mikemorrellNL

I read/watched this article om my BBC News app. The examples are IMHO pretty cruddy but I can see the potential applications to artistic/historical/scientific images where 'how it is now' might be contrasted with AI images of 'how it was then'' or 'how it might be'. Photography - by definition - captures a moment (or moments) in time. As I understand it, AI generated images are capable of recovering 'what has been' from archived images. And also projecting images of 'what might be'. Is this interesting? As far as the past is concerned, many interesting historical images have been digitized, are available on internet tand are probably accessible to any AI program. On the other hand, many interesting photo's have not (yet?) been digitized and are not (yet) accessible via internet and any AI programs. For me, the most interesting thing about AI programs is that they suck in enormous amounts of data and can give us a 'projection' of the future

Hi, I've posted some photos for the 'post-processing challenges' (together with @Glenn McCreery and @tom_r) for more than a year. I've had a 'forced beak' from posting due to first Covid-19 and then a 2-week holiday. TBH, I've gotten out the habit of posting, I've pretty much much exhausted my 'archive' anyway and I have less time these days for post-processing. This is the first time I've visited PN in about 2 months. So I won't be (weekly) posting PP-challenges for the foreseeable future. Perhaps occasionally if there's still enough interest. I'll keep an eye on the forum and if others post - and I have the time - I'll join in. I just want to delete PP challenge (as an obligation) from my weekly agenda. Best wishes, Mike

Haha, I love your sense of humor, Sam! I'm not sure whether the AI vs. non-AI discussion might replace the film vs. digital discussions on PN anytime soon, but I hope - going forward - that it may be a more relevant discussion. I saw - but didn't read/watch - a recent BBC article entitled 'are we living a Matrix-like life?' Unfortunately, I've not (yet) been able to track it down. But given all the current (social and tradtional) media biases and - especially - the continual media ads, I can well imagine that many heavy media consumers are living a 'matrix-like' life. In the sense that their media consumption has big influence on their ambitions: what kind of life they want to lead, what they want to buy, etc

See my response on the thread 'Images created by AI: 2 questions/ My 4 cts. -each to his own (habits, preferences, aversions, opinions) with the emphasis - regarding PN - on opinions - it's always good (and interesting!) to express personal opinions on PN - whether PN-members support opinions (or not), it's worth bearing in mind that PN-membership represents a minuscule percentage of artists and photographers around the world. - As we quitely debate these kinds of questions on PN, the world moves on. Including the advance of AI into pretty much all aspects of our lives. And including the advance of AI into pretty much all aspects of (at least digital) photography.

Great question! In short: a) yes, but with a broader scope b) No, so can't advise; many reviews available on the web though I think that, these days, there definitely should be a (sub-)forum to discuss - and post photos/images that have been created and/or edited with the help of AI. IHMO the scope of the (sub-) forum should be broader than just 'images created by AI-apps' and should also include 'photos/images' . There's probably a fine line between the two categories. As far as I know some 'image creation' AI-apps can take an uploaded photo/image as a starting point. The user can then - using keywords, references, etc. manipulate the image to get the desired result. These apps can also 'generate' images based on keywords, references etc. for further manipulation. So, as far as I know, strictly speaking, only images generated without an uploaded photo/image as input could be considered to be an 'AI- generated image'. The use of AI-apps to manipulatie uploaded photos/images falls IMHO in the category (advanced) 'postprocessing'. I personally believe that there's a more important reason to discuss and post examples of photos/images created with the help of AI-apps. The two main reasons for this are: - AI-based functions are increasingly becoming available in (broadly) post-processing apps. Just taking one (Photoshop, which I use) as an example, AI-based functions and plug-ins are regularly added to the range of options with which users can manipulate images. And yet Photoshop is still regarded as a 'traditional post-processing' app. - new - supposedly AI-based apps and plugins - are springing up that, according to the blurb, drastically reduce the time spent on manual 'post-processing' of photos So IMHO, the application of rapidly developing AI to photography/imaging is not only relevant to (autonomously) creating images but also to the way we post-process photos/images. There's a common Dutch expression that roughly translates as "why should I care, I’m happy with what I have". This expression probably applies to many PN members. Still, for those of us interested in what the future of photography/imaging might hold, An AI-based (sub-forum) would be a great place to exchange views, experience, tips, etc. In any case (IMHO) a better alternative to the current situation in which seemingly unrelated threads are posted.

