AI Photography

[JohnC6]

Here is a photograph generated by AI that won an award at the recent Sony World Photography Awards.

The "photo" https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/ai-photo-win-sony-scli-intl/index.html

Boris Eldagsen, a photographer from Berlin, won in the "Open Creative" category". with his AI image "The Electrician" It was generated by an AI DALL-E2 generator. He jumped on stage, uninvited, at Somerset House, in London, to make the point that AI images were not photography and should not be considered in competitions. He said, "I applied as a cheeky monkey to find out if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter.They are not. AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this.They are different entities. AI is not photography.Therefore I will not accept the award". Recent high-profile AI images have also raised concerns. The Pope wearing a puffer jacket and Donald Trump being arrested.

Here's the Pope "photo" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/busi...ke-ai-generated-photo-cnntm-cprog-sot-vpx.cnn

and DT...in fact the BBC has also shown a photo of Trump praying that he authorised, as well as his "arrest" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65069316

I thought it might generate some interesting discussion on here. I've checked back through the threads to September 2020 and nothing relating to it has been posted.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I've checked back through the threads to September 2020 and nothing relating to it has been posted.

AI image wins award at Sony World Photography Awards

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/14/artist-refuses-prize-after-his-ai-image-wins-at-top-photo-contest/ A photographer has stirred up fresh controversy and debate after his AI image won first prize at one of the world’s most prestigious photography competitions. He has since declined to accept the...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[Plain Nev]

AI photography is a bit of a contradiction in terms. It seems to me. They can only make a picture, not take it.

 

[GreenNinja67]

All digital is AI photography to some extent or another.

 

[:-)]

A photograph is a dimensional reality.
A photograph can never capture the true environmental reality. It’s an impossibility.
All photographs are ‘digitally filtered’ the second they are created.
All photographers use different camera settings to match their aesthetic taste.


AI photography produces photographs that are ‘digitally filtered’ using techniques to make a photo look aesthetically appealing.

They are both not realistic.

 

[Phil V]

A photograph is a dimensional reality.
A photograph can never capture the true environmental reality. It’s an impossibility.
All photographs are ‘digitally filtered’ the second they are created.
All photographers use different camera settings to match their aesthetic taste.


AI photography produces photographs that are ‘digitally filtered’ using techniques to make a photo look aesthetically appealing.

They are both not realistic.

Utter tosh
Could only be written by someone with zero understanding of ‘photograph’.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

An AI generated image isn’t a photograph, it’s a rendering - sometimes photorealistic - of something. If nothing else, no light was used in the creation of an AI image.
They will surely present some interesting opportunities, challenges and dilemmas as the technology improves - it’s still early days. How will it impact commercial photography for example? How will we know if news / documentary photographs are real? How will it impact film making if it becomes possible to blend AI text writing with AI image or video generation?
Maybe it will increase the value (not necessarily monetary) of actual art and photography created by the human hand and mind i.e. where there is a significant human input into the creation of the artefact?

 

[Ed Sutton]

Utter tosh
Could only be written by someone with zero understanding of ‘photograph’.

It's not 'utter' tosh. All photographs are lies. Or, as Parr put it, propaganda. They never show the 'full picture'.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

They never show the 'full picture'.

This has been true since the days of Wedgwood and Niépce.

"Every image is a lie", was (allegedly) a popular saying among painters in previous centuries, as they strove for ever more realism in their work. It was also a driver in the school of Impressionism, according to some historians, with artists attempting to convey emotion rather than accuracy. The idea of "accuracy" in an image is an illusion, which doesn't devalue the image. It just means that we should remember the gap between the reality and the recording of it.

 

[sphexx]

Utter tosh
Could only be written by someone with zero understanding of ‘photograph’.

Regardless of whether it’s “utter tosh” your comment is a bit harsh on someone’s first post and is hardly a reasoned reply .

 

[Plain Nev]

A photograph is a dimensional reality.
A photograph can never capture the true environmental reality. It’s an impossibility.
All photographs are ‘digitally filtered’ the second they are created.
All photographers use different camera settings to match their aesthetic taste.


