AI Photography

[Sangoma]

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

Well yes, at least for the last 30 years or so.
They are just a digital camera, flash, printer and document feeder in one box

 

[sphexx]

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.

#18

 

[RichardC27]

#18

That'll teach me to read the whole thread properly!

FWIW I don't think AI generated images are photographs, they are CGI but it's an interesting topic.

 

[Dave Canon]

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 is very different. If I produce a composite all components would be MY photographs and how I assemble it and thus the final image is down to my artistic skills or lack of them.

Dave

 

[sphexx]

That'll teach me to read the whole thread properly!

FWIW I don't think AI generated images are photographs, they are CGI but it's an interesting topic.

Yes, I don’t think the AI images are photos. It’s not really important until one tries to set rules and definitions and then it becomes a “minefield” … as I said earlier ㋡

 

[Phil V]

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.

As per my previous, an AI image is completely created without the capturing of light.

It’s an interesting perspective that AI images owe their existence to actual photos, but it’s not really relevant as the image isn’t a photograph in quite simply the literal sense.

 

[Plain Nev]

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.

I don't think it is. That's probably why we do it. It might be going off on a bit of a tangent but any photograph is an interpretation, if you like. They are composed in such a way that they reflect what we see from a photographers viewpoint. And there is undoubtedly artistic license involved in that.

 

[Phil V]

I simply don’t understand how the question is considered complex.

I might be the idiot, but it does what it says on the tin: Photo (light) graph (draw/paint).

 

[TimHughes]

As the AI tech gets better and better it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between an AI-generated image and a photo, as evidenced in the OP. Non-photographers probably don't care about the distinction.

 

[sphexx]

I simply don’t understand how the question is considered complex.

I might be the idiot, but it does what it says on the tin: Photo (light) graph (draw/paint).

You disagreed with me back at #15 when I wrote “Its a minefield for definitions” but 30+ posts later I think my point is proven

 

[Phil V]

You disagreed with me back at #15 when I wrote “Its a minefield for definitions” but 30+ posts later I think my point is proven

My post at #4
Haven’t changed my stance

 

[Raymond Lin]

As the AI tech gets better and better it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between an AI-generated image and a photo, as evidenced in the OP. Non-photographers probably don't care about the distinction.

There’s 2 different and distinct points being made here.

1 - whether you care.
2 - whether it is a photograph

People should not mix up the two. Just because you don’t care does not make it so. As my example with a plant based burger, just because you can’t tell the difference and is happy to eat one, it doesn’t magically turn a plant based burger into a beef burger.

 

[TimHughes]

There’s 2 different and distinct points being made here.

1 - whether you care.
2 - whether it is a photograph

People should not mix up the two. Just because you don’t care does not make it so. As my example with a plant based burger, just because you can’t tell the difference and is happy to eat one, it doesn’t change a plant based burger into a beef burger.

Thanks Raymond I agree. I do expect that most people don’t care as the results are indistinguishable.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Thanks Raymond I agree. I do expect that most people don’t care as the results are indistinguishable.

It depends on the field you are in.

Do you want to look at a capture of a real eagle in the wild, or happy to see a fake one but looks real? Or pick any rare wild animal in the wild.

or weddings, do you want a fake wedding party or a real one? Perhaps one day you can even AI generate a dead family member back into life! I’m sure some people would want that. There’s a service where a company can AI generate a video call to a dead love one for you…for like a 5 figure sum. Like you are talking to them from beyond the grave. People just want that comfort and put the truth and science in the background on ignore.

Clothing company will certainly don’t care, they can design clothes, AI it into fake models and then put out an ad, in any location or weather conditions.

Reality is constantly being challenged and distorted, especially on a screen, I, however, being someone who loves taking photographs, would want to see real photographs, as behind each photo is a story, and I can tell you one behind everyone of those that I took. You can’t behind an AI image beyond the prompt.

 

[TimHughes]

Personally, I do care and very concerned with the ability of the tech to deceive people. But research shows people believe what they want to believe to be true because we are wired to accept images that confirm our beliefs and reject them if they don’t.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...it doesn’t magically turn a plant based burger into a beef burger.

But if you don't care about grammar and spelling why should you care if it's a beefburger made of beef or a beefburger made of plant?

 

[Phil V]

But if you don't care about grammar and spelling why should you care if it's a beefburger made of beef or a beefburger made of plant?

Ffs
You still haven’t realised English is his second language?
Or are you doubling down on being a douche

 

[woof woof]

I think some AI I've seen looks beautiful and it's definitely an art form but it's not photography and these are not photographs and they don't belong in a photography competition or exhibit just as the Mona Lisa doesn't. I may be in a literal mood today but I just don't see any question or debate here. Beautiful and artistic, at times yes. Photographs? Er, No.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Ffs
You still haven’t realised English is his second language?
Or are you doubling down on being a douche

3rd actually...

 

[Phil V]

Cameras existed before photography and are simply the device that allows an image to be projected into a light tight space.