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other. This is my own (legal) photo taken in 2013 of a work by the artist Andrei Filippov entitled "The Last Supper" (1989). It was exhibited at the Dutch 'Museum by the Sea' in 2013.

@michael_kucinich, Hi, I'm sorry but I'm very late to this party. I missed your request the first time around and I saw your recent response to @dcstep. I like your idea for- and your composition of - the photo. In general, I think it's turned out fine! The only improvement I can suggest is that I would have liked to see a bit more 'crispness' (= sharpness) in the first 2 or 3 milkweeds in the foreground, In the critique forum, I'm occasionally curious about the shooting settings. In this case, I wondered about the sharpness in the foreground. So I hope you don't mind, but I downloaded a copy of the photo to look at the Exif data. As always, I immediately delete any downloaded copies! From the Exif data, I see that photo was taken in 2013, so I assume that your skills and technique have developed a lot since then! For this specific photo, what struck me (if I interpret the Exif data correctly) was that you took it with: - a very small aperture (f/29) - a low ISO setting (100) - a long exposure time (2 seconds) If this Exif data is correct, then with a small aperture, I assume you wanted to create a large DOF. The downside - with a 2 sec exposure time - is that any slight breeze would compromise the sharpness. All in all, with these settings, you did a great job! However, in general (and with hindsight!), you might have used a wider aperture (f/4 f/8 ?), a higher ISO and focused more sharply on the foreground. I just imagine the first 2 or 3 'milkweeds' being sharply in focus and the focus gradually becoming less sharp as it fades away to the background mist. Again, this is largely true in your photo. With the only exception of a 'crisp' (sharp) focus on the first 2-3 milkweeds. Hope this helps. PS. If my interpretation of the Exif data for this photo is completely wrong, please let me know!

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other.

IMHO, we are where we are. We can have opinions about whether the (webscraped) sources for (AI) image generation are legitimate or legal in different countries. But similar arguments also apply to 'webscraped' content that Chat GBT (or Bard) uses as input for providing 'natural language' answers to questions. 'Webscraping' started IMHO long ago with internet search engines. Google is probably the most well known. Though other search engines (such as Bing, Firefox, etc.) employed basically the same strategy. They continually scannned websites and 'ranked' these in lists of search results for any query. Their ranking of 'search results' was partly based on 'keywords' on any website but also on 'reliablty', determined largely by how many other 'reliable' websites referred (linked) to it. As far as I know, AI apps take a similar but also different approach. Just as their 'search engine' predecessors, they evaluate the reliablity of the vast quantity of information that's available to them. Includung - but also using much more sophisticated criteria than - 'keyords' and 'references'. As far as I know, AI apps are especially good and fast at identifying 'patterns'. Those derived from natural language too.So, I imagine AI apps are much better at identifying which online 'content' (for any query) has the most 'consistency'. AI apps won't IMHO always be 'right' but will reflect the 'concensus of opinion', from it's available sources. As far as 'image generation' AI apps go, I think that pretty much the same applies in terms of 'webscraping'. In the 'old days', we could use Google to show us lists of images according to search criteria. With AI, we can much more easily ask a query such as 'show me an image of ...)'. Dedicated AI imaging imaging apps are even more sophisticated. In terms of a 'dialogue' where users can ask questions like :"OK, show me the same image with less shadow (or more highlights) on the left/right side'. Or 'superimpose this image on this one ....' At the moment, text-based AI apps very creative but are still largely based on information that has already been published somewhere. The same applies to image-oriented AI apps. IHMO An AI app cannot - for the foreseeable future- replicate your personal photo. Unless it's a photo that has been taken and published by other people too. I do expect AI to make more of an impact on in-camera and post-processing. Mike

