mikemorrellNL

I don't think AI either encourages or discourages creativity. It's worth distinguishing between creativity in ' photography' and creativity in the wider field of 'visual arts'. I've never used AI (nor do I intend to) but - like @samstevens - I can see the the possibilities in 'visual arts'. AI is still a relatively new (emerging) technology. Many of the current image-based AI tools focus on generating 'new' images - in a known style - based on from text input, having 'learned' from a vast database of current images. Some AI tools take uploaded user images as input too. I have no idea what other user parameters might influence AI-generated image output. I assume that - like traditional post-processing - using an AI tool is an iterative process. Tweaking the 'inputs' to generate different 'outputs'. Scanning through some the short descriptions and examples, the current AI tools seem just fun to use. How they might eventually be used by creative visual artists, I have no idea. At my local ' contemporary visual arts' exhibition (still called a Photo Festival), some 'visual artists' have for years applied technology in different ways to express and communicate (in part) their 'artistic vision or message'. For example, by synthesizing multiple photos, applying CGI, etc. Alongside more traditional photographers. So I see AI as being just one more tool that creative visual artists can use.

Very true, Sam! But I also believe 'attitude' and 'motivation' play a part too. OT but the content of many newspapers and news magazines (and now their on-line presence) is seen as 'skewed' towards a political (left/right leaning) or social (often educational) segment of the population. In the US, the same is probably true for radio & TV channels. So it seems that many people choose media that 'echo' their ideological beliefs. Or at least don't contradict them. The algorithm-driven 'social media bubbles' have been well-documented. I've always tried to deliberately read and watch media that - on the face of it - conflict with my personal ideological and political beliefs and preferences. Just to get a 'balanced view' from different perspectives. I hope that many others do too. But I admit that staying within your 'echo chamber' and 'social bubble' is easier and more comfortable. FWIW, I think that the same kind of principle applies to image creators too. There are photographers that believe that 'true photography' has certain well-defined boundaries. Others embrace - to a certain extent - the 'enhancements' that post-processing offers. And others embrace the belief that 'anything goes' (including AI) in creating an image. This principle applies IMHO to certain 'photographic genres' too. Not so prevalent at PN but more prevalent at other photo sites such as 500 px where photos are 'rated' by members. There, for example, it's clearer that a certain style of 'Landscape photos' consistently scores highly. I have no idea, but my guess is that 500 px members see these as examples to aspire to and to emulate. So this is in itself a photographic 'bubble'. The same applies to many 'street photographers' that believe that B/W photos somehow identify themselves as 'street photographers' (whatever the content). At PN, we have many 'bubbles' mostly (IMHO) based on equipment. So a photo taken with camera brand/type x is often to be found in a different category to a photo taken with camera brand/type y. To summarize, I totally agree that education helps a lot. I also think that 'breaking out of conventions' requires a certain attitude and motivation, This is why I value true artists. They learn from the past and are able to create something new,

I think you're probably right, Tony. At least in the UK, US media (and culture) regarding nudity has for some years (rightly or wrongly) been viewed as being more sensitive that the UK and for example Scandinavian countries. That said, it does worry me that the vast majority of nude photos I come across are of women. Nude photos of men seem (to me) to be in the minority. Depicting (semi-) nude women in art is a long tradition (by predominantly male artists). Anno 2023, I would have expected that the gender of 'models' would have been more even. I have no idea, but it would interesting to correlate the gender of photographers with the gender of their nude models. I have no objection to nude photos. I do object to a) the imbalance between male and female 'nude models' and photos of women in certain poses that suggest that they are taken for male (or female) 'titillation'.

Good question, Alan! Personally (with a background in IT), I'm interested in the evolution of AI and how it may affect society. In practice, I have very little to do with AI and very little motivation to apply it. So I'm basically an 'AI observer'. For some years, I think 'photography' has become just one of the many basic forms of 'image creation'. At least, in some genres of photography. For example, 'video stills' became photos. Manipulation of out-of-camera images has been with us since pretty much the start of photography. Digital manipulation became easier than analogue (film) manipulation and eventually (via Photoshop) available to all. These days, the extent to which 'out-of-camera images' can be manipulated in post-processing is endless. IMHO Photography has also become just one skill in the repertoire of 'visual artists' who use multimedia to express their (partly) visual art. So on to Internet, art photography and AI. Visual artists sometimes employ (physical) 'found photos' to express their artistic vision and 'found photos' on internet too. Art photography is a much-debated term but it IMHO generally implies that an artist uses photography (with other media and with PP) in their artistic expression. So onto AI. Some artists decide to generate images directly without any input from photography, preferring AI-generated images. In a completely other genre, commercial organisations (like Ikea) have for some years 'generated' product images + backgrounds. Unlike people of our age, kids and students nowadays are taught to be 'digitally aware'. In other words, whenever they see a post, video or photo they are taught to: - question the reliability of the source - search for confirming sources - etc. In other words, kids are taught not to immediately believe what they see and read. So these days, no video, photo or text has any 'truth' unless you can verify this.

