What is a photograph?

[Lizzard]

It used to be clear in my mind, a photograph was an image produced with a camera - produced by the effect of light on film then also light on sensor. You pointed your camera, hopefully with correct settings, clicked your shutter, and the result was your photograph. Images produced otherwise were maybe art but were not photographs.

With the use of processing and AI, the lines between photography and digital image creation/art have become (to me) blurred. Without wanting to cause offense to anyone on this forum, I struggle to see how purely AI generated images can be called a photograph. But what about highly processed images, how far removed from the traditional concept of a photograph can you go and still have a photo rather than another form of art? Are blends of multiple photographs (not stacking, more collage) still a photograph? Is an AI modified photo still a photograph?

There is probably no hard and fast answer to this but, for you, how far away from the strict definition of 'photograph' - produced by light on film or sensor - can you go before it is no longer a photo?

 

[AJG]

I suspect that this definition matters most to older photographers like me who have made the effort to learn the technical skills necessary and have acquired the equipment to make images in the camera (film or digital) that require little or no manipulation after the fact.  For many people, photography has already lost its reputation for truth telling with all of the Photoshopped magazine covers and deep fakes readily found on the internet.  And the easier and more ubiquitous it becomes though cell phones, etc., the less respect photography retains as an art medium from the general public, since their phones make such pleasing pictures.  Whether or not an image is largely unmanipulated or the product of AI will not concern most people--they will either like the image or not with little thought as  to how it was created and move on to the next hundred or thousand images that most people are exposed to every day on their phones, tablets and computers.  

I agree that these lines are hard to draw and even harder to maintain when the technology is changing so quickly and the large tech companies clearly believe that there is a lot of money to be made if their product becomes the standard that all of us are compelled to deal with. My plan is to continue to make photographs with both film and digital cameras and leave AI to others.  What I've seen so far from AI isn't been that interesting, and some of it (the misshapen hands, etc.) is highly amusing.  What will it look like in 5 years?  Who knows, but I would point out the odyssey of the self driving car.  Our roads should be full of them by now if some of the predictions made for them a decade ago had come true.

[samstevens]

19 hours ago, Lizzard said:

the lines between photography and digital image creation/art have become (to me) blurred

Many of the most fascinating lines in life are blurred. Hard and fast distinctions often cause binary thinking. Blurred lines can be intriguing and suggest challenges. A hard and fast answer to a definitional question like “What is a photograph?” may not be as significant as it seems. The answers may also depend on context and usage. 

30 minutes ago, AJG said:

the less respect photography retains as an art medium from the general public

I’m less concerned with the general public’s relationship to photography than with my own. I sense that, more and more, how an image was made will be less important to me than how I read it and how it hits me. There’s still an immediacy to my seeing and feeling the picture itself that may simply transcend concerns about post processing and AI assistance. Not that the production details can’t still be interesting. They may well be. But, I suspect whatever premium was once put on the “purity” of how a photo was made will evolve as such “purity” recedes in accessibility and inspiration. Other qualities will take its place. 
 

I used to pride myself on how many telephone numbers of friends and family members I could remember off the top of my head. With Siri and other means of making calls, that’s a thing of the past. What gratified me yesterday doesn’t necessarily apply today. I roll with the punches. 
 

One of the best things about creativity and appreciation of it is that it is ever on the move. New methodologies and twists present possibilities. That’s where the future of art lies. Even a sense of loss can be inspiring, as long as the potential in such loss is sought. 

[Wayne Melia]

photo

graph

a photograph is a recording of light

[za33photo]

To me a photograph is an unaltered or unchanged pictorial recording of an event or scene at a particular instant in time (good , bad , or indifferent) , anything else is not a photograph.

The word "Art" is overused.

 

[Lizzard]

2 hours ago, za33photo said:

To me a photograph is an unaltered or unchanged pictorial recording of an event or scene at a particular instant in time (good , bad , or indifferent) , anything else is not a photograph.

