4 ms·

This arguments only considers photography as a tool that produces images, while ignoring that it is also a tool that records reality. As an image production ap

by d--b 10y ago

This arguments only considers photography as a tool that produces images, while ignoring that it is also a tool that records reality. As an image production apparatus, you can replace photography by machine learning (or really any other image creation process, drawing, painting, raytracing, whatever), and in these cases yes, photography becomes a little less important. However, a photograph is not only an image, it is a trace of actual photons that existed and imprinted a photographic material. When you look at a photograph, you're not only looking at a picture, you're also looking at the imprint of reality. It's the same emotional effect as looking at your kid's hand print on paper, or wearing your grandmother's ring. There is affect involved that comes from the reality of the experience. A souvenir picture is not only an image that helps you remember the time when you and your friends were doing something, it's an actual fossil of that moment. And that's what matters in photography. And that's why it's not going away any time soon.

839083 10y ago
If you treat photos as pleasurable pictures, then machine-generated photos will serve fine (e.g. stock photos). What if you replace "photos" with "music", "art", or "literature"? Sure, we will get to a point where a computer can write a symphony that fits all the characteristics of Beethoven, or write a stylistically accurate Shakespearean sonnet. But it won't have the weight of the artist's observations behind it.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  You are missing the whole point of photography and the reason why people invest into cameras and whole systems. In a world of fake and illusions of today, capturing reality is an important effort that can't be replaced, photos of our memories work with us on deep emotional levels. I am really unimpressed by primary goals of these efforts, albeit for other purposes it might be useful (ie VR in realistic locations). > If you treat photos as pleasurable pictures, then machine-generated photos will serve fine (e.g. stock photos). I don't know anybody personally who does that, actually its silly. Or maybe normal to people who (poorly) photoshop themselves with ferraris, luxury and whatnot. Apart from our HR and marketing department of course, they love stocks :)
- brian_cloutier 10y ago
  > Sure, we will get to a point where a computer can write a symphony that fits all the characteristics of Beethoven, or write a stylistically accurate Shakespearean sonnet. But it won't have the weight of the artist's observations behind it. "I've noticed the many photographers here, [...]. Always the same conventional eyes, noses, mouths, waxy and smooth and cold. It still always remains dead. And the painted portraits have a life of their own that comes from deep in the soul of the painter and where the machine can't go." - Van Gogh We've been asserting souls for quite a while now and we've been wrong every time. What does the weight of the artist's observations mean? How is that different from the result of machine learning, which is nothing if not carefully considered observations.
  - dwighttk 10y ago
    If you could have any photograph ever taken, or a Van Gogh, which would you rather have? Note: The most expensive Van Gogh paintings sell for about 2 orders of magnitude more than the most expensive photographs. (I was actually surprised at how much the most expensive photographs sold for)
    - d--b 10y ago
      The question is whether would you make a difference between a photograph of your kid, and a photograph of someone who looks exactly like your kid (and that you know is not your kid).
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        > and that you know is not your kid I don't expect any reasonable answer to this, but... There are two sets of photos, both exactly alike, yet one of those sets was created by capturing photons while the other was created by computers. Both were created by pointing a machine at your kid during a trip, and subsequently giving you a digital image. How to you tell those apart? How do you know it's your kid on your kid's photos anyway?
        10y ago
- cma 10y ago
  In Rio you can pay a fee to take a train up to the famous Cristo Redentor statue, where lots of people take pictures. But all around the train station there are little green-screen photo studios that will make a fake picture at the Christo Redentor statue for you for a much lower fee.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Given the choice between these options, which would you pick? Or, at what price points would you consider each to have equal value? 1. Train ride with half hour viewing time to observe the Cristo Redentor. No cameras allowed. 2. Train ride to the statue for a photo of you in front of it, but while the camera can see both you and the statue, you can't see it from your position. 3. Green screen photo of you artificially in front of the statue. I think a lot of people would, if they thought about it, strongly prefer the first option and ascribe little value to the others. But because they do have cameras and there's an expectation that you take a picture as a tourist, they end up viewing their trip through their camera lens or smartphone screen. I think it would be a compelling sell if the camera app on a smartphone could prompt users with an offer of a professional-quality photo or video (optionally with the user green-screened in) of a concert, sporting event, or landmark. "Studio X has a professional recording of this event from N angles with better equipment than yours. Add this video to your library instead?" The killer use for this might be to record/sync school concerts, plays, and sports. So many parents with mediocre cameras all trying to capture the event, and no good way right now to share the output.
nck4222 10y ago
Agreed. When I take pictures I don't want a result stitched together from other pictures I took or someone else took. I want to remember my experience that I had at that moment.
dwighttk 10y ago
I think Vlad (the author) is a nut, but "trace of actual photons that existed" isn't as strongly epistemologically grounded as you think it is.