It's good that you've made the call for B&W and I'm not in any way suggesting you change that. I've never visited GCT but FWIW, I really your GCT photo. Converging verticals don't bother me so much and are not so difficult to adjust in PP. What I really like about the photo is that some 80% shows the serene 'beaux art' design of the interior - particularly the restored 'celestial ceiling' in all its glory. And the bottom 20% contrasts this (for me) with the modern bubbub of modern life and travel. I just like this juxtaposition between relative 'timelessness' (19th century) and relative 'transience'. FWIW, I also really like your B/W photo of the Carnegie Mellon stairs too. Both the form of the staircase and the interplay of multiple textures/patterns. Just a suggestion to ignore if it's not useful: if you haven't already done so, you might want to google your candidate images on keywords (GCT, Princeton.Gothic/Cloister Arches, Carnegie Mellon Staircase, etc.). Just to compare you photo's with similar ones. We both have no idea what the acceptance/judging criteria might be. But 'something different' (rather than a well executed photo) just might be a criterium. As far as I can quickly see from internet, there are few GCT photos with a similar perspective to yours. So your CCT photo 'all-encompassing' perspective is relatively rare. Your 'Princeton Arches' photo is excellent. Just be aware that there are many more similar 'Arches' photo's floating around on Internet. So the 'Arches' photo looks to me to be relatively ubiquitous. In that similar photos could be taken at many cathedral cloisters. Your 'Carnegie Mellon Staircase' photo - with this quality - looks to be relatively scarce. The only comparable photo I've found at finartamerica retails in poster format (with a 10% discount) at $100. I'm not suggesting that content 'uniqueness' in standing out from the photo crowd is - or should be - a criterium. Just that it might be. If the criteria are 90% 'photographic skill' and 10% 'content' then any well-taken and interesting photo would be fine. I'm not sure whether there's a 'theme' to this exhibition or who the judges are. It does occur to me that if you work for a 'large commuter railroad agency' and it's an employee exhibition then the GCT photo might just fit in well with 'railroad'. Good luck!

I fail to detect any difference too. Both on my Laptop and on my phone.

Well said! It's always a personal choice to what extent you want to embrace evolving tech. FWIW, I now couldn't imagine life without a Smartphone and my useful apps. Though I also have good friends who refuse to buy in to the idea of 'smartphones'. Similarly I have good friends who refuse to buy into the idea of 'social media', I believe that 'photography' is only a very small segment in how the ever developing maturity and applications of AI may impact our lives and increasingly those of our children, grandchildren and generations to come. We have for many years had a relatively primitive type of AI that targets social media (and e-mail spam) messages towards our internet-tracked 'interests'. AI is now also being applied in (general) internet queries, chat dialogues with organisations, etc.. So not only to flagging voice/message 'keyword triggers'. Many years ago, I saw a demo of a video-camera driven AI app that claimed to detect 'suspicious behavior' of pedestrians. I'm sure it's been been much improved by now. Combined with improved AI-driven face (or number plate) recognition, we're IMHO not far off from the 1998 'Enemy of the State' film scenario (starring Will Smith) where 'the state' is not just tracking 'enemies' but anyone who appears to behave 'suspiciously'. Or anyone, just in case, they may do some something 'suspicious' in the futur. My hope is that than even future AI is designed to respect Asimov's '3 laws of Robotics'. Just as in the past 'administrative and factory automation' have made many manual production workers redundant, I expect that visual AI has and will make many photographers and video photographers redundant in some genres. Notably product photography. I read that 75% of the photos in the Ikea catalog have (for years) been CGI-generated. So 'dealing with' AI for photography (embracing it, rejecting it, selecting the bits you want to embrace/reject) remains IMHO a personal choice. As @samstevens says, for every new 'tech development', a 'retro movement' usually develops.

