4 ms·

It's almost impossible to draw a bright line here. All photography, even film-based, involves some amount of interpretation. Different choices of film, or vario

It's almost impossible to draw a bright line here. All photography, even film-based, involves some amount of interpretation. Different choices of film, or various options in Lightroom, Luminar, or whatever, entail changing the appearance of the output at least in the dimensions of brightness, contrast, saturation, white balance, and so forth. You can't not make a choice, you're always going to be imposing some artistic interpretation.

ghaff 7y ago
I agree although news organizations try to have bright line rules as much as they can. You're right that there is still a lot of flexibility within those lines but certainly some manipulations that would generally be considered fine in an art photo (e.g. editing out distracting objects that aren't relevant to the main subject) are strictly verboten in photojournalism.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  And you're right that photojournalism attempts to define some lines here. I'm a serious photographer. For myself, I'll create any imagery I want - after all, I'm not trying to convince a jury of something objectively true. The line that I personally choose to draw is to make it something that could be true - I won't do the crazy oversized full moons, for example. But that doesn't mean that nobody else should create such an image. But I'll go back to my original claim, that EVERY image involves interpretation. The data coming off your camera sensor isn't readily interpreted by the human eye at all. It needs to impose some transformation to get to a visual representation. Looking at it from the other way around, we're all aware that our own eyes are lying to us. We interpret brightness and shades relative to what we see around them, so just being in different lighting will make us see things differently. It's physiologically impossible to create an image that will always be seen the same, even by a single pair of eyes.
Grustaf 7y ago
There is a huge difference between changing global variables like film speed, aperture etc, and tools like these that affect individual pixels, and even can create new content like the clouds. It's cool that it exists but I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. It's very similar to wine or whisky vs soft drinks. When you're making whisky you can select the ingredients, vary the process, age it in different casks etc but you can't add spices. If you're making a soft drink or something similar you can do whatever you want, just like in photoshop photography. Sure it's much more flexible but that probably also means that it will never be seen as quite as refined.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. If you ask the average person on the street to name a photographer, probably the only answer you'll get is Ansel Adams. He's best known for his stunning imagery of America's national parks. I don't think there's anyone who would claim that his portrayals of them are inaccurate in any way, certainly not that they're lies. Yet Adams was a master of darkroom manipulation. Part of what makes his portfolio so striking is his deft use of techniques like dodging and burning. This is certainly a bolder manipulation that something like aperture. He was doing this on film in the early-to-mid 1900s, so I think it's safe to say that this recognized master of traditional photography was already extensively manipulating imagery in many of the same ways that the unaware are currently decrying.
  - Grustaf 7y ago
    My point was not about accuracy or truth, it’s about me finding art forms more interesting where the control is less direct. Even what you describe still sounds very far from the pixel level control you get with photoshop. I’m not sure who is ‘unaware” of what but I do think that in general things that are more strictly “regulated”, where you have less freedom, like wine making, are more highly regarded. Maybe there are lots of exceptions, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s just because old art forms tend to be less freely controlled, and by their nature have higher status. But with photography, are there any photoshop magicians that are as highly thought of as this Anselm Adams?
willis936 7y ago
Even if a thin, strong line can’t be drawn, it appears that this software is clearly on the wrong side of the line. It isn’t leveraging AI to create detail not captured by the camera that should be there. It’s using AI to alter the captured content to not be representative of what was there, ie lying. Context is important. A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts.
- groby_b 7y ago
  Yeah, nobody ever removed/added/altered content in a darkroom. Completely unheard of. Or framed a picture just so. Or chose the most flattering angle </sarcasm> Photos have always been edited. This is putting technology into the reach of a few more people, but it's only "lying" if you believe photos represent some absolute truth. They really haven't since almost the beginning of photogrophay I'd suggest looking up "Self-portrait as a drowned man" to see how far back that reaches: http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/self_portrait_as_a_drowned_man/ http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/self_port...
  - willis936 7y ago
    Did you intentionally miss my point or do you need another explanation? I want to know before I spend effort reframing my thoughts.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts. "What is truth?" I shot a music festival this past weekend, and I'm in the process of processing it in Lightroom. Part of what I'm doing is to make images that the artists can use for their own marketing. So I'm making various refinements to the images like making face a bit brighter and sharper, and smoothing out skin blemishes, and maybe whitening teeth. Am I lying to people by creating an image that is brighter and sharper? Is it going too far to make the skin look smoother? And even if we grant that I've changed beyond what the optics delivered, that's only part of the experience. Is it out of line for me interpret a bit to try to carry what's being lost from the rest of the senses - the fact that there was fantastic music all around, friendly people, and all that? Maybe a brighter, sharper face is a legitimate way for me to depict the gestalt of the experience.