It’s the capturing of reflected light that creates a ‘photo-graph’. Whether that’s as a chemical or digital process.

So yes a photogram is a photographic process. And CGI is not a photographic process (no camera). And a painting or drawing made with the use of a ‘camera’ isn’t a photograph, because it’s not the light that’s creating the image, it’s brushes or pencils or pens.

And early on in the history of photography, the powers that be decided that an amount of post capture manipulation was allowed to still be classed as photography.

It’s only problematic if you fail to grasp the literal meaning of photograph.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It’s only problematic if you fail to grasp the literal meaning of photograph.

Your definition refers to the original meaning of photography. Meanings shift with time. Take 'editing' in the context of photography. It's a losing lost battle trying to people they aren't editing their photographs when they manipulate them in Photoshop!

So yes a photogram is a photographic process.

But does it create photographs?

Is the photograph the initially captured image (negative/slide/digital file) or is it the thing we look at to view a picture?

Are inkjet prints photographs?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Your definition refers to the original meaning of photography. Meanings shift with time. Take 'editing' in the context of photography. It's a losing lost battle trying to people they aren't editing their photographs when they manipulate them in Photoshop!


But does it create photographs?

Is the photograph the initially captured image (negative/slide/digital file) or is it the thing we look at to view a picture?

Are inkjet prints photographs?

I disagree that it loses meaning. I think you are trying to change it's meaning.

They are 2 different things.

As i said, what you think something is, and what something is actually is are 2 different things. It is like you are trying to change the name of Lead into Gold. And even if you do change the name of Lead to Gold, the actual make up of it doesn't change. How it is formed doesn't change underneath. Only your perception of it.

What you think it is doesn't change what it is.

We might as well abandon all words and say "I am Groot".

 

[Raymond Lin]

A photograph has a story behind it, from before it was taken, to after it was taken. Life goes on before and after the click.

What does an AI image has? The guy pressing a different key on his keyboard.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I disagree that it loses meaning. I think you are trying to change it's meaning.

They are 2 different things.

As i said, what you think something is, and what something is actually is are 2 different things. It is like you are trying to change the name of Lead into Gold. And even if you do change the name of Lead to Gold, the actual make up of it doesn't change. How it is formed doesn't change underneath. Only your perception of it.

What you think it is doesn't change what it is.

We might as well abandon all words and say "I am Groot".

If we are going to play the pedantry game, I didn't say anything lost its meaning, and I'm not the one altering meanings.

Changing meanings of words is a societal, cultural thing. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39

 

[Raymond Lin]

If we are going to play the pedantry game, I didn't say anything lost its meaning, and I'm not the one altering meanings.

Changing meanings of words is a societal, cultural thing. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39

Sure changing words is a natural language progression but not everything.

An Apple is always an Apple, and not an Orange.

What you get if you do is confuse people, like most people think a strawberry is a berry, it's not. A banana is a berry, a cucumber is a berry. Raspberry is also not a berry. (you may already know this)

On a personal level, and anyone who has ever taken a photo should agree with me.....What is worse is that giving credit to an AI Image where there is none. To me, to take a photograph takes work, takes me to travel to places, takes me to plan, execute, edit, and process. To call an AI image a photograph is to give credit to where there is none, to diminish the work of a photographer, to diminish your work, to diminish my work.

It's not pedantry at all, as I said, you would never call a Vegan Burger a Beef Burger, even if you can't tell the difference (and that is your problem). They share the word in Burger, like a photograph is also an Image, but a plant based burger is not a beef burger, and never will be.

On so many levels, it isn't a photograph. From the meaning of the actual word, from the execution of it, from the physical taking and planning and editing of it, from the story before it was taken and the event that took place where the camera was. So many things has to take place for a photograph to happen.

That is a photograph.

vs, "So you think it looks like one, it is one". That's such an empty argument. Some people can paint like a photograph too, they are very talented and those paintings are amazing, but it doesn't make their paintings a photograph.

What you are doing is looking at the final result, but not under the surface.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If we are going to play the pedantry game,

As a fully qualified pedant, I find the identity of your persecutor in this instance, shall we say, interesting....

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

To me, to take a photograph takes work, takes me to travel to places, takes me to plan, execute, edit, and process. To call an AI image a photograph is to give credit to where there is none, to diminish the work of a photographer, to diminish your work, to diminish my work.

It would be interesting to know just how many of the general population would regard taking a photograph as work.

I suspect that a substantial majority would be perplexed by the idea...

 

[Phil V]

Your definition refers to the original meaning of photography. Meanings shift with time. Take 'editing' in the context of photography. It's a losing lost battle trying to people they aren't editing their photographs when they manipulate them in Photoshop!


But does it create photographs?

Is the photograph the initially captured image (negative/slide/digital file) or is it the thing we look at to view a picture?

Are inkjet prints photographs?

