
The group policy is clearly expressed on the overview page and the group rules:
Non-photographically generated images (traditional art, A.I., computer, etc.) are NOT permitted in this group. Only submit photographs to the group: images created by light falling on a photosensitive surface, (film or an electronic image sensor).
I also started my comment by expressing mine was a personal opinion and not a group rulling
This conversation is about the influence of AI in photography and where things are going. Within this context I'm saying AI generated images are already or will inevitably be undistinguisheable from traditional photographs. It will be impossible for you or me to tell if the image on our computer screen was created by a human using a camera or a human writing a prompt on an AI.
For this reason... the general public will, IN MY HONEST OPINION, consider anything that looks and feels like a photograph... as photograph. This is agraviated by the fact that all we're looking at is a virtual image, not a real thing.
By "accepting" I meant coming to terms with this fact, at a personal level... or not... up to you.
It has nothing to do with WEEKLY
In this related thread I remind us about your freedom of participation in our group... rest assured "you will never be coerced into reviewing images that fall outside your area of expertise"
why would you have such a thought !!?!?!?
What do you see?
1- A watercolor painted by an artist. (exists in physical form)
2- The virtual image, digitalization, of a watercolor once painted by an artist.
3- A watercolor-like illustration created by AI after a detailed prompt from an artist
4- A watercolor-like illustration created by AI automatically without any human specifications
5- Other
6- YOU CAN'T TELL
ski 9: It's a nice portrait with just enough of the environment shown. I was unsure about the bright orange on the left at first, but the face is properly exposed and stands out, plus there's a little red blotch on the right to kinda balance it. Nice model too. Keeper. Sorry 'bout the silliness, but I do have a point in a way. (Go ask ChatGPT about what that point might be.)
bb1mm1: I had ChatGPT do a critique...pretty involved. It then offered to show me its improved version:www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8dpfznt0c1wxhaejtyqgo/6292f39c-679...
I think it has a thing for AI looking women...go figure.
ski 9: that tells you more about its users than its 'own' preferences. I no longer use twitter but I have my old account up, and Grok seldom 'gets' my tweets with photos. Twitter or rather X makes it easy to just click on the Grok icon to explain any tweet.
I was just trying it with random tweets w/ photos from my dormant account, and I finally found one it 'understood' w/o prodding, but it was rather obvious:
x.com/i/grok/share/qk3OV59WDnXFhXruhdJpwOYmN
It doesn't really get this one even with prodding even though there's enough Turkish content on the 'net for it to figure it out (it isn't about the cat, it's more about the Republic, we were heading into a crucial election under horrible circumstances etc. And yes I took that kitty photo that night thinking exactly those phrases when i took it.): x.com/i/grok/share/j7X7YoIS7obsSQqFn0ISelHvG
bb1mm1: bb1mm1: John-Pa:I no longer use Twitter, either. "Siliness" is one of my only weaknesses. I try hard not to be a wise-cracker here in the WEEKLY because it usually doesn't translate well.
I will leave it to others to drive what's actually going on with AI photography, but I enjoy participating in the back-and-forth dialog.
The current WEEKLY rules are fine with me! If the rules were changed to allow for more fantastic artificial fancies, and this were to become the spirit of the group, I would weep.
Caira Is an ‘AI-Native’ Micro Four Thirds Camera With Google’s ‘Nano Banana’ Generative AI Built-In
demo video
detailed article here
demo video
detailed article here