 

Completely unchanged? What about desaturated, cropped, change of levels, stuff that I do all the time? I love wide shots, especially of landscapes, towns, etc, something I cannot achieve without cropping on my camera (although I can on my phone). I will take a shot on my camera that I intend at the time to crop. Ditto with black and white, I see an scene that I know I will desaturate. Surely they are still photographs?

 

4 hours ago, Wayne Melia said:

photo

graph

a photograph is a recording of light

 

I would say a recording with light, rather than of light. 

To me the definition of a photograph is important. As photographers, most of us have studied to a greater or lesser degree the principles of photography and in many cases have spent years trying to improve our skill. I know I have (and I also know I have so much more to learn, so many improvements to make). Over-processing and AI feel like they water it all down, to the point that the image produced is no longer what I would recognise as a photograph.

Here's an example of the blurred lines. The first is a photograph, as shot bar cropping. The 2nd is the same file run through an online processor with funky effects. You may or may not like the result but to me it is clearly no longer a photograph. To me the distinction matters.

 

 

[AJG]

9 hours ago, samstevens said:

Many of the most fascinating lines in life are blurred. Hard and fast distinctions often cause binary thinking. Blurred lines can be intriguing and suggest challenges. A hard and fast answer to a definitional question like “What is a photograph?” may not be as significant as it seems. The answers may also depend on context and usage. 

I’m less concerned with the general public’s relationship to photography than with my own. I sense that, more and more, how an image was made will be less important to me than how I read it and how it hits me. There’s still an immediacy to my seeing and feeling the picture itself that may simply transcend concerns about post processing and AI assistance. Not that the production details can’t still be interesting. They may well be. But, I suspect whatever premium was once put on the “purity” of how a photo was made will evolve as such “purity” recedes in accessibility and inspiration. Other qualities will take its place. 
 

I used to pride myself on how many telephone numbers of friends and family members I could remember off the top of my head. With Siri and other means of making calls, that’s a thing of the past. What gratified me yesterday doesn’t necessarily apply today. I roll with the punches. 
 

One of the best things about creativity and appreciation of it is that it is ever on the move. New methodologies and twists present possibilities. That’s where the future of art lies. Even a sense of loss can be inspiring, as long as the potential in such loss is sought. 

I agree with you that the actual image that says something meaningful is what is important here, not the process by which it was created, and that new technology creates new opportunities for more interesting images.  Like you, I make photographs primarily for me though I hope that others will find them meaningful on some level.  As always, the new tech lowers barriers to entry and will lead to more images being created.  As always, most of them won't be that good, but that's OK--not every Renaissance painter could be Caravaggio.

[samstevens]

37 minutes ago, Lizzard said:

Completely unchanged? What about desaturated, cropped, change of levels, stuff that I do all the time? I love wide shots, especially of landscapes, towns, etc, something I cannot achieve without cropping on my camera (although I can on my phone). I will take a shot on my camera that I intend at the time to crop. Ditto with black and white, I see a scene that I know I will desaturate. Surely they are still photographs?

Can’t help but see the irony in what’s happened here. I agree that it’s beyond extreme to limit a photo to being “completely unchanged” from what the camera recorded. And this is why definitions that categorize and exclude inevitably lead to arguments, debate, and defensiveness. It’s not the same as but similar to the great digital/film wars. Your (changed) images are being put in the position that you’re attempting to put others’ into and it doesn’t feel so great, right?

It’s all a distraction from what’s important, which is the vision each of us expresses … that which we call a rose by any other name …

My takeaway from most of these discussions is that they’re set on seeing photography as a protected club that you’re either in or out of. A lot is made of my way of doing things, often based on historical precedent. It’s the way it’s been done and seen for decades.