by d--b 10y ago

839083 10y ago

If you treat photos as pleasurable pictures, then machine-generated photos will serve fine (e.g. stock photos). What if you replace "photos" with "music", "art", or "literature"? Sure, we will get to a point where a computer can write a symphony that fits all the characteristics of Beethoven, or write a stylistically accurate Shakespearean sonnet. But it won't have the weight of the artist's observations behind it.

saiya-jin 10y ago
You are missing the whole point of photography and the reason why people invest into cameras and whole systems. In a world of fake and illusions of today, capturing reality is an important effort that can't be replaced, photos of our memories work with us on deep emotional levels. I am really unimpressed by primary goals of these efforts, albeit for other purposes it might be useful (ie VR in realistic locations). > If you treat photos as pleasurable pictures, then machine-generated photos will serve fine (e.g. stock photos). I don't know anybody personally who does that, actually its silly. Or maybe normal to people who (poorly) photoshop themselves with ferraris, luxury and whatnot. Apart from our HR and marketing department of course, they love stocks :)
brian_cloutier 10y ago
> Sure, we will get to a point where a computer can write a symphony that fits all the characteristics of Beethoven, or write a stylistically accurate Shakespearean sonnet. But it won't have the weight of the artist's observations behind it. "I've noticed the many photographers here, [...]. Always the same conventional eyes, noses, mouths, waxy and smooth and cold. It still always remains dead. And the painted portraits have a life of their own that comes from deep in the soul of the painter and where the machine can't go." - Van Gogh We've been asserting souls for quite a while now and we've been wrong every time. What does the weight of the artist's observations mean? How is that different from the result of machine learning, which is nothing if not carefully considered observations.
- dwighttk 10y ago
  If you could have any photograph ever taken, or a Van Gogh, which would you rather have? Note: The most expensive Van Gogh paintings sell for about 2 orders of magnitude more than the most expensive photographs. (I was actually surprised at how much the most expensive photographs sold for)
  - d--b 10y ago
    The question is whether would you make a difference between a photograph of your kid, and a photograph of someone who looks exactly like your kid (and that you know is not your kid).
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      > and that you know is not your kid I don't expect any reasonable answer to this, but... There are two sets of photos, both exactly alike, yet one of those sets was created by capturing photons while the other was created by computers. Both were created by pointing a machine at your kid during a trip, and subsequently giving you a digital image. How to you tell those apart? How do you know it's your kid on your kid's photos anyway?
      - 10y ago
cma 10y ago
In Rio you can pay a fee to take a train up to the famous Cristo Redentor statue, where lots of people take pictures. But all around the train station there are little green-screen photo studios that will make a fake picture at the Christo Redentor statue for you for a much lower fee.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Given the choice between these options, which would you pick? Or, at what price points would you consider each to have equal value? 1. Train ride with half hour viewing time to observe the Cristo Redentor. No cameras allowed. 2. Train ride to the statue for a photo of you in front of it, but while the camera can see both you and the statue, you can't see it from your position. 3. Green screen photo of you artificially in front of the statue. I think a lot of people would, if they thought about it, strongly prefer the first option and ascribe little value to the others. But because they do have cameras and there's an expectation that you take a picture as a tourist, they end up viewing their trip through their camera lens or smartphone screen. I think it would be a compelling sell if the camera app on a smartphone could prompt users with an offer of a professional-quality photo or video (optionally with the user green-screened in) of a concert, sporting event, or landmark. "Studio X has a professional recording of this event from N angles with better equipment than yours. Add this video to your library instead?" The killer use for this might be to record/sync school concerts, plays, and sports. So many parents with mediocre cameras all trying to capture the event, and no good way right now to share the output.

nck4222 10y ago

Agreed. When I take pictures I don't want a result stitched together from other pictures I took or someone else took. I want to remember my experience that I had at that moment.

dwighttk 10y ago

I think Vlad (the author) is a nut, but "trace of actual photons that existed" isn't as strongly epistemologically grounded as you think it is.