The AI thread

[jnantz]

Why go back to the exceptions all the time? You can always find them. The fact is 98% of photographers, at least in the past, did not clone their photographs. Photos were accepted in the main as being authentic. Editors mainly got chromes from their photojournalists. Most of the 98% of regular photographers never cloned their pictures. There they were, zits and all. Revealing how some famous photos had some fakery in them suoports that viewpoint because those things were hidden from the public adding to their believability. The Lincoln photo just supports that point.

the reason I go back to exceptions to the rule is because you make over arching generalizations. using graphite on the back of a calotype ( first positive+negative system invented in 1830s ) to retouch it was typical, not done 2% of the time, and in a 20th century portrait studio it was common business practice to retouch negatives and prints. I worked for someone trained at a correspondence school ( NYIP ) in the 20s / 30s and it was a class she took, not something out of the ordinary. any professional work required hand work, by more than 2% of the people making photographs. in other words as a photographer you were expected to present retouched images and prints. cloning was regularly done using 2 images. these things are regularly taught in any history of photography class. maybe 2% of hobbyists knew how to retouch negatives/prints, or worked a print and rephotographed it, but they probably wished they knew more of that so they could make better photographs. It's funny photography is easy to do but hard to do well ( and knowing how to fix things is doing things well). you seem to be interested in "classical" photography and photographic techniques, taking a history of photography class at your local college as an adult ed class, and maybe a workshop or 2 of traditional image making practices from ( alt process ) might be fun, and it will give you a better understanding of a medium you obviously enjoy.

[BrianShaw]

Studies have shown that humans tend to take things at face value. We want to believe things told to us. Critical thinking is hard because it often forces people to go against group think. Free speech protections in law are there not to protect common thinking but the oddball. If thinking out of the box was common, we wouldn't need laws to protect it.

Well I must not be all that human... perhaps I'm an AI-based alien of some sort and don't know it. I'm tempted to challenge your statement and ask "what studies" but will refrain and, in a way that is very unlike me, take it at face value. Honestly, though, all I get from your position, albeit a very commendable one, is that the majority of the sheeple are exceedingly gullible. To me that's a very sad statement about society.

Regarding photography... it will probably be fine in the long run... whatever it becomes.

[r_a_feldman]

Why go back to the exceptions all the time? You can always find them. The fact is 98% of photographers, at least in the past, did not clone their photographs. Photos were accepted in the main as being authentic. Editors mainly got chromes from their photojournalists. Most of the 98% of regular photographers never cloned their pictures. There they were, zits and all. Revealing how some famous photos had some fakery in them suoports that viewpoint because those things were hidden from the public adding to their believability. The Lincoln photo just supports that point.

Photographers have been altering their photos for a long time. Photographers such as Eadward Muybridge had libraries of cloud negatives that they would print into other pictures. See https://placesjournal.org/article/ea...ud-collection/, for example, which discusses some of his pictures from 1875: “Yet we discovered that his pictures, which had once seemed to be straightforward documents of post-colonial society, were actually highly romanticized constructions. Fakes, if you will.”

[Alan Klein]

the reason I go back to exceptions to the rule is because you make over arching generalizations. using graphite on the back of a calotype ( first positive+negative system invented in 1830s ) to retouch it was typical, not done 2% of the time, and in a 20th century portrait studio it was common business practice to retouch negatives and prints. I worked for someone trained at a correspondence school ( NYIP ) in the 20s / 30s and it was a class she took, not something out of the ordinary. any professional work required hand work, by more than 2% of the people making photographs. in other words as a photographer you were expected to present retouched images and prints. cloning was regularly done using 2 images. these things are regularly taught in any history of photography class. maybe 2% of hobbyists knew how to retouch negatives/prints, or worked a print and rephotographed it, but they probably wished they knew more of that so they could make better photographs. It's funny photography is easy to do but hard to do well ( and knowing how to fix things is doing things well). you seem to be interested in "classical" photography and photographic techniques, taking a history of photography class at your local college as an adult ed class, and maybe a workshop or 2 of traditional image making practices from ( alt process ) might be fun, and it will give you a better understanding of a medium you obviously enjoy.

First you mention a Lincoln cloned photo, a guy who died in 1865. Then you bring out another exception, calotype of the 1820's. Most photographers I knew were alive. So, I can only comment on them. They shot chromes and negative color film printed by nearby labs who didn't clone anything. These are the people I'm talking about, not some photo artist. Of course, things are different today with Photoshop and now AI which allow the average photographer, many who I know, to phony up photos all the time. This ability to edit photos easily has eaten away at photography's authenticity. At least, that's how I see it.

[Alan Klein]

Well I must not be all that human... perhaps I'm an AI-based alien of some sort and don't know it. I'm tempted to challenge your statement and ask "what studies" but will refrain and, in a way that is very unlike me, take it at face value. Honestly, though, all I get from your position, albeit a very commendable one, is that the majority of the sheeple are exceedingly gullible. To me that's a very sad statement about society.

Regarding photography... it will probably be fine in the long run... whatever it becomes.

This is why authenticity in photography is so important. It's bad enough we get propagandized by biased text. Now we can't believe any photos.

[Alan Klein]

Photographers have been altering their photos for a long time. Photographers such as Eadward Muybridge had libraries of cloud negatives that they would print into other pictures. See https://placesjournal.org/article/ea...ud-collection/, for example, which discusses some of his pictures from 1875: “Yet we discovered that his pictures, which had once seemed to be straightforward documents of post-colonial society, were actually highly romanticized constructions. Fakes, if you will.”

What's your point? Is it good that he fooled people? Should we encourage people to lie to their neighbors?

[paulbarden]

Seems to me this topic has worn down to a nub.

[faberryman]

Seems to me this topic has worn down to a nub.

That's what happens when people say the same thing over and over again.

[BrianShaw]

That's what happens when people say the same thing over and over again.

… or just won’t let the thread die a natural death.

[jnantz]

These are the people I'm talking about, not some photo artist. Of course, things are different today with Photoshop and now AI which allow the average photographer, many who I know, to phony up photos all the time. This ability to edit photos easily has eaten away at photography's authenticity. At least, that's how I see it.

What's your point? Is it good that he fooled people? Should we encourage people to lie to their neighbors?

Alan

I don't think you can legislate your own version of history and morality.
everything is authentic and carries it's own version of truth.

sorry to be blunt but your arguments make no sense to me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