Thanks for posting your picture, @Kamala! As always, I personally learn a lot from reviewing other people's pictures and from the suggestions that other members make. As far as I'm aware, yours is the first composite picture I've reviewed. I personally hope that others will follow 🙂. Very OT, but just a mention that there are weekly 'Post Processing Challenges' in the Digital Darkroom forum. There are no rules for how members might apply post-processing. The aim is just to have fun playing around with a photo in PP and learn from each other. Some contributors (including myself) regularly create 'composite pictures' in one form or another. Many members post multiple (different) PP-versions. Either together or separately. Like you, I've often struggled to get the 'lighting' of a composite image to look (at first glance) visually 'believable' - disregarding the 'content'! I'm not blowing my own trumpet here, but this is just one example of where I had to think about where and how to 'create' shadows and highlights on the 'subject', given the 'composite' of foreground/background/sky/subject. Should you wish to contribute, just to experiment with (for example) different skies, you'd be very welcome. It's not a 'No Words' forum so contributors/members can give any feedback that you request. If you decide that it's not for you, that's fine too!

(Mostly) agree, though there's IHMO no harm, in politely clarifying what 'the rules are' and how you're breaking them. I suspect that (some/many) security guards and the like are 'trained' not to get into discussions or negotiations with members of the public about what (they believe) 'the rules' are and which 'rules' (they believe) are being broken. Some kids in NL recently got a heavy fine because they were taking photos from the top of a parking garage. Because they had no parked car, they were considered 'trespassers'. Really sad! Especially because I've done exactly the same thing without ever being aware that I was 'trespassing'. In these cases, I suspect that the 'personality' of the security guard also comes into play. In my volunteer work, I've noticed that some volunteers in an 'official capacity' play things strictly 'by the book'. Others (including myself) tend to be more flexible and more willing to make occasional exceptions. In the NL kids case, I can imagine that one security guard might say 'hey kids, you're not really supposed to be here, please leave" whereas the 'on duty' security guard played things strictly by the book and decided that the kids were 'trespassers'. Credit to the garage security guard in at least connecting the OP to his/her supervisor. Perhaps a better question to the supervisor might have been "hey, I'm <here> on a family visit. Do I need a permit to take photos with a camera and drone for our personal use? The first sentence from any 'official' is IMHO a good indication of the 'room to manoeuvre'. A sentence starting with "you're not allowed to ..." indicates that his/her mind is pretty much already made up and any protests to the contrary are either doomed to fail or in the best case will be an uphill climb. On the other hand, if the first sentence is more along the lines of "hey, may I ask what you're doing here?", that at least indicates than an official is more receptive to additional information. At least in NL, many 'officials' (police officers, security at railway stations, etc.) seem more inclined to first ask questions before jumping to conclusions. In the sense of first finding out "what's going on?". In the OP's situation, they might ask "hey, at this location (with this number of people, this type of equipment, ....), you need a permit to take photos/video's. Do you have one? There are of course exceptions, such as officials who issue parking fines 🙂

Up to you but FWIW, I think that your foreground, trees and the half-dome are 'dramatic' in their own right. In addition to the points made above about light direction, for me the dramatic red/orange 'sunset' sky kind of dominates the photo. Or at least competes with the foreground for attention. As a results the half-dome looks pale and slightly 'uncomfortable' sandwiched between two bands of deep, warm color. So a different sky - even a 'dramatic' one - is fine. I would just consider whether the color and detail of the new sky complements the 'presence' of the half-dome or detracts from it. In terms of visual perception of depth, warmer (red/orange), more saturated colors tend to 'advance' in paintings and photos. Cooler and/or less saturated colors tend to 'recede'. So you might want to experiment with a cooler, less saturated sky.

