Are we there yet.Originally Posted by Tin Can
Are we there yet.
Paul
nope and we never will
Tin Can
I agree. Technology creates a moving target - let others define it.
Better to focus on our energies on our work (photography) & not concern ourselves with distractions.
Many excellent photographers here!
I would say yes they are portraits, portraits of imagined people, made using billions of people. There have always been paintings, written descriptions that depict people and things from the artist's mind (composites), why would it be any different with "photography". I mean if we climb over the hump that constantly insists on telling us that those AI images are not photographs, because that thing in the image wasn't "indexed" when the "photographer" (maker of the photograph) clicked the shutter / took the cap off the lens, and agree that somehow they are photographs because they are made of photographs and / or are photographic (oops photographs that might never have been tangible objects except for a millisecond .. translations of raw photographic data made with a reusable sensitive thing, and is instantaneously translated and saved as machine language (mathematical latent image) and later as .. digital image files ) ... we might also be able climb over the hump that might tell is that a portrait has to be made of a human who was actually sitting infront of a camera/ light recording device.
Many years ago there was a famous portrait session (that ended up a billboard, bus, YouTube, web-sprawl campaign about the dangers of pretty people and beauty photography to young impressionable girls(didn't help much I guess, look at the world of bold glamour /tictok filters these days that do it all instantly with a robot instead of with a human serf ... ) where a young beautiful supermodel rolls out of bed and it's a fast motion movie showing the photographic experience from showing up frumpy in sweats and T-shirt, to the final image being a glamorous person who depicts idealized beauty of the glitterati... the video shows the something like 900 photoshop actions that stretched her neck, changed her eyes and ears, hair, skin tonality &c (too many things to list), the only difference between what has been presented in that supermodel session and the midjourny images is that there was 1 person who sat infront of the camera, not billions infront of billions of cameras... I mean one could argue the final image of the super model wasn't even her ...
long ago I gave up believing that photography has anything to do with reality and truth, none of it is reality, in the end it's just some sort of something ... constructed from something that may or may not have reflected back the image ... onto something that may or may not have recorded it..his feedreaders is lucky he didn't output a 8x10 Ilford or Kodak negative, or put notch codes around the images making them seem like they were made on film he would have really been as much hot water as the internationally known coffee house when they caused a stir for the framed faux gum-over-platinum-on-glass posters of coffee in all their stores 15-20 years ago. they were a composite too.
Last edited by jnantz; 5-Mar-2023 at 13:11.
Tin Can
yea. I know it's interesting how nothing ever changes except for the raw materials, and even they don't really change
I'll play!
A photographer in 2023 is a person who makes photographs in 2023.
Now my brain hurts.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I found out Michelangelo masterpiece has no asshole
I saw it not in a photo yesterday
Tin Can
Good! A fart coming from someone that big might kill people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks