AI Coyote

[AlanKlein]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:19 PM, samstevens said:

If this is the best that man can ask AI to do, maybe it’s worth giving AI a shot at running things for a while. 🙄

Maybe AI can eliminate a lot of divorces by picking the right mate for everyone? 🙂

[samstevens]

1 minute ago, AlanKlein said:

Maybe AI can eliminate a lot of divorces by picking the right mate for everyone? 🙂

It’s been doing that for years on Internet dating sites. There’s no maybe about it. 

[AlanKlein]

5 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

Check this out: https://yeahmotor.com/culture/ai-imagines-the-most-attractive-woman-from-every-country/?v=infscroll&vpid=2&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=TBYM1&utm_campaign=ym_tb_dsk_0703_cp_aw1ym1cpa&utm_content=usatodaydemo&utm_term=ym_tb_dsk_0703_cp_aw1ym1cpa

A lot of them have the same base face with just some tweaks. 

[PapaTango]

As a mediocre photographer, I really don't care what others are doing.  I could not get a show if I had to.

That said, I do it for me.  I run a website for others who are of a similar mind.  Having just squandered nearly $4000USD on a Fujichrome X-T5 environment, I am a really happy plinker.  It reminds me of shooting 50 years ago.

Perhaps I will live long enough to pay off the credit card that bought all of it.  I make things for myself and hope that someone else might appreciate them.  It is not required as a motivator.  My partner is quite considerate in this respect.

At a certain age and disposition, competition, ostentatiousness, and recognition have far less meaning or value.  This is of course not true for everyone, as there are still those striving, and those engaged in attention whoring.  Count me out.

[David_Cavan]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:18 PM, dcstep said:

Great story, Dave

Thanks. That's a good point actually. I have always approached photography as a story-telling tool. One of the best compliments I ever received was from a photographer colleague who commented over beers that I liked to tell stories with my pictures - and we had never discussed that before so it was very satisfying that someone had picked up on that. I find AI helps with that on a project - you can fill in gaps with an image that depicts a time that is long gone, as is the opportunity to get that shot that would help in the story.

[hjoseph7]

In a way our brains work like AI, or AI works like our brains in regards to dreams. You ever had a dream that was so realistic you swore it had to be real. The people, the animlas in the dream, the environment, the colors, texture all seem real,  but they are just dreams, or are they ?  

[mikemorrellNL]

22 hours ago, samstevens said:

Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s lots of potential for AI. But this is grade-school level stuff. 

Agree. My emotional reaction browsing through the photos was: "these photos are just boring - they all look bland and pretty much the same". I'm guessing that the 'parameters' input to the AI software was the main factor in the similarities (including  the 'head and shoulders' format, the background blur and the lighting effects). I noticed that none of the AI-generated photos had any skin texture or variations (other that skin color tint). I also noticed that exactly the same background (sometimes flipped) appeared in different 'countries'. 

[samstevens]

 

Quote

In a way our brains work like AI, or AI works like our brains in regards to dreams.  You ever had a dream that was so realistic you swore it had to be real. The people, the animlas in the dream, the environment, the colors, texture all seem real,  but they are just dreams, or are they ?

The dream is only realistic while you’re dreaming. When you wake up, you know you’ve woken up, unless you’ve turned into a cockroach overnight like Gregor Samsa*. The “defense” against dreaming is wakefulness, which comes relatively easy. 

AI you don’t wake up from. You may or may not ever discover you’ve been AI-ed. You’ll figure out the next morning you were dreaming, except in extremely rare circumstances. AI can maintain a deceit much more permanently, readily and consistently.

This is why propaganda has been and will continue to be ever more dangerous than dreaming. You don’t wake up with scars from a dream about being wounded. But a realistic picture of Hillary Clinton killing a baby could start a civil war in a country as crazy and vulnerable as ours.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by samstevens

[mikemorrellNL]

On 9/18/2023 at 7:11 PM, dcstep said:

OMG, the world is changing fast. I created the image below, but I didn't use a camera or any of my archived Western coyote pictures. I wrote the following sentence:" realistic detail photo of mature western coyote with amber eyes in snow storm looking into camera from close range"

I entered that into an AI system called midjourney and after a minute, this image popped out. I upscaled it 6x in Topaz AI and did some small color adjustments in DxO Photolab.

All in, it took 10-minutes!!!! No sneaking around in a snow storm, no spending hours waiting for a coyote to come by and no hundreds of missed shots because the coyote went behind a bush or turned tail and ran away.

Soon, every magazine will have an "artist" that writes text to satisfy his editor's latest request.

I hope to use AI to enhance my actual photos, but I'm beginning to wonder why.

FYI, I tried generating a white-tail deer buck and was not near as successful. The antlers were not in the correct proportion and the fur was not as detailed as we would expect in a photo. I messed around with that for 30-minutes or more and came up with nothing worth posting.

The image on the right is a real coyote photo, for comparison.

Here's a line to the midjourney Album on Flickr. Lots of vidoe-game looking stuff, but a few trying for realistic:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/14808354@N25/pool/

 

I saw your initial post and have been following the (great!) thread since then. It's only now that I'm really comparing the AI-generated image with the real photo.
At first glance, the AI-generated coyote does indeed look like a coyote in the snow. So someone looking at the photo for a couple of seconds might think: OK, nice shot of a coyote in the snow. But on closer inspection - and certainly for discerning viewers and photographers - after a couple of seconds it's becomes more obvious that the AI-generated coyote is a 'fudge'. Posting a real photo makes this even more obvious!

In the AI-version, the focal point seems to be the nose, whereas a real photographer would always focus on the eyes. The whiskers on the AI-version just look weird!  But the main difference for me is in the fine texture  of the hair. The AI-version has none (a bland rendering) whereas the real photo has plenty of sharp hair details (including ice/snow).

My conclusion: anyone who was tempted to publish this 'AI-coyote' would leave themselves open to becoming a laughing stock! 
AI-generated images will probably improve. But at the moment, for most 'realistic' photo categories, AI just doesn't cut it.

[mikemorrellNL]

I'm absolutely sure that AI-generated photos are already being used in 'product catalogues' of many stores. Why hire (or employ) a photographer for each new chair, couch, piece of equipment, etc. when these images can be AI-generated (based on the specs) for the on-line catalogue. Ikea (as far as I know) is an example. But even stores also need photos that express their 'vibe' or 'mood' for categories of products. 

So when we get down to photography basics: like subtle lighting, perspective, depth of field, post-processing, etc,. AI - at the moment - doesn't cut it in terms of 'vibe or mood' photos.

From what I've seen, AI-software is - at the moment - much worse in generating images that attempt to replicate 'real photos' (people, animals).
 

 

[mikemorrellNL]

On 9/20/2023 at 4:57 AM, AlanKlein said:

AI is going to take the fun out for a lot of photographers.  Why bother? I belong to a 55+ community and we have a photo club with contests.  It's bad enough with submitters swapping out skies with Photoshop and cloning other objects.  Now, with AI, their pictures will be even better.  Why compete?  Why show anyone your work?  There are no standards. It's going to really hurt what's left of the camera companies. 

I don't agree. A couple of points:

- There are no absolute standards for 'imaging' or photography; your photo club may want to introduce it's own standards

- Why do you feel that you need to compete? Why not just show off your own personal work?

- People who postprocess photos with something like Lightroom/Photoshop/Gimp have some options.

> Some AI apps can 'generate' images that be further edited

> Enhancement/adaptive options: Photoshop has so-called 'neural networks' (AI) filters that can transform photos. Some Photoshop filter plugins (for example Topaz) are increasingly presented as an 'AI filter'

My opinions:

- Some post-processing has often been applied to both analogue and digital photos

- AI-enhanced photos are not always better than the original photos

 

 

[hjoseph7]

Seems to me that Big-Tech is determined to take down the photo industry. Why, I am not sure ? Maybe they think they are the next Kodak. The iphone 15 is going to be out in a couple of days. The camera on this phone is supposed to be more sophisticated than any previous phone-camera that Apple has ever put out. Last time I heard,  Apple has about 9000 programmers and engineers working on their camera-phones. Compare that to Nikon, Canon, even Pentax. So far only point-and-shoot cameras have taken a hit, DSLR's and mirrorless cameras have been left pretty much untouched but who knows ? I could see it now, a Wedding Photographer goes to shoot a wedding and when asked about his equipment, he wips out an iPhone from his back pocket. Is this what Apple wants ?

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

I could see it now, a Wedding Photographer goes to shoot a wedding and when asked about his equipment, he wips out an iPhone from his back pocket.

I've just been privy to several weddings of friends' children. They know I'm a photographer and each newlywed couple shared info about the photographers they were interviewing and eventually picked. All of their concerns were about how flattering the portfolios they showed them were, whether they captured all the important moments—kisses, first dance, vows, ring exchange, etc. They seemed to love backlit shots of brides and grooms, liked a combo of posed family photos and spontaneous party photos, and shots of the bride and groom in various kinds of mirrors. Shallow focus shots also seemed very popular among these couples. All of them were interested in having a photo booth at the wedding party and, at the weddings I attended, those booths were actually a lot of fun and produced some of the best photos. Their concern seemed to be the memories being captured, the personality of the photographers, and the price. Not one couple brought up equipment. I think most of them would have been skeptical of a pro wedding photographer who said they were going to shoot with an iPhone. That may well change as time goes on. Why not, if iPhone cameras get good enough. Thecouples all included on their marriage websites (that's a thing these days) pics that friends at the wedding took with their phones. Looking through, some of those pics were just as memorable as the professional ones. They were glad to have those phone shots and had asked people to take lots of pictures of the dancing and eating and share them with everyone via the website. 

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

Apple has about 9000 programmers and engineers working on their camera-phones.

Yes, they're fulfilling what consumers want these days, which is the convenience of having a high quality camera in their pocket at all times, probably more quality than most will ever notice or utilize. Obviously, Apple has been a well-run and successful business, so they've gone a long way toward creating a need among consumers. It's capitalism and it's evolution. You can see man as taking down apes, tv as taking down radio, talkies as taking down silents, ... or not.

Edited September 23, 2023 by samstevens

[hjoseph7]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

I've just been privy to several weddings of friends' children. They know I'm a photographer and each newlywed couple shared info about the photographers they were interviewing and eventually picked. All of their concerns were about how flattering the portfolios they showed them were, whether they captured all the important moments—kisses, first dance, vows, ring exchange, etc. They seemed to love backlit shots of brides and grooms, liked a combo of posed family photos and spontaneous party photos, and shots of the bride and groom in various kinds of mirrors. Shallow focus shots also seemed very popular among these couples. All of them were interested in having a photo booth at the wedding party and, at the weddings I attended, those booths were actually a lot of fun and produced some of the best photos. Their concern seemed to be the memories being captured, the personality of the photographers, and the price. Not one couple brought up equipment. I think most of them would have been skeptical of a pro wedding photographer who said they were going to shoot with an iPhone. That may well change as time goes on. Why not, if iPhone cameras get good enough. Thecouples all included on their marriage websites (that's a thing these days) pics that friends at the wedding took with their phones. Looking through, some of those pics were just as memorable as the professional ones. They were glad to have those phone shots and had asked people to take lots of pictures of the dancing and eating and share them with everyone via the website. 

Yes, they're fulfilling what consumers want these days, which is the convenience of having a high quality camera in their pocket at all times, probably more quality than most will ever notice or utilize. Obviously, Apple has been a well-run and successful business, so they've gone a long way toward creating a need among consumers. It's capitalism and it's evolution. You can see man as taking down apes, tv as taking down radio, talkies as taking down silents, ... or not.

Its called an iPhone NOT and iCamera stick to the phone business and leave the photo industry alone. People buy phones because they want to communicate with each other this whole business of taking selfies should be secondary...

[hjoseph7]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

I've just been privy to several weddings of friends' children. They know I'm a photographer and each newlywed couple shared info about the photographers they were interviewing and eventually picked. All of their concerns were about how flattering the portfolios they showed them were, whether they captured all the important moments—kisses, first dance, vows, ring exchange, etc. They seemed to love backlit shots of brides and grooms, liked a combo of posed family photos and spontaneous party photos, and shots of the bride and groom in various kinds of mirrors. Shallow focus shots also seemed very popular among these couples. All of them were interested in having a photo booth at the wedding party and, at the weddings I attended, those booths were actually a lot of fun and produced some of the best photos. Their concern seemed to be the memories being captured, the personality of the photographers, and the price. Not one couple brought up equipment. I think most of them would have been skeptical of a pro wedding photographer who said they were going to shoot with an iPhone. That may well change as time goes on. Why not, if iPhone cameras get good enough. Thecouples all included on their marriage websites (that's a thing these days) pics that friends at the wedding took with their phones. Looking through, some of those pics were just as memorable as the professional ones. They were glad to have those phone shots and had asked people to take lots of pictures of the dancing and eating and share them with everyone via the website. 

Yes, they're fulfilling what consumers want these days, which is the convenience of having a high quality camera in their pocket at all times, probably more quality than most will ever notice or utilize. Obviously, Apple has been a well-run and successful business, so they've gone a long way toward creating a need among consumers. It's capitalism and it's evolution. You can see man as taking down apes, tv as taking down radio, talkies as taking down silents, ... or not.

" It's capitalism and it's evolution"  You forgot to mention good ol Greed. 

[samstevens]

[mikemorrellNL]

11 hours ago, samstevens said:

I've just been privy to several weddings of friends' children. They know I'm a photographer and each newlywed couple shared info about the photographers they were interviewing and eventually picked. All of their concerns were about how flattering the portfolios they showed them were, whether they captured all the important moments—kisses, first dance, vows, ring exchange, etc. They seemed to love backlit shots of brides and grooms, liked a combo of posed family photos and spontaneous party photos, and shots of the bride and groom in various kinds of mirrors. Shallow focus shots also seemed very popular among these couples. All of them were interested in having a photo booth at the wedding party and, at the weddings I attended, those booths were actually a lot of fun and produced some of the best photos. Their concern seemed to be the memories being captured, the personality of the photographers, and the price. Not one couple brought up equipment. I think most of them would have been skeptical of a pro wedding photographer who said they were going to shoot with an iPhone. That may well change as time goes on. Why not, if iPhone cameras get good enough. Thecouples all included on their marriage websites (that's a thing these days) pics that friends at the wedding took with their phones. Looking through, some of those pics were just as memorable as the professional ones. They were glad to have those phone shots and had asked people to take lots of pictures of the dancing and eating and share them with everyone via the website. 

Yes, they're fulfilling what consumers want these days, which is the convenience of having a high quality camera in their pocket at all times, probably more quality than most will ever notice or utilize. Obviously, Apple has been a well-run and successful business, so they've gone a long way toward creating a need among consumers. It's capitalism and it's evolution. You can see man as taking down apes, tv as taking down radio, talkies as taking down silents, ... or not.

My 2 cts,

Mobile phone camera's are getting better each year.  I've never looked up a 'mobile camera vs DSLR' comparison but I'm pretty sure comparisons are available on the internet. When on an (amateur) photoshoot, my primary camera is a FF DSLR with 2 lenses: 24-70mm and 70 -200mm. But I've gotten into the habit of taking some photos with my (Samsung) mobile too.  IHMO, photographers who use mobile phone camera's (semi-)professionally know exactly how to use these cameras to get the best photos. There are mobile phone apps which allow users to precisely dial in the settings that they want. Similar to 'manual mode' on a DSLR. And it's a no-brainer to set the largest photo size, saved format and resolution if you want to do any post-processing or printing. As far as weddings, events, etc. go mobile phone cameras - with the right set-up  - can IMHO produce great photos! They're certainly a lot less 'intrusive' than a big DSLR + lens for shooting 'spontaneous' photos. 

In contrast, many 'amateur' users IMHO don't have a clue. I recently got together with a couple of friends to shoot a couple of 'fun photos'. The aim was to get them printed in A4 format. Some of the photos were shot on one of my friend's IPhone but I also took my DSLR along and asked the 'photographer'  - a neighbour of one of my friends - to take photos with my DSLR (on automatic mode) too. The IPhone photos I I received were just 320x240 px. OK for sharing on mobile phones but much too low resolution to be post-processed or printed. In contrast, the photos shot on my DLSR were 5200X3467 px. Plenty big to post-process (crop, enhance) and print. 

So my guess is that the main factor  that affects the quality of mobile phone photos is whether the user is motivated and competent enough to make the best use of the evolving camera technology.  For example, just by reading the manual 😉.

 

[dave_thomas8]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

[...] The IPhone photos I I received were just 320x240 px. OK for sharing on mobile phones but much too low resolution to be post-processed or printed. [...]

 

Hmm -- sounds as though somebody downsized things. If you email a photo via iOS, you get a chance to select several reduced sizes. I have an iPhone 13 Pro which in essence has 3 cameras to provide a bit of optical zoom, and the basic file output is 3024x4032 pixels. That's generally quite sufficient for met. Actually the 6s I had before that was also 12 Mpix, but with only digital zoom.

[samstevens]

26 minutes ago, dave_thomas8 said:

Hmm -- sounds as though somebody downsized things. If you email a photo via iOS, you get a chance to select several reduced sizes. I have an iPhone 13 Pro which in essence has 3 cameras to provide a bit of optical zoom, and the basic file output is 3024x4032 pixels. That's generally quite sufficient for met. Actually the 6s I had before that was also 12 Mpix, but with only digital zoom.

Yes. My experience as well, having had both a 6 and 13. 

@mikemorrellNL You mentioned the quality of the other peoples' photos and talked about the unfortunately low resolution for printing. How was the quality of pics themselves in terms of capturing something worthwhile?

[AlanKlein]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:43 PM, David_Cavan said:

Thanks. That's a good point actually. I have always approached photography as a story-telling tool. One of the best compliments I ever received was from a photographer colleague who commented over beers that I liked to tell stories with my pictures - and we had never discussed that before so it was very satisfying that someone had picked up on that. I find AI helps with that on a project - you can fill in gaps with an image that depicts a time that is long gone, as is the opportunity to get that shot that would help in the story.

I find making slide shows of vacations or parties are like telling stories.  Add music to compliment the photos and locations, and the stories gets better.  Show them on my 75" 4K TV in the living room and it's like watching a movie.  Great fun and satisfaction. 

[AlanKlein]

23 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

I don't agree. A couple of points:

- There are no absolute standards for 'imaging' or photography; your photo club may want to introduce it's own standards

- Why do you feel that you need to compete? Why not just show off your own personal work?

- People who postprocess photos with something like Lightroom/Photoshop/Gimp have some options.

> Some AI apps can 'generate' images that be further edited

> Enhancement/adaptive options: Photoshop has so-called 'neural networks' (AI) filters that can transform photos. Some Photoshop filter plugins (for example Topaz) are increasingly presented as an 'AI filter'

My opinions:

- Some post-processing has often been applied to both analogue and digital photos

- AI-enhanced photos are not always better than the original photos

 

 

My original post focused on contests done annually among our six 55+ communities.  What I might do personally is a separate issue.  I'm trying to figure out how the contest rules should be handled.  It's one thing using PS and AI to edit your own picture.  But pictures wholly created by AI should be prohibited in my opinion just as we prohibit previous contest winners and photos taken before two years before the contest.  We don't want people submitted "ringers".  We shouldn't allow AIs either. 

[AlanKlein]

15 hours ago, samstevens said:

I've just been privy to several weddings of friends' children. They know I'm a photographer and each newlywed couple shared info about the photographers they were interviewing and eventually picked. All of their concerns were about how flattering the portfolios they showed them were, whether they captured all the important moments—kisses, first dance, vows, ring exchange, etc. They seemed to love backlit shots of brides and grooms, liked a combo of posed family photos and spontaneous party photos, and shots of the bride and groom in various kinds of mirrors. Shallow focus shots also seemed very popular among these couples. All of them were interested in having a photo booth at the wedding party and, at the weddings I attended, those booths were actually a lot of fun and produced some of the best photos. Their concern seemed to be the memories being captured, the personality of the photographers, and the price. Not one couple brought up equipment. I think most of them would have been skeptical of a pro wedding photographer who said they were going to shoot with an iPhone. That may well change as time goes on. Why not, if iPhone cameras get good enough. Thecouples all included on their marriage websites (that's a thing these days) pics that friends at the wedding took with their phones. Looking through, some of those pics were just as memorable as the professional ones. They were glad to have those phone shots and had asked people to take lots of pictures of the dancing and eating and share them with everyone via the website. 

Yes, they're fulfilling what consumers want these days, which is the convenience of having a high quality camera in their pocket at all times, probably more quality than most will ever notice or utilize. Obviously, Apple has been a well-run and successful business, so they've gone a long way toward creating a need among consumers. It's capitalism and it's evolution. You can see man as taking down apes, tv as taking down radio, talkies as taking down silents, ... or not.

I recently went to a wedding that had pro photographers with pro Canon equipment.  It also included pro-lighting and strobes as ambient light at weddings is subdued, often pretty dark.  Also, when shooting couples dancing, there are additional lights set up along the periphery.  I can't imaging they would not use pro cameras that are made to integrate all this lighting.  Plus they were using zoom lenses as well.    iPhones are really like P&S's but with terrible ergonomics for shooting effectively and efficiently.

[samstevens]

3 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

I recently went to a wedding that had pro photographers with pro Canon equipment.  It also included pro-lighting and strobes as ambient light at weddings is subdued, often pretty dark.  Also, when shooting couples dancing, there are additional lights set up along the periphery.  I can't imaging they would not use pro cameras that are made to integrate all this lighting.  Plus they were using zoom lenses as well.    iPhones are really like P&S's but with terrible ergonomics for shooting effectively and efficiently.

As I said, the pros did not use iPhones. Many of the guests did and a lot of the guest iPhone photos are already treasured alongside the pro photos, the p&s comparisons and terrible ergonomics for shooting efficiently and effectively notwithstanding.

[samstevens]

15 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

My original post focused on contests done annually among our six 55+ communities.  What I might do personally is a separate issue.  I'm trying to figure out how the contest rules should be handled.  It's one thing using PS and AI to edit your own picture.  But pictures wholly created by AI should be prohibited in my opinion just as we prohibit previous contest winners and photos taken before two years before the contest.  We don't want people submitted "ringers".  We shouldn't allow AIs either. 

Then pose that to the group. What’s the big deal?

[PapaTango]

16 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

Its called an iPhone NOT and iCamera stick to the phone business and leave the photo industry alone. People buy phones because they want to communicate with each other this whole business of taking selfies should be secondary...

Whether one calls it an iFarce, Andud, or Dingleberry--it is all the same.  The 'smartphone' long ago left the arena of being a straight "communication device" in the traditional sense long ago.  Now, we have--and for many--the center of their daily lives.  Just consider the litany of stuff that turned the Motorola Brick into the Swiss Army knife of first world civilization and discord:

• Voice & Video calling communication (via cell towers or WiFi)
• Text communications (for many, the primary communication tool rather than voice)
• Game box
• Entertainment center (for streaming music, podcasts, movies, episodic shows, etcetera)
• Internet browser
• Work productivity (office suites, project and time management, collaboration, etcetera)
• Social media center
• Navigation system and maps
• Calendar & organizer (forget the Dayrunner...)
• Camera & Video system (people make art movies with these things)
• Online shopping, dating, and hookup center
• Whatever apps of personal importance one has installed to do whatever
• Status symbol
• Remote control for other devices (household, auto, etcetera)
• And even more.

It's probably useful to note that they also watch you, marking everywhere one has been, what you have done, and to use such information to deluge the user with ads and offers just for them!

I hate the damned things.  However, I control the thermostats in the house with it, and all too soon will use it to remotely start the car in the middle of winter.  It is interfaced with my Fuji X-T5 and does marvelous things there.  I have not looked at a paper map for trips in years.  So on and so forth.  And yeah, sometimes it is the only camera I have in my possession or within reach.  Just a humble Samsung A53 with supposedly a 64MP camera.  This thing has more eyes than an Old Testament angel...  🤪

Definitions change over time.  I choose not to get caught up in "what was", rather "what is."  And the things are chock full of internet-connected AI features and functions.  No net, not so much workey.  ☠️

Traditional camera kits are changing also.  Have you noticed that many brands, such as Nikon and Fuji are now making models that mimic the manual controls of classic cameras?  Or manual lenses such as those made by 7Artisans, Rokinon, Meike, TTArtisans, and many others are commonly available at all price points?  It's not just nostalgia, but the consumer desire to be more in control of a process that has been overtaken by automation.  The Luddites find accommodation in gear.  But honestly, these new cameras are riddled with AI and under-the-hood automation.

But the subject was roses, err, I mean AI illustration being passed off as photography.  Creating a coyote, tiger, or girlfriend via AI is not photography as the content as presented never existed in reality.  It is conjured, a simulacrum of the things it is meant to depict.  That is not photography--it is illustration.  You have made an illustration.  You have not taken a photograph.

Now, let's thoroughly confuse all of this by looking at a Dadaist approach to manipulating true photographic images with AI-generated content.  

Where's my phone?

Nikon D7100; Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

*** This is an AI free photograph ***

Edited September 23, 2023 by PapaTango
AI told me to.