The AI thread

[jnantz]

I'm sorry but what you're describing isn't photography as much as you want to make believe it is.

where do you draw the line for the image making process not to be pure enough?

[SergeyT]

AI generated images, paintings, drawings , prints of all kinds and photographs, either printed or displayed by other means, are all images of something but each produced using a specific method. In general, none of such methods is more "pure" or "honest" than another. What is important is the purpose that the images are being used for and whether or not they meet the intended by the author criteria.

[paulbarden]

My only real complaint about what is happening in AI-generated image-making is that some people are publishing their work as "photographs" which they are not, by any stretch of the imagination. Suggesting they are photographs is disingenuous at best, and an intentional deceit/lie at the least.

[Alan Klein]

does it really matter to you that much that someone uses a computer to created photographic-style/esque images?
yes it is the same old digital vs film argument. the weekly world news used to publish
the bat headed boy and photographs of "aged" Elvis and JFK hanging out on the cover of their newspaper
nothing really is new here.
and no you don't need a camera or film to create photographs, never did not even in the 1820s.
all photographs are lies and there is no such things as pure photography.


you are kind of insistent that unless someone does the type of photography YOU DO they aren't doing "real photography". in the early 1900s people used to buy hand drawn scenes on "film" and combination print them
with all sorts of scenes .. fake smokestacks, fake factories, fake women with a baby in a stroller, fake pedestrians, fake cars, fake clouds. none of those things had anything to do with being "at the scene" they invented their own scene that they sold as picture post cards of these places. these places didn't exist, they were fabrications. no difference.
as I said before all photographs are lies.

I'm not saying AI is bad any more than oil painting is bad. It's you who are putting it in those negative terms. It's just that images created by AI computer is not photography any more than oil painting is.

[jnantz]

My only real complaint about what is happening in AI-generated image-making is that some people are publishing their work as "photographs" which they are not, by any stretch of the imagination. Suggesting they are photographs is disingenuous at best, and an intentional deceit/lie at the least.

if enough people started to call them something slick maybe it will catch on and they won't call them photographs, gotta be slick though...

[faberryman]

if enough people started to call them something slick maybe it will catch on and they won't call them photographs, gotta be slick though...

It is like what happened to chess decades ago, when computers started beating human chess players. A lot of regular chess players quit. They said there was no longer any point in playing. The missed the point of playing chess entirely. A fair number of them probably quit because Bobby Fischer flaked out and playing chess was no longer cool. The master chess players continued to play, and they are the ones who get shows at MOMA.

Let the criticism of the metaphor begin. I remember as a kid sitting in a circle around the teacher who was reading Aesop's fables. One idiot blurted out that animals can't talk.

[Paul Ron]

You're words contradict each other. You're not just using a computer. You're also using a camera, one of the tools of photography. AI requires no camera nor do you even have to be at the scene. That's like the difference between real sex and pornography.

excuse me buddy... that digital camera is a computer unless yours is built around an abacus? just because i have a socket wrench in my hand doesnt make me a mechanic.

once upon a time there was a similar discussion about polaroids. press the button and a print pops out. automatic everything... anyone, even a 6 yr old can be a photographer so the adds boasted.

well soon your digital will do the same. automatic everything, even compose the shot for you.

now automated sex? really alan? its called a vibrator in the hand of a robot...or to some it just may be the washing machine on spin cycle!

[Alan Klein]

excuse me buddy... that digital camera is a computer unless yours is built around an abacus? just because i have a socket wrench in my hand doesnt make me a mechanic.

once upon a time there was a similar discussion about polaroids. press the button and a print pops out. automatic everything... anyone, even a 6 yr old can be a photographer so the adds boasted.

well soon your digital will do the same. automatic everything, even compose the shot for you.

now automated sex? really alan? its called a vibrator in the hand of a robot...or to some it just may be the washing machine on spin cycle!

I won't dispute you Ron about washing machines. That's beyond my field of expertise. But for photography, I always thought you needed a camera.

[jnantz]

I'm not saying AI is bad <...> It's you who are putting it in those negative terms. <...>.

Calling someone who uses AI a JERK isn't negative and suggesting AI is "bad" ..
and suggesting camera less photography isn't photography because it's not done with a camera???

I don't know if you are just trolling or actually believe stuff you write ...

[paulbarden]

Photography, by definition, is the making of images by the action of light on a recording medium. AI does not involve light in any way, shape or form.