AI photography produces photographs that are ‘digitally filtered’ using techniques to make a photo look aesthetically appealing.

They are both not realistic.

Ummm.... Film.

 

[Phil V]

It's not 'utter' tosh. All photographs are lies. Or, as Parr put it, propaganda. They never show the 'full picture'.

But that’s ‘all photographs’ which is a vastly different preposition to equating only digital photography to AI based on the technology.

 

[Phil V]

Regardless of whether it’s “utter tosh” your comment is a bit harsh on someone’s first post and is hardly a reasoned reply .

I hadn’t realised it was their first post.

I should have said ‘welcome to TP, but that’s utter tosh.

To ‘photograph’ is to create an image by capturing the light reflected from it.

Am AI image is rendered totally within a computer.

The fact that a digital camera uses a computer to record and render the captured light doesn’t mean the computer created the image, the light did.

It’s a complete technical misunderstanding of the word ‘photograph’.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It’s a complete technical misunderstanding of the word ‘photograph’.

Defining what is 'a photograph' is a whole new can of worms...

 

[sphexx]

I hadn’t realised it was their first post.

I thought so. Also the OP‘s declared age of 18 may mean he has no idea about film etc

I should have said ‘welcome to TP, but that’s utter tosh.

㋡

To ‘photograph’ is to create an image by capturing the light reflected from it.

Am AI image is rendered totally within a computer.

The fact that a digital camera uses a computer to record and render the captured light doesn’t mean the computer created the image, the light did.

It’s a complete technical misunderstanding of the word ‘photograph’.

Its a minefield for definitions

 

[Cobra]

I should have said ‘welcome to TP, but that’s utter tosh.

Don't feel bad, this isn't their first rodeo here

I thought so. Also the OP‘s declared age of 18 may mean he has no idea about film etc

 

[Phil V]

I thought so. Also the OP‘s declared age of 18 may mean he has no idea about film etc

㋡


Its a minefield for definitions

not really.
To photograph literally means to draw (or paint) with light.

So if you’re capturing light to create an image that’s photography.

There’s some sticky discussions regarding any changes to that image which don’t involve light. But historically, any image that includes the act of capturing light, no matter what happens next has been accepted by the world of photography.

Montages etc have been part of photography for over a hundred years.

 

[sphexx]

not really.
To photograph literally means to draw (or paint) with light.

My preferred definition however some claim that a camera must be invoked which, at least historically, is not the case.

So if you’re capturing light to create an image that’s photography.

There’s some sticky discussions regarding any changes to that image which don’t involve light. But historically, any image that includes the act of capturing light, no matter what happens next has been accepted by the world of photography.

Montages etc have been part of photography for over a hundred years.

I do agree but the reason I say it’s a minefield is that many have different ideas and eg some (wrong in my opinion) will say that even extreme AI pictures originated in some sense from photographs (ie ‘real photos) since it was trained on those. Some ‘pictures’ edited in photoshop etc have a very tenuous claim on remaining photographs -x they are more like montages with bits added & subtracted. Although photomontages have a long history I’m not sure they are clearly photographs, especially if they include other artefacts. I guess Hockney’s “joiners” are a kind of montage and possibly are unequivocally photographs?

 

[sphexx]

Don't feel bad, this isn't their first rodeo here

I guess we should have suspected that from the avatar and emoticon

 

[Cobra]

I guess we should have suspected that from the avatar and emoticon

Again, don't feel bad about it, its our job to track down the duplicate accounts, and we are rather good at it, even the seemly innocuous ones.
Although as you say there was a massive hint here

 

[Pete R]

Also, well done to the winning participant. Won more awards than I ever will! Apart from holiday club darts ‘Most Improved’ category.

 

[Sam Tip]

They can only make a picture, not take it.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, most digital photographers take the image with a camera and 'make' it in software. But of course we can choose to capture camera-processed images and make no software adjustments. Or we can shoot film and tinker with scans or at an enlarger.