I fully agree with all the previous comments. If you're (in the future) considering converting other photos to B/W, then I would recommend checking out Silver Efex Pro. It's the best 'B/W tool' (plugin) that I've ever found. Not only in terms of (adjustable) B/W 'style' but also in terms of adjusting local areas of grey values. And adding a range of 'finishes'. Silver FX Pro once used to be a free 'plugin' from Google. Part of the (free) 'Nik collection' of Google apps. Then Google disowned the 'Nik collection' and said that they no longer supported it. The 'unsupported' (free) version continued to work with Adobe products until some Adobe update a year or two ago. My old Nik collection 'free version' hasn't worked as an Adobe plugin since then. Dxo.com took over the 'Nik collection' from Google and now provide further development, maintenance, support, etc. As you might guess the current (updated) 'Nik collection' is no longer free. The current version (for all Nik Plugins) is priced at about $160. I haven't checked whether the free 'legacy' version of the Nik collection is still available as a download (probably) and whether the collection can be used as stand-alone programs (independently of Adobe programs). I have no idea what your future use of color -> B/W conversions might be or what your budget is. DXO offers a free 'trial version' of each of its Nik apps. I suggest you try out the Silver Efex Pro app to decide whether it's worth the money. You might want to tryout a couple other apps too. From what I read, all apps come as a bundle for about $160. You might be able to negotiate fort just 1 or 2 apps.

Good question that has drawn some good and thought-provoking responses. Your question provoked me to read up more (on internet) about 'art photography'. There are of course different opinions. But the differences have definitely given me a wider perspective, so thank you for that Just my 4 cts (IMHO): - The question of 'what is art?' (in general) has been floating around forever without any generally agreed conclusion ever having been reached; So I'm definitely not weighing in on this 🙂. As far as I'm aware, much of what (retrospectively) is considered 'art' has to do with a) innovation/variation in insights, artistic processes (think perspective, 'realistic artists', impressionists, cubists, etc.), and b) innovation in vision, message and/or content matter (think Warhol, Damien Hurst, Jeff Koons, Tracy Emin, enz). And/or a) and b). - IMHO, a similar process applies to photographers now considered 'artists'. For their insight, innovation/variation (at the time) on established processes and/or content matter. At least (as with most artists) the insight/innovations/variations that gained some publicity😉. So IMHO, some street photography can be considered as artistic according to the criteria above (for example Henri Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand - both of whom were innovative both in 'content' and (photographic) process - but believe me, the vast majority of 'street photos' posted on photo sites really don't have any artistic value! - I totally agree with previous posters who point out that today's 'street photographers' often opt for B/W because they IMHO believe that they're conforming to an older 'street photography' tradition. And that publishing B/W photos somehow 'legitimizes' their photos as 'street photos'. - FWIW, I'm in no way averse to B/W photos! I also sometimes publish photos in B/W. But my motivation is always 'does this photo look better in color or B/W?' rather than publishing in B/W to conform to imagined historic standards of a certain 'genre'. So to come back to your original question, yes I think that B/W in street photography is sometimes a 'snobbish Art' but perhaps more often a (misplaced) 'desire to conform' to a long past B/W tradition.

Love it, Tom!

My 3 cts: - Have faith in the competence of our mods/admins that they are doing everything possible both to prevent spam and delete any spam that gets though. - Support for all the efforts of our hard-working mods/admins is more appropriate than criticisme - Whenever you feel that - despite the ongoing efforts of our mods/admins - that the current incarnation of PN is just not for you, you're always free to leave.

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.

My thanks for this post too. And for @samstevens's reply. I see what you mean. I tend not to notice artifacts but I found this 15 minute Youtube video on 'over-editing' (and artifacts) helpful.

Hi Sam, I don't - with very few exceptions - shoot videos. And if I do, I shoot them on a 10-year old camera. Times have changed a lot since then and most modern cameras have far more advanced video-options. In general, when trying to find out what recent developments have to offer, I rely on Google. For example, this link. But there are of course more Google links. One thing I notice with video photographers is that some(sometimes) use a tripod and others (sometimes use a stabilizer/gimbal to stabilize their video recordings. I don't know what your friends' sons' preferences are but IMHO just a 'better camera' won't really cut it for video recordings. He IMHO also needs to think about the kind of situations in which he would like to record video. And factor 'stabilization equipment' (tripod/stabilizer/gimbal) into his budget. My impression is that would be feasible. Mike

The eyes have it! On an IPhone, I think you did well! I agree that the 2nd photo is the best of the bunch because your daughter's eyes are more sharply in focus. But still not 'tack sharp'. It depends a bit on the portrait but in general (with a better camera/lense), focusing on your daughter's eyes - and catchlights - usually bring portraits 'to life'. A better camera would also enable you to use 'burst mode': a series of shots within 1-2 seconds from which you can select the 'best photos'. In terms of what your daughter's doing, where she's looking (preferably into the camera now and then) and how 'in focus' (eyes) your shots are, etc. A 'better camera' doesn't automatically mean a new one. There are many good 2nd hand cameras (and lenses) available that will do the job. FWIW, I still use a 2nd hand 2012 camera for (voluntary) 'portrait photography' just because I've never found a sound reason to 'upgrade'. These days, much better 2nd hand cameras (and lenses) are available.

I really like your composition and timing as it is. There are three people (a triangle) who interact with each other to accomplish a common task (casting a net). I like the easy and friendly way in the way these people interact with each other. There's obviously a good personal relationship between them. Photographically (to me) the way you've captured the net is two things at once. The fine, flowing structure of the (white) supports and the almost transparent flowing structure of the net create (for me) a 'magical' structure. At the same time, the lower edge of the net where it hits the water, suggests 'action, dynamic, real-time'. I personally think that this is a truly wonderful photo in that it combines both the well-composed 'human interaction' with the 'magical' and 'action' qualities of the net. It's colorful so that both the boats and the people stand out well against the yellow/brown background. I agree with @httpwww.photo.netbarry that the inside (blue/purple) inside edge to the frame doesn't add anything to the photo and IMHO detracts from it. There have been some comments on sharpness and saturation but IMHO these are entirely up to you. Just play around with the levels of sharpness and saturation to see whether you prefer a different balance to this one or not. IHMO, the qualities of this photo in terms of composition and timing are well worth the time and effort of further 'tinkering'! I'm aware of some (past?) geographical and cultural differences regarding the 'presentation' of photos. Including saturation and sharpness levels. Some cultures seem to prefer 'bold (saturated) colors', others more subdued/natural (less saturated) colors. Your choice. Leaving aside the questions of sharpness/saturation in post-processing, I really love this photo for all the reasons given above. Congratulations! Mike I've read that there are 'geographical and cultural preferences' for how 'good photos' should look. I have a vage mem

FWIW, I think Jos Avery has been quite creative in combining the use of AI (Midjourney) with more traditional post-processing tools like Photoshop. I do believe that he (like others) had the initial intention of fooling people into believing his images were 'real photographs'. Just to demonstrate how well 'portraits' can be artificially created. Unfortunately he got carried away and deliberately misled his 'followers' for far too long. That was fraudulent. If he had been upfront early on about how he created these 'portraits', there would IMHO be no fraud. Just a 'digital artist' who uses AI to create realistic-looking portraits. TBH, there are other AI tools that can be used to generate portraits, photos of cars, furniture and of course cats. My guess is that the use of 'AI-generated photos' will only increase over time.

Just 4 comments: - I'm a very amateur sax player and I enjoying playing in amateur bands. The majority of sax players (professional, semi-professional and amateur) play way better than I do. But I still enjoy learning to play better. I sometimes play sax solos but I hate playing a 'written out' solo or just just repeating a solo that has worked for me before. I always (for better or worse) want to try out something new. Usually a variation on something I've played before. It's always a risk. I have to trust in my ability to 'come up with something 'on the fly' that sounds OK. Sometimes I fail abysmally, But I always try and learn from my failures. The parallel I see with photography is: take the photos that personally interest you and don't feel obliged to conform to any 'standards'. Experiment. For amateur photography (in general) the photographer is the only person who can say "I'm pleased with this", "this is junk" and/or "if I was to take this kind of photo in the future, then I would (improve) ....". - In psychology, there's a term called 'locus of control'. In other words, to what extent is your behavior determined by what you (personally) want to achieve and to what extent is it determined by what others ask (or expect)? With respect to photography, the two different 'locus of control' poles seem to me to be about "to what extent do you take photos that you personally want take and to what extent are the photos you take influenced by other photographers? - There's absolutely no 'pressure' to take different photos than you do now. If you're happy with your photos, just enjoy them. But for some people (including amatateur photographers) the motivation to 'continue learning' is embedded in their personality. There's also exposure to more accomplished photographers that inspire amateur photographers to aspire to a similar level. Much as with sax players😉. - Photographic equipment (from a full-blown in-house or mobile studio to a simple mobile) always serves IMHO a purpose. A mobile phone is convenient and mobile anmid is great for many on-the-fly situations. I use by mobile increasingly as my go-to camera. But there are situations for which a mobile phone doesn't cut it. For miexample, situations in which you need a longer (interchangeable) lens. Mike PS. Here endeth my reading for today😉