No idea. I live in the Netherlands (NL) so I looked up your info just out of curiosity (for stuff related to permissions). In NL it's no problem taking photos in so-called 'public spaces'. These generally mean 'open spaces' (street, local parks, etc.). Enclosed locations intended for 'public use' (train/bus stations, parking garages, Shopping Malls, Libraries, etc.) usually have regulations or guidelines for photography/film. Officially, photographers need a permit. In practice, lots of people take single photos there without a permit too. It's generally not problem unless a) someone objects or security notices you and/or b) gets the impression that it's a 'photoshoot'. For example involving multiple people, a set-up with a tripod, etc. The Film Tampa Bay FAQ page, mentions: "If you’re a photographer taking photos in Hillsborough County Parks or Conservation Areas, and your total crew, including subjects and photographer, is 5 people or less, a film permit is not required for your shoot. This is valid in Hillsborough County Parks and Hillsborough County Conservation Areas only. This does not apply to any athletic facilities, playgrounds or shelters. Handheld cameras OR cameras with personal tripods only. No professional equipment or props allowed. Photographers wanting to schedule a photoshoot featuring more than 5 people, props, or additional equipment must still apply for a permit." I couldn't find any specific rules and regulations relating to photography for Tampa parking garages. It does seem strange that - if it's the Fort Brooke garage you refer to - the rooftop views are touted as a tourist attraction so visitors/photographers there must be a regular occurrence. I can only imagine that the drone - combined with 4 people - was an issue. The security staff might have assumed that you were doing a 'photoshoot' with 'additional equipment without a permit.

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing. There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other.

Many thanks for sharing this bigger picture, @Ricochetrider ! It's always interesting to learn more about the location where your 'photo for critique' was taken. IHMO this 'big picture' photo also has great qualities in its own right. Including the contrasts between light/shadow (especially the dark shadow framing), the color contrasts and bucketloads of 'atmosphere'. This photo too could, for me, be a movie still. But it IMHO it does seem more 'cluttered' with details than the one you you posted for critique. Even though 'clutter' can often add to a photo.! This photo too is 'intriguing' and it draws me in. Still, your more focused and 'less cluttered' version that you posted for critique has a very special photographic quality and I much prefer it! The differences between the 2 versions could IMHO be useful as an example in some kind of photography course. In terms of comparing and contrasting both perspectives, depth, 'mood', etc. I found both photos masterful but the 'for critique' one much more so. IMHO one of the potential 'photography course' topics that you illustrate with these 2 photos is how revisiting the same location under different conditions can expand and deepen student's 'photographic eye' for photographic opportunities. In other words: not only photographing a scene 'as is' but also planning/revisiting the same scene from a different perspectives, in different weather conditions, different times of day, etc. Probably, photography students are already taught this. And most genres of photography (perhaps with the exception of Urban/Landscape and Street photography) make it difficult for photographers to 'revisit' photoshoots. But IMHO, they can - and should- learn from examples such as yours. Back in the day, I did a (basic) photography course. Of course with 'practical assignments' and learning from each other. But we also learned a lot from examples by different photographers. Although we were beginners, we were inspired by much more accomplished photographers. I'm not in any way suggesting that any 'photography course' would accept your photos as 'course material', just that IMHO your material might be useful

It's all been said above, but I really like this photo too! Especially the location, the light/shadow, the mist and the evocative 'mood'. Yes, it could be a still from a horror movie 🙂. One other thing I also like is the contrast between the 'splash of primary color' (benches, kid's amusements) and the almost monochromatic surroundings. So for many reasons, the photo is 'intriguing'. As a European, even the name 'Bunnyburger' looks weird! Congrats!

Good news about the old CD's! Though no-one knew (or knows) for sure how long CD's remain 'readable', the consensus seems to be that the readability of CD's is not 'forever'. A quick browse on Google turns up that the degradation rate of CD's depends on factors like exposure to light, and changes in temperature and humidity. And - as @Niels - NHSN points out whether the CD's were burned just once or were R/W CD's. Maybe, the fact that the old CD's have been hidden away in a closet for 20 years has helped their longevity! Personally, I would copy the files you want from the old CD's onto a different medium soon! I threw most of my old (20-year) 'back-up' CD's away (just by looking at the labels) when I last moved house. I still have a couple left over but my current (newer) Laptop doesn't have an internal CD/DVD player. I suppose I could buy and connect an external one but this doesn't seem worth the investment. I seriously doubt whether they contain any still relevant info (documents, photo's) that I don't also have backed up elsewhere. For years, I've backed up all my photos (and relevant documents) to 2 external hard drives. More recently to an external SSD drive. I want to have a 2nd back-up medium, either 'in the cloud'' or on a 2nd SSD-drive. It was fun to pluck one of my old (700MB) CD-R/W's at random and realize that an external 1 TB SSD drive (the cheapest) can store the contents of these 14.000 CD's! My SSD is 2TB (the equivalent of 28.000 CD's) and smaller than a pack of cigarettes. There are also, of course, 4TB SSD-drives. So IMHO, the days of CD-R/W's as 'back-up media' have long since come to an end. Funnily enough, you can still buy them (700MB) on-line 🙂