The principle is still simple; you’re looking for holes where none exist.
When meanings are literal, they don’t shift with time.
To photograph means the same now as it always did.
I presume by ‘editing’ you mean post capture alterations of the image? It’s not a battle, it became an accepted part of the process as soon as the negative was invented. If we follow that line, photoshop was designed to replicate those processes, and whilst it’s cleaner and easier - it’s not changed much in over a hundred years.

The ‘thing we look at’ is a print or an image on a screen. ‘Photograph’ refers to the method of capture, the method of transmission or display is something else entirely.

It’s still entirely simple, questions only arise when you ‘want’ to ignore the first principle.

 

[Cobra]

As a fully qualified pedant, I find the identity of your persecutor in this instance, shall we say, interesting....

I've ignored the last few RTM's about your posts, but its gone far enough now, either join in sensibly, and move on,
or move out.

 

[woof woof]

It would be interesting to know just how many of the general population would regard taking a photograph as work.

I suspect that a substantial majority would be perplexed by the idea...

Well, if you're a professional photographer taking a photograph could well be described as work.

I do sometimes cringe a bit when people on forums who are AFAIK amateurs talk about their "work" and I'd never do that but to each their own and looking back on a lifetimes collection of photographs I wouldn't really have a problem with someone describing it as their life's work. If photography meant that much to them.

 

[Phil V]

Well yes, at least for the last 30 years or so.
They are just a digital camera, flash, printer and document feeder in one box

Well technically not a flash, a short to medium burst of continuous light. But other than that I agree.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I've ignored the last few RTM's about your posts, but its gone far enough now, either join in sensibly, and move on,
or move out.

Point taken, my apologies.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I presume by ‘editing’ you mean post capture alterations of the image? It’s not a battle, it became an accepted part of the process as soon as the negative was invented. If we follow that line, photoshop was designed to replicate those processes, and whilst it’s cleaner and easier - it’s not changed much in over a hundred years.

That's not what I was on about.

Editing is the selection and ordering of pictures. It is not, and as far as I know never was, what was done in the darkroom and is now done in Lightroom/Photoshop. Yet it's become the norm to call making 'post capture alterations' 'editing'.

I'm not looking for non-existent holes, I have no problem with photography being defined as drawing with light. I'm interested in what a photograph is considered to be.

 

[Cobra]

Point taken, my apologies.

Thanks

 

[Ed Sutton]

"So you think it looks like one, it is one".

Again, that is not my argument. But I reckon some people may well do.

 

[Sangoma]

Well technically not a flash, a short to medium burst of continuous light. But other than that I agree.

Xerox were using a Xenon discharge tube which is why I called it a flash.
Used to run 1090s, 5100 and Docutech, but only the Docutech and later saved the image digitally and could change the image on every copy at 100 copies a minute.
I've been out of printing now for over 20 years, but the latest copiers I used about four years ago I don't think used a xenon tube, as it was more like you described, certainly wasn't a brief flash. They were much smaller Konica MPMs though.

 

[Phil V]

That's not what I was on about.

Editing is the selection and ordering of pictures. It is not, and as far as I know never was, what was done in the darkroom and is now done in Lightroom/Photoshop. Yet it's become the norm to call making 'post capture alterations' 'editing'.

I'm not looking for non-existent holes, I have no problem with photography being defined as drawing with light. I'm interested in what a photograph is considered to be.

I think you’ve answered your own question.
If you accept that photography is drawing with light, then a photograph is an image that is drawn with light. The media used to view that image is another question.

A photographic print is a print of a photograph, a projected photograph is a projected photograph, and a photograph displayed on a monitor is just that too.

I suppose there’s a deep question regarding the latent image or its digital equivalent. But that’s a ‘tree falling in an empty forest’ kind of issue best left to philosophy students driven by marijuana rather than tea fuelled photographers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I've been out of printing now for over 20 years, but the latest copiers I used about four years ago I don't think used a xenon tube, as it was more like you described, certainly wasn't a brief flash. They were much smaller Konica MPMs though.

The last time I talked to a copier tech, perhaps five years ago, he told me that virtually all the copiers he worked on were laser printers in all but name, with a scanner head on top.

 

[sphexx]

I presume by ‘editing’ you mean post capture alterations of the image? It’s not a battle, it became an accepted part of the process as soon as the negative was invented.

I thought Dave was refering to the original meaning of edit in connection with photography which meant (and still means) selection of photographs either by the photographer or, for example, bu the photo editor of a newspaper.

Both meanings are current.

Edit; I see @Ed Sutton has beaten to it while I was typing

 

[Phil V]

I thought Dave was refering to the original meaning of edit in connection with photography which meant (and still means) selection of photographs either by the photographer or, for example, bu the photo editor of a newspaper.

Both meanings are current.

Edit; I see @Ed Sutton has beaten to it while I was typing

It took an hour to write that?

The ‘proper’ definition of editing? Not sure how it’s relevant tbh.

Each of those images is a photograph whether the photographer chooses to show them to anyone or not, because they are images created by capturing the light reflected off a subject.