ghaff 7y ago

I agree although news organizations try to have bright line rules as much as they can. You're right that there is still a lot of flexibility within those lines but certainly some manipulations that would generally be considered fine in an art photo (e.g. editing out distracting objects that aren't relevant to the main subject) are strictly verboten in photojournalism.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
And you're right that photojournalism attempts to define some lines here. I'm a serious photographer. For myself, I'll create any imagery I want - after all, I'm not trying to convince a jury of something objectively true. The line that I personally choose to draw is to make it something that could be true - I won't do the crazy oversized full moons, for example. But that doesn't mean that nobody else should create such an image. But I'll go back to my original claim, that EVERY image involves interpretation. The data coming off your camera sensor isn't readily interpreted by the human eye at all. It needs to impose some transformation to get to a visual representation. Looking at it from the other way around, we're all aware that our own eyes are lying to us. We interpret brightness and shades relative to what we see around them, so just being in different lighting will make us see things differently. It's physiologically impossible to create an image that will always be seen the same, even by a single pair of eyes.

Grustaf 7y ago

There is a huge difference between changing global variables like film speed, aperture etc, and tools like these that affect individual pixels, and even can create new content like the clouds. It's cool that it exists but I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. It's very similar to wine or whisky vs soft drinks. When you're making whisky you can select the ingredients, vary the process, age it in different casks etc but you can't add spices. If you're making a soft drink or something similar you can do whatever you want, just like in photoshop photography. Sure it's much more flexible but that probably also means that it will never be seen as quite as refined.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. If you ask the average person on the street to name a photographer, probably the only answer you'll get is Ansel Adams. He's best known for his stunning imagery of America's national parks. I don't think there's anyone who would claim that his portrayals of them are inaccurate in any way, certainly not that they're lies. Yet Adams was a master of darkroom manipulation. Part of what makes his portfolio so striking is his deft use of techniques like dodging and burning. This is certainly a bolder manipulation that something like aperture. He was doing this on film in the early-to-mid 1900s, so I think it's safe to say that this recognized master of traditional photography was already extensively manipulating imagery in many of the same ways that the unaware are currently decrying.
- Grustaf 7y ago
  My point was not about accuracy or truth, it’s about me finding art forms more interesting where the control is less direct. Even what you describe still sounds very far from the pixel level control you get with photoshop. I’m not sure who is ‘unaware” of what but I do think that in general things that are more strictly “regulated”, where you have less freedom, like wine making, are more highly regarded. Maybe there are lots of exceptions, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s just because old art forms tend to be less freely controlled, and by their nature have higher status. But with photography, are there any photoshop magicians that are as highly thought of as this Anselm Adams?

willis936 7y ago

Even if a thin, strong line can’t be drawn, it appears that this software is clearly on the wrong side of the line. It isn’t leveraging AI to create detail not captured by the camera that should be there. It’s using AI to alter the captured content to not be representative of what was there, ie lying. Context is important. A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts.

groby_b 7y ago
Yeah, nobody ever removed/added/altered content in a darkroom. Completely unheard of. Or framed a picture just so. Or chose the most flattering angle </sarcasm> Photos have always been edited. This is putting technology into the reach of a few more people, but it's only "lying" if you believe photos represent some absolute truth. They really haven't since almost the beginning of photogrophay I'd suggest looking up "Self-portrait as a drowned man" to see how far back that reaches: http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/self_portrait_as_a_drowned_man/ http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/self_port...
- willis936 7y ago
  Did you intentionally miss my point or do you need another explanation? I want to know before I spend effort reframing my thoughts.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
A photo is expected to be the truth in most contexts. "What is truth?" I shot a music festival this past weekend, and I'm in the process of processing it in Lightroom. Part of what I'm doing is to make images that the artists can use for their own marketing. So I'm making various refinements to the images like making face a bit brighter and sharper, and smoothing out skin blemishes, and maybe whitening teeth. Am I lying to people by creating an image that is brighter and sharper? Is it going too far to make the skin look smoother? And even if we grant that I've changed beyond what the optics delivered, that's only part of the experience. Is it out of line for me interpret a bit to try to carry what's being lost from the rest of the senses - the fact that there was fantastic music all around, friendly people, and all that? Maybe a brighter, sharper face is a legitimate way for me to depict the gestalt of the experience.