Late to this party but I infinitely prefer the color versIon! The 'background' of the color version has (in terms of color) great warmth. In stark contrast, the tree/branches really stand out as a 'colorless' subject. The same applies to the 'rock' in the foreground. I see the B/W version as "yeah, yet another B/W that emphasizes structure and differences in grey tones (shadows, highlights)". For me, not so very exciting In the B/W version this distinction (in grey tones) is IMHO much reduced.

Great photo to play with! Just a 'wash and brush up' 😁: - sky replacement (Photoshop) - brightening (curves) and sharpening - cloning/patching blemishes (visible after brightening) and removing white dots with healing brush There's still a bit of a halo (original sky texture) around the statue; I still haven't figured out how to do 'pixel sharp' selections and use the brush tool with these.

I really like this photo, @pavel_l.! In terms of content and composition, the photo for me: - combines many different 'visual elements (house, trees, bench, stones, labyrinth, autumn/winter leaves) in a well-composed whole - demonstrates the 'gestalt' idea that showing part of the labyrinth is enough to 'suggest' the whole to the viewer - has multiple 'layers': > the visual pattern of the labyrinth in the park or garden > the overlaying leaves and (separately) the shadows of unseen trees > the deeper (historical/traditional) layer of meaning of the labyrinth in spiritual/contemplative/religious practices; For me, this is underlined by the bench (for contemplation?) I'm not a B/W photographer but I also really like the 'tonal composition' (including deep shadows and highlights).. So for me, this photo really offers the viewer a lot to appreciate and a lot to 'contemplate' 🙂. Congratulations! Mike

In 2017, Google withdrew its support for its free version of the Nik collection (including Silver Efex Pro). It continued (continues?) to be available but for the past couple of years, it hasn't been compatible as a plug-in with the newer versions of Lightroom/Photoshop. The Nik collection was taken over by DXO who continue to support and develop it. But DXO does charge $160 for the whole collection. There are of course many B/W plugins and presets available for Lightroom but Silver Efex Pro is still regarded is one of the best ones.

Interesting. I once used the Canon Digital Professional but I haven't done so in many years. I have a Canon EOS DSLR and I just use the EOS Utility software to transfer raw photos from my camera to my Laptop. Like you, I use Lightroom and Photoshop. Implicitly relying on Adobe to do the raw conversion. Canon claims -probably rightly - that Digital Professional does a better job at converting and correcting raw data than Adobe does. But Adobe is fine for my purposes. Just of interest, I looked up the new version 4 of Digital Professional. Three things struck me: - it's 'deep learning' is aimed at raw data 'correction and enhancement' related to noise and lens corrections - it only works - at the moment - with a range of RF (mirrorless) lenses - Compared to the Adobe 'Photography plan' (LR + PS) subscription fee of $10 p.m., the Digital Professional subscription plan of roughly $6 p.m. seems ridiculously high I guess some people who want the very best quality raw data from their (mirrorless) kit, the investment might be worth it. And there's a 30-day free trial period. But it's not something I'd personally buy into. Especially since none of my EF lenses are supported!

I struggled with this one 😉. I might try a B/W version. For this version: - sharpened the profile and texture of the rocks a bit with a High Pass filter - added a bit of orange to the sky - added some blue to the deeper and mid-shadows - adjusted the final brightness with curves

Hi @john_wheeler6and @TonyW, A hearty welcome from me to the PP challenge threads! I really enjoyed seeing both your PP versions and I hope you both continue to contribute. The active PP challenge contributors has dwindled somewhat over the past year or two. Perhaps as a result of my crap image posts 😉. Anyway, I'm delighted to see some 'new blood' in this PP challenge! Best wishes, Mike PS. @tom_r and @Glenn McCreeryregularly post PP challenges too. I completely understand if you both first want to check out the PP challenge threads. But everyone is very welcome to post a weekly PP challenge!