In my experience to date, making 100s of 'realistic' AI photo-images has been very inspiring and motivational.

 

[Phil V]

In my opinion, for what it's worth, most digital photographers take the image with a camera and 'make' it in software. But of course we can choose to capture camera-processed images and make no software adjustments. Or we can shoot film and tinker with scans or at an enlarger.

In my experience to date, making 100s of 'realistic' AI photo-images has been very inspiring and motivational.

But something being inspiring and motivational doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s ‘photography’.

I enjoy cooking and entertaining, I find it fun and rewarding; but it’s not photography.

 

[Sam Tip]

Hello there Phil.

I thought I had made a rather obvious point? For me AI photo-images have inspired and motivated me in a photography context. So... it's been very much about photography.

These images are immersed in a photographic context and making them (and seeing the work of others) has been photographically inspiring and motivational. Of course, others may not be photographically inspired as I have been in my photographically-centred context. Fair enough...

 

[Phil V]

Hello there Phil.

I thought I had made a rather obvious point? For me AI photo-images have inspired and motivated me in a photography context. So... it's been very much about photography.

These images are immersed in a photographic context and making them (and seeing the work of others) has been photographically inspiring and motivational. Of course, others may not be photographically inspired as I have been in my photographically-centred context. Fair enough...

Just in case you’re confused.
To photo-graph means to create an image by drawing (painting) with light. Any image that starts its life in a computer has zero relationship to photography as a craft.

If you paint or draw or create images in a computer, I can understand that might help feed your creativity. But so might just being out in nature, visiting a gallery or simply day dreaming

 

[Raymond Lin]

Think of AI image (I would not say photography) is like a paint brush to a painting, except now digital, and the brush strokes are so small in each one now it looks like a photograph.

I do not call a painting a photograph, why would you call an AI Image a photograph? Because it looks real, so it must be? Think about that for a minute.

A photograph is light went through a camera, projected on to a "plate", of which a moment of that light has created.

Those who doesn't understand it will argue that "all photos are manipulated, or edited, or processed in some ways and they are not true" Whilst some elements of that may be true, you cannot deny that event happened in front of the lens in the first place, regardless of whether the photographer edited a spot on the subject's face.

Vs..an AI Image generated an event that never actually took place.

I mean, it's not difficult to understand.

 

[sphexx]

Think of AI image (I would not say photography) is like a paint brush to a painting, except now digital, and the brush strokes are so small in each one now it looks like a photograph.

I do not call a painting a photograph, why would you call an AI Image a photograph? Because it looks real, so it must be? Think about that for a minute.

A photograph is light went through a camera, projected on to a "plate", of which a moment of that light has created.

Those who doesn't understand it will argue that "all photos are manipulated, or edited, or processed in some ways and they are not true" Whilst some elements of that may be true, you cannot deny that event happened in front of the lens in the first place, regardless of whether the photographer edited a spot on the subject's face.

Vs..an AI Image generated an event that never actually took place.

I mean, it's not difficult to understand.

As I’m sure you know light being focussed on the wall of a camera (room!) and a two dimensional depiction being created by the application of pigment was the way that some paintings were created in the past. So … were those photographs? I feel they were more similar to photos than the AI creations being discussed here.

 

[RichardC27]

Ummm.... Film.

But is film a realistic portrayal of reality? The same scene shot with the same camera using Portra, Velvia and Superia would look very different due to the different chemical make ups of the film. Not to mention how it's developed etc.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But is film a realistic portrayal of reality? The same scene shot with the same camera using Portra, Velvia and Superia would look very different due to the different chemical make ups of the film. Not to mention how it's developed etc.

We are not talking about how realistic it is, that is not the definition of a photograph...otherwise a Black and White photograph isn't a photograph. Full Stop.

As I’m sure you know light being focussed on the wall of a camera (room!) and a two dimensional depiction being created by the application of pigment was the way that some paintings were created in the past. So … were those photographs? I feel they were more similar to photos than the AI creations being discussed here.

More a tracing than a photograph.