I don’t have the patience for it. I can leave the categorization and exclusion to museum curators, photographic historians, photography competition judges and others. When I look at the two images posted above, what I can say is that neither one speaks to me (I know they were posted only to make a point), so why would I care what each is called any more than I care about either to begin with. On the other hand, if I cared about either or both of them, it would be because they meant something to me or made me feel something, which would likely happen before I might have wondered how they were made and whether they adhered to the “rules of the game.”

i guess my general bent toward liberalism and inclusion is at play here. As I said in my first post, I find that allows for more creative possibilities. 

[Lizzard]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

My takeaway from most of these discussions is that they’re set on seeing photography as a protected club that you’re either in or out of. A lot is made of my way of doing things, often based on historical precedent. It’s the way it’s been done and seen for decades.

I wonder if you're not mistaking my meaning, or maybe rather that I'm not making my meaning clear. I am not a purist and have no interest in an 'us and them' protected club. One of the beauties of photography is that everyone has their own interpretation, inspiration and feel of what processing is acceptable or not for them personally. And that is my question, as a general discussion. My way is my way, your way is your way. If they are different, that's great. I personally believe that AI generated images and highly processed images, fall beyond the definition of a photograph, but that is my personal view. But I think it's an interesting discussion on a photography forum to explore how others feel, without judgement.

As I said to start off with, my intention is not to offend anyone here (or elsewhere). I started the discussion because it's something I had been wondering about before I even joined photo.net. 

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, Lizzard said:

But I think it's an interesting discussion on a photography forum to explore how others feel, without judgement.

What would help me understand is your answering the why rather than simply the what question. Why is this discussion interesting to you? Why is it important where “photograph” begins and ends. Why were “[i]mages produced otherwise … maybe art but were not photographs.”

On 11/7/2024 at 12:10 AM, Lizzard said:

how far removed from the traditional concept of a photograph can you go and still have a photo rather than another form of art?

Is there an answer to this? What is your answer to this and how does having an answer affect your own making or viewing?
 

[The only hint at an answer you’ve given so far is that things you do all the time, such as cropping, desaturating, and levels adjustments, still allow you to call what you make a “photograph”. I happen to agree. But I wouldn’t limit it to those things. So, the key is to state what maneuvers make a photo into something other than a photo and why? In other words, what (other than because I do it) would allow something to be done to what came out of the camera and still be considered a photo? What is it about cropping, for example, that can radically alter what came out of the camera, that still allows for the result to be called a “photograph”? What’s the difference between a severe crop and some other maneuvers people perform, maneuvers that you would consider turn what started out as a photo into something else?]

Edited November 8 by samstevens

[Lizzard]

I am almost sorry I started this - I didn't expect such aggressive questioning to an simple wondering question. It was curiosity, it was to sort through ideas, nothing more, nothing less. No more than asking a group of gardeners what they prefer growing or discussing with friends why you like your favourite sort of music. On a non-photo forum people were playing with LunaPic and it got me wondering at what point it felt to me that this was no longer a photo. It was not to get a definitive answer, I agreed from the start there isn't one. 

As for what I do, does it matter? Can people not have their thoughts without knowing that? If you really want the answer, I'm happy to tell you although the list is short - as well as those already mentioned, I will clone out things I couldn't control at the time of the photograph, and occasionally stack a couple of shots if I'm using the Raynox macro adaptor and I can't get the dof I would like with it. Possibly a few other bits and pieces I can't think of off the top of my head but nothing that significantly alters the shot the RAW image I shot.  I do not use AI, I do not use creative editing software, just an old version of PSE. I use my phone as well as my camera. Does that help you at all?

Anyway, unless anyone else fancies giving their thoughts, that's probably me done on this. 

[samstevens]

18 minutes ago, Lizzard said:

I didn't expect such aggressive questioning to an simple wondering question.

Let me explain the aggressive questioning. This topic has come up in many ways and in many threads throughout the years I've spent on PN. It is often accompanied by very deep-seated prejudices against digital photography and the flexibility of contemporary post processing software. I'm sorry I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed from the very beginning it was just another statement protecting photography's history and purity, which is often misunderstood, since photography actually has more of a history of severe manipulation than purists often give it credit for or understand. Generally, when such questions come up, I do question aggressively, in the hopes of breaking through various prejudices and misunderstandings. As that doesn't seem to have been the case here, again, I'm sorry for offending you.

[ericphelps]

22 minutes ago, Lizzard said:

I am almost sorry I started this - I didn't expect such aggressive questioning to an simple wondering question. It was curiosity, it was to sort through ideas, nothing more, nothing less. No more than asking a group of gardeners what they prefer growing or discussing with friends why you like your favourite sort of music. On a non-photo forum people were playing with LunaPic and it got me wondering at what point it felt to me that this was no longer a photo. It was not to get a definitive answer, I agreed from the start there isn't one. 

As for what I do, does it matter? Can people not have their thoughts without knowing that? If you really want the answer, I'm happy to tell you although the list is short - as well as those already mentioned, I will clone out things I couldn't control at the time of the photograph, and occasionally stack a couple of shots if I'm using the Raynox macro adaptor and I can't get the dof I would like with it. Possibly a few other bits and pieces I can't think of off the top of my head but nothing that significantly alters the shot the RAW image I shot.  I do not use AI, I do not use creative editing software, just an old version of PSE. I use my phone as well as my camera. Does that help you at all?

Anyway, unless anyone else fancies giving their thoughts, that's probably me done on this. 

I read your original post as I too am fascinated by what I consider the 'push-in' of AI, which in many forms is simply crude sorta-reproduction of any image. AI is not art nor photography, it's just pixle mushing by people I wouldn't want to have a drink with. The heat exposed in this thread is not your choice of topic, it's more that currently the people in this country have little patience for opening a discussion fully, preferring to throw down an opinion as challenge or fact, not opening it for further examination. Hoping it's a bit easier in France to have these discussions, it's never been easy here and far less so now.

[Lizzard]

29 minutes ago, samstevens said:

 As that doesn't seem to have been the case here, again, I'm sorry for offending you.

Thank you so much for your honest reply. I was wondering what I'd done wrong! No, I'm absolutely not prejudiced against digital or processing per se, just when it all goes to far. I tidy up other people's shots for a rescue centre and spend hours cloning out leads, sticking ears on cats, etc. I'm very much 'where would I be without my Photoshop!'. But equally I love photography as a skill, art, whatever you want to call it. A great photo, well thought out and executed, you can't beat it really. 

As for easier discussions in France, well no. I was on a photo forum here and I found them even more entrenched in their views (a bit of a French speciality anyway). Note past tense...

[mickeysimpson]

I apply edits like contrast, levels and other basic edits. I also crop. Are we to think that Ansel Adams never dodged or burned? Did he ever crop? 

We surely have more editing tools and capabilities than Ansel Adams had, but I think tinkering with a photo does not diminish the photo.  In my opinion, extreme edits or AI created images are not photographs, they may be art.
 

[David_Cavan]

Adams (or his team) certainly "photoshopped" his images. There's a good article I've used in a number of discussions and sessions over the years, link is:

https://www.timagesgallery.com/blog-2/did-ansel-adams-photoshop-his-images

He said  “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” He considered editing a necessity and had extensive work done on adjusting all of his published work, which was he said was not done until you darken the edges. I'm not sure what that last bit meant, but apparently it was important to him.

[za33photo]

One cannot fight the "Establishment" , and expect to win .

 

[paddler4]

On 11/8/2024 at 3:13 AM, za33photo said:

To me a photograph is an unaltered or unchanged pictorial recording of an event or scene at a particular instant in time (good , bad , or indifferent) , anything else is not a photograph.

The word "Art" is overused.

 

So Ansel Adams's "Moonlight, Hernandez, New Mexico" is not a photograph? He changed the image dramatically in the darkroom. And he was wrong when he said that "The negative is the score, and the print the performance?

Also, there's there's the problem that digital images have to be rendered to be viewable. Even if you let the camera do that, a recipe has to be applied, specifying colors, saturation, contrast, etc. So are those images also not photographs?

[samstevens]

50 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

And he was wrong when he said that "The negative is the score, and the print the performance?

Yes. Addams was 💯 percent wrong. What he should have put in his trunk was a xerox machine, in order to properly and accurately and photographically record Yosemite. 😎

[AlanKlein]

7 hours ago, David_Cavan said:

Adams (or his team) certainly "photoshopped" his images. There's a good article I've used in a number of discussions and sessions over the years, link is:

https://www.timagesgallery.com/blog-2/did-ansel-adams-photoshop-his-images

He said  “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” He considered editing a necessity and had extensive work done on adjusting all of his published work, which was he said was not done until you darken the edges. I'm not sure what that last bit meant, but apparently it was important to him.

What does darken the edges mean?

[samstevens]

35 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

What does darken the edges mean?

"Edge burning, as the name suggests, is the technique of burning or darkening the edges of a photograph. The primary purpose of darkening the images along the borders is to guide the viewer’s attention to your center of interest. In the process of darkening or burning the edges, the photographer eventually introduces the tonal congruence across the frame, which avoids the wandering of eyes out of the frame.

Edge burning is a traditional darkroom technique frequently used by Ansel Adams to create captivating prints. The technique is further explained by Ansel Adams through the book titled “The Print”, wherein he mentions edge burning to be an effective technique for strengthening the composition of the photograph. The technique applies well to the digital age as well. In the process of darkening the images, the basic exposure of the photograph is reduced along the edges either at individual corners or simultaneously to all the corners; to darken the corners more than the central portion of the edges.

The essence of edge burning as acclaimed by Ansel Adams, lies in the subliminal enhancement and subtle re-touching, so that the viewer should not be conscious of it. In the age of film cameras, edge burning was much of a task while the process is simplified when using dodging and burning, luminosity painting, gradient tool and similar techniques in Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.

Edge burning helps in making the photographs interesting and attractive. It can add depth to flat images, and saturates colors as well."

[paddler4]

You can phrase this in the other direction as well: bright and high-contrast areas draw the eye, so bright areas on the edges draw the away from the core of the image.

Edge burning is a very common technique in digital postprocessing as well. It can be automated by applying a vignette, but I most often do it freehand, darkening the areas that seem to need it.

[William Michael]

On Edge Burning -

I believe samstevens' response (above) quoted an Article by Shivanand Sharma; referenced now here: LINK

One (perhaps important) view which Adams had on the topic, is at the bottom of that Article and was missed in sam's quote -

"Ansel Adams proclaims that mostly all the photographs require edge burning."

***

Adams wrote -

"My experience indicates that nearly all photographs require some burning of the edges. The edge-burning must not be overdone, however; the viewer should not be conscious of it."

Adams Ansel, The Print, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1995, p116.

WW

[William Michael]

On 11/7/2024 at 7:10 PM, Lizzard said:

There is probably no hard and fast answer to this but, for you, how far away from the strict definition of 'photograph' - produced by light on film or sensor - can you go before it is no longer a photo?

A long way. Or. Nowhere at all.

Depends on many things, for example: Context; Audience; Primary Subject and Purpose, to mention only a few.

Mainly it depends upon whether I am in Reception Mode or Transmission Mode. In Reception Mode, it's a blank sheet, open to all definitions. 

In Transmission Mode, it depends more on the list of many things mentioned above.

***

I am one of the - "older photographers like me . . . [AJG] . . .  who have made the effort to learn the technical skills necessary and have acquired the equipment to make images in the camera (film or digital) that require little or no manipulation after the fact." 

The variances and nuances of definition(s) matter very significantly to me. Not in so far as which is: right or wrong; good or bad; strict or liberal. Rather so I understand exactly what it is that I am discussing.