15 minute comment time exceeded so I'll keep it short: - the photo is of the Amer centrale, a power station in NL - i took the original photo taken almost 8 years ago on a pleasurable day trip with with friends on a rented boat towards a local nature reserve - I recently moved to the minimality that includes this power station and I gradually got involved with an 'ecology' group - I've since learned that the emissions are mainly Nitrogen (you can't see it, you can't smell it but it still damages air quality and 'the environment'' - I've since learned that the river 'Amer' is polluted by shipping and emissions I'm no 'eco-warrior' and my version is not intended as an ecological or political statement. I just tried to highlight (with color) the findings of publicable available measurements.

See comment below.

@BismuthJust out of interest, what kind of lense (focal length) do you use to capture these kinds of photos? With an 1.4 extender, I can get to about 600mm on my current full-frame camera with a 400mm lense. And about 800mm on my much older (1.4) crop camera. Mike

I'm neither a bird-watcher nor a bird photographer (though I do enjoy photographing birds too). My 2 cts.: - I really like both photos. Both are sharp and colorful but I prefer the 2nd because it shows more of the habitat. In the 2nd photo, I also really like the 'color harmony' between the yellow in the wingtips and tail and the yellows in the vegetation; blue is the contrasting color for yellow. In the 2nd photo I also like the way the 'diagonal angle' of the birds' bodies is opposite to that of the flower stems. So just in terms of compositional 'lines', the birds stand out from the background. So all in all, I find the 2nd photo more interesting in terms of composition. Yes it's pretty much impossible to 'compose' a photo of birds (from a distance through a long lense) that may fly away (or move) to somewhere else at any moment. But sometimes you just have to be thankful for 'serendipity' 🙂 - Your 2nd photo looks to be a 2:3 photo (portrait mode) which works really well for this photo. The 1st photo is square implying that it's a crop. I don't know whether the original was taken in landscape or portrait mode and the crop is always your choice - I personally regard 'composition' in 2 stages: the first - and most important - is in the viewfinder of your camera, the second is in post-processing (cropping). Wildlife, especially (including Birds) but other genres too have the specific challenge of trying to get (optically) close enough to capture the fine details while allowing some 'space' for possible cropping. So IMHO - with very little experience - wildlife photography has to balance the 'optical zoom' with the 'space' around the subject for possible cropping (= recomposition in post-processing). Too much space and you lose the detail. Too little space and you limit your options for 'recomposing' in post-processing. To the extent you don't already do this, I suggest: 1) always shoot in 'burst mode' (to capture multiple shots per second of whatever you're photographing - birds move fast!) 2) always shoot in 'RAW' (so you can adjust exposure, white balance, etc. in post-processing if need be) 3) If you have the time and opportunity take photos in both landscape and portrait orientation; sometimes you don't know what works best until you see your shots on a screen (and decide which ones are 'best' and how best to crop them). To summarize, I love both photos and I truly hope you'll upload more in a personal/private 'gallery'. FWIW - ignoring the superb photography - I associate your 1st photo with a 'macho bird': wide leg stance, challenging posture - not a bird to be messed with😉. I associate your 2nd photo more with a (bickering?) couple. However personal and wrong my associations might be, I find it interesting that both of your photos inspire some kind of 'association' in me. Neither are 'passive'. So (to me) boring they are not!

IHMO, this is a defeatist attitude. Will we ever defeat spam completely? Probably not. But - with no access to the 'Administrators Control Panel' (ACP) I suspect - just as a member - that there is perhaps more that we could do. I - accept - primarily - the statement by PN-admins that they are unable to install (anti-spam) plug-ins. I do wonder why they - on this specific website - have this restriction. Mike PS. I've made it abundantly clear in PM's and in forums that I'm willing (and reasonably able) to join the fight against spammers. No response so far.

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. Mike