 

[Phil V]

But is film a realistic portrayal of reality? The same scene shot with the same camera using Portra, Velvia and Superia would look very different due to the different chemical make ups of the film. Not to mention how it's developed etc.

The question isn’t whether it’s real (unnecessary rabbit hole).

The question is was the image created by the light reflecting off the subject and being recorded by a light sensitive medium. If it was, that’s literally a photograph. If it wasn’t; it isn’t.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The question is was the image created by the light reflecting off the subject and being recorded by a light sensitive medium. If it was, that’s literally a photograph. If it wasn’t; it isn’t.

Is a photogram a photograph?

To the general public if something looks like a photograph and quacks like a photograph it IS a photograph. AI 'photographs' are here to stay.

I've always rather scoffed at artists saying they work with 'lens based media', but 'lens based photography' might be becoming a useful term!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Is a photogram a photograph?

To the general public if something looks like a photograph and quacks like a photograph it IS a photograph. AI 'photographs' are here to stay.

I've always rather scoffed at artists saying they work with 'lens based media', but 'lens based photography' might be becoming a useful term!

The general public is stupid. Just because a lot of people believe it, it doesn't make it correct. That is a stupid way to define what something is - "looks like one and quacks like one". A vegan burger that looks like real beef and tastes like real beef can be called a burger, but it certainly can't be called a beef burger. Even if it fools the person eating it.

Sometimes distinctions is important.

 

[sphexx]

Is a photogram a photograph?

To the general public if something looks like a photograph and quacks like a photograph it IS a photograph. AI 'photographs' are here to stay.

I've always rather scoffed at artists saying they work with 'lens based media', but 'lens based photography' might be becoming a useful term!

Is a photocopy a photo? Is a photocopier a camera?

 

[RichardC27]

The question isn’t whether it’s real (unnecessary rabbit hole).

The question is was the image created by the light reflecting off the subject and being recorded by a light sensitive medium. If it was, that’s literally a photograph. If it wasn’t; it isn’t.

But, to play Devil's advocate... The generative AI models are trained on millions of photographs. One of the reasons they are so good at faking celebrity images is that they've been trained on lots of celebrity photographs. So is an AI photograph any different from a composite that's been constructed in Photoshop? Would you call a composite a photograph? The origin of the AI image is a lot of photographs, so in essence they have been initially created by light reflecting off a subject onto a light sensitive medium. It's an interesting debate.

 

[Fuji Dave]

My thoughts on it are, if an image was taken/made using a camera then it is a photograph but if an image of what ever is made using this AI lark then it is not a photograph at all as a camera was never used.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But, to play Devil's advocate... The generative AI models are trained on millions of photographs. One of the reasons they are so good at faking celebrity images is that they've been trained on lots of celebrity photographs. So is an AI photograph any different from a composite that's been constructed in Photoshop? Would you call a composite a photograph? The origin of the AI image is a lot of photographs, so in essence they have been initially created by light reflecting off a subject onto a light sensitive medium. It's an interesting debate.

It’s a composite. Like I wouldn’t call a million cut out of different images stuck together a photograph. It’s a collage at best. It can be art but it’s not a photograph.

I see a very clear difference here. Interesting that some people do not see the difference.

What is more interesting is there is this need or desperation to try to group it under the term photograph.

It’s just CGI, photo realistic CGI.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The general public is stupid.

So, in my experience, are those who make sweeping statements about "the general public"...

Sometimes distinctions is important.

...as is the correct use of the plural "are" when referring to "distinctions"...

 

[Nod]

Best of luck in Raymond's first language.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Things that just happened..

Saw ignored the message, wondered who that was, sees the person...then I remember why I put you on ignore!

With no contribution to the thread except attacking me personally.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Best of luck in Raymond's first language.

He might not believe me but I DID notice that mistake and decided to leave it intentionally. Why? i cba lol

ps I have Grammarly installed so it underlines it in red, and i already know the rule anyway...I just chose to ignore it. Like i chose to ignore the "i" not capitalised in this sentence.