As a simple example, I have difficulty wrapping my mind around the term "Full Frame Camera" - because if 135 Format is "Full Frame" what is 6x6 Format? "Fuller Frame" . . . but the other side of the coin is, that horse has bolted, and there is no sense in lecturing to the uninitiated, insisting the use of "135 Format" as the 'correct' definition of that particular "Miniature Format" Camera System.    

WW     

 

[AlanKlein]

11 hours ago, samstevens said:

"Edge burning, as the name suggests, is the technique of burning or darkening the edges of a photograph. The primary purpose of darkening the images along the borders is to guide the viewer’s attention to your center of interest. In the process of darkening or burning the edges, the photographer eventually introduces the tonal congruence across the frame, which avoids the wandering of eyes out of the frame.

Edge burning is a traditional darkroom technique frequently used by Ansel Adams to create captivating prints. The technique is further explained by Ansel Adams through the book titled “The Print”, wherein he mentions edge burning to be an effective technique for strengthening the composition of the photograph. The technique applies well to the digital age as well. In the process of darkening the images, the basic exposure of the photograph is reduced along the edges either at individual corners or simultaneously to all the corners; to darken the corners more than the central portion of the edges.

The essence of edge burning as acclaimed by Ansel Adams, lies in the subliminal enhancement and subtle re-touching, so that the viewer should not be conscious of it. In the age of film cameras, edge burning was much of a task while the process is simplified when using dodging and burning, luminosity painting, gradient tool and similar techniques in Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.

Edge burning helps in making the photographs interesting and attractive. It can add depth to flat images, and saturates colors as well."

Vignetting?

[AlanKlein]

2 hours ago, William Michael said:

A long way. Or. Nowhere at all.

Depends on many things, for example: Context; Audience; Primary Subject and Purpose, to mention only a few.

Mainly it depends upon whether I am in Reception Mode or Transmission Mode. In Reception Mode, it's a blank sheet, open to all definitions. 

In Transmission Mode, it depends more on the list of many things mentioned above.

***

I am one of the - "older photographers like me . . . [AJG] . . .  who have made the effort to learn the technical skills necessary and have acquired the equipment to make images in the camera (film or digital) that require little or no manipulation after the fact." 

The variances and nuances of definition(s) matter very significantly to me. Not in so far as which is: right or wrong; good or bad; strict or liberal. Rather so I understand exactly what it is that I am discussing.

As a simple example, I have difficulty wrapping my mind around the term "Full Frame Camera" - because if 135 Format is "Full Frame" what is 6x6 Format? "Fuller Frame" . . . but the other side of the coin is, that horse has bolted, and there is no sense in lecturing to the uninitiated, insisting the use of "135 Format" as the 'correct' definition of that particular "Miniature Format" Camera System.    

WW     

 

I believe full frame has to do with digital photography not film.  I don't recall people using the term full frame before digital.  Full frame is also used as the comparison standard when describing the magnifying effect of other formats.  Such as 2x for micro four third (mft) sensors and a 50mm lens in mft equates to a 100mm in full frame.

[William Michael]

I agree, Alan. I understand the term 'full frame' came into regular use just after the mainstream manufacturers moved from APS-C Format digital to marketing 135 Format to the consumer base.

I think that the term was indeed marketing derived, certainly marketing driven: the psychology of 'better' qualities of the larger format being full frame, that is, neither partial nor lacking.

***

Edge Burning, as a technique, differs from Vignette as a technique.

Vignette (defined strictly) is even in gradation from the edge of the image to the points where the Vignette ends - and - the Vignette follows a symmetrical end inside the image.

Edge Burning (defined strictly) is applied 'by hand'  at various points around the edge and in various gradations, to suit each particular image.

Though, considering the main point of this conversation concerns definitions, I hardly think it would be an hanging offence to "apply a small Vignette only to the top corner of the image".   

WW 

 

[paddler4]

Quote

I suspect that this definition matters most to older photographers like me who have made the effort to learn the technical skills necessary and have acquired the equipment to make images in the camera (film or digital) that require little or no manipulation after the fact. 

It all depends on your goals, not your age. I suspect I'm as old as you are.

For example, some years ago, I walked by a scene in Bergen's old port that was very interesting. However, the lighting was awful. I made the capture, and it was done correctly in terms of exposure, aperture, and shutter speed. No technical problems.

If i wanted to document that day in Bergen, I would have left the image pretty much as it was.

However, what I wanted was an attractive view of the competing colors and shapes. This required a lot of editing, perhaps two hours: removing stuff that got in the way, changing tonality, increasing texture and sharpening, increasing contrast, selectively repairing dull colors, etc. The result is not unrealistic (I'll post it below), but it looks very different from what I saw on that dreary day, and there was no way to make these changes in camera. And it is certainly still a photograph.

 

 

[samstevens]

24 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

require

In quoting this, and in what you’ve discussed about your own work, you’ve identified a key. Post processing work isn’t necessarily required. It’s often simply a choice, part of the process of making a photo. It’s not to make up for flaws. It’s to create something with intention. And post processing is not always noticeable. I may spend hours post processing a photo, and a good deal of time is making it feel organic to the pic I’m working with. There are a multitude of reasons to post process, goals of post processing, and ways to go about it. It is very often not to correct anything, but rather to fulfill a vision. It may not be needed, just wanted. 

[William Michael]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

It may not be needed, just wanted

Sage.

Huge, gaping difference between the definitions and meanings, of those two words.

WW

[AJG]

2 hours ago, paddler4 said:

It all depends on your goals, not your age. I suspect I'm as old as you are.

For example, some years ago, I walked by a scene in Bergen's old port that was very interesting. However, the lighting was awful. I made the capture, and it was done correctly in terms of exposure, aperture, and shutter speed. No technical problems.

If i wanted to document that day in Bergen, I would have left the image pretty much as it was.

However, what I wanted was an attractive view of the competing colors and shapes. This required a lot of editing, perhaps two hours: removing stuff that got in the way, changing tonality, increasing texture and sharpening, increasing contrast, selectively repairing dull colors, etc. The result is not unrealistic (I'll post it below), but it looks very different from what I saw on that dreary day, and there was no way to make these changes in camera. And it is certainly still a photograph.

 

 

Had I been lucky enough to have been there when you were and made an image like this, I probably would have also gone into Photoshop and tried to make the image that I wanted as opposed to the image that the camera recorded.  I frequently adjusted contrast and dodged and burned in B&W darkroom prints, and I certainly use Photoshop where I need to to make the images look the way that I want.  I think the point here is that these are personal choices and not those of an algorithm, and they are informed  in my case by my knowledge and experience, as I'm sure they are in yours.  Using AI will no more guarantee great images than purchasing the latest Leica, although I suspect that the Leica will be more helpful on that score.

[mickeysimpson]

On 11/10/2024 at 10:10 AM, AlanKlein said:

What does darken the edges mean?

Good article Alan. Thanks for the link.

Edited November 11 by mickeysimpson

[Woolsocks]

Strictly speaking AI is being used like one would use a stock photo service. The AI uses pictures you did not create yourself. It uses pictures someone else created. 

And an AI does the compositing for you. But there are of course limitations I will not talk about here. Except to say they follow guidelines someone else has typed into the script. Eventually that could go further and further and before you know it artists will only be drawing squares all in the same color and varying luminosity in order to follow those rules  inputted by someone else. 

[William Michael]

5 hours ago, Woolsocks said:

Strictly speaking AI is being used like one would use a stock photo service.

I think that statement draws a Longbow.

WW

[Woolsocks]

1 hour ago, William Michael said:

I think that statement draws a Longbow.

WW

I don't see how it's an exaggeration. 

You sound like your on t.v. and you just say about anything to get attention.