A.I. Photography - Are we doomed?

[smoke665]

Sometimes straight digital photos will not work.
A friend of mine is a PI and needed to re-take photos of evidence in a murder case. He called me to take the photos because I still shoot film and the lawyers wanted to have the film as a back up in case the other lawyers wanted to know if the photos were manipulated.

Interesting. I did freelance forensic work in the 70's for the county SO and attorneys in the area. This discussion never came up of course because there was no digital then.

@John 2 I finally tried the new AI noise reduction LR yesterday. It worked but I can't say I was impressed.

 

[John 2]

..................................................................................................

@John 2 I finally tried the new AI noise reduction LR yesterday. It worked but I can't say I was impressed.

I'm guessing that you are responding to my posting the vid of Adobes new PS offering. I don't use Light Room so I have never tried the AI noise reduction. However, Topaz AI noise reduction is a standard element in my workflow and it is very good. I also hear good things about about DXO's AI offering.

 

[AlanKlein]

Sometimes straight digital photos will not work.
A friend of mine is a PI and needed to re-take photos of evidence in a murder case. He called me to take the photos because I still shoot film and the lawyers wanted to have the film as a back up in case the other lawyers wanted to know if the photos were manipulated.

Photos won't have the same evidentiary value in the future as juries begin to suspect their honesty.

 

[smoke665]

Photos won't have the same evidentiary value in the future as juries begin to suspect their honesty.

You mean they won't recognize people with cats whiskers/ears, bunny ears, nose etc.LOL

 

[stapo49]

As long as it doesn't take over sex.

"Westworld" is the next step.

 

[stapo49]

A friend of mine has been experimenting with AI generated images and I can tell you, based on what he is producing, it's really hard to distinguish between these and a camera image. I can see the use of AI images for commercial applications in industries such as advertising, but from my perspective the challenge and fun of photography is actually getting out there and doing it.

 

[photographyicewooded]

Photographers still have something unique to offer that A.I. photography can't match - their spark of creativity and that certain je ne sais quoi. We've been taking pics for thousands of years and won't stop anytime soon. All A.I. can do is give us more options and make the process easier.

 

[ales]

We've been taking pics for thousands of years

English is not my first language, but I believe taking a picture means using a camera. You can't take a drawing or a painting because it doesn't exist in nature. You create a drawing of a forest, but you can't create a photograph of a forest, camera does that for you ( camera does not create either in a true sense of the word since it only mechanically captures facts - light bouncing off objects). So I believe we have been taking pics only since the invention of daguerreotype in 1839.

 

[smoke665]

English is not my first language, but I believe taking a picture means using a camera. You can't take a drawing or a painting because it doesn't exist in nature. You create a drawing of a forest, but you can't create a photograph of a forest, camera does that for you ( camera does not create either in a true sense of the word since it only mechanically captures facts - light bouncing off objects). So I believe we have been taking pics only since the invention of daguerreotype in 1839.

First off welcome! You make an interesting point, but your hypothesis has flaws. For several years I designed and sold large multi floor industrial storage/processing plants. These were created and built based on accurate mechanical drawings. In today's technology 3d printed objects are created from digital instructions.

By your definition, you've also eliminated prints from negatives as real pictures, since it wasn't created in camera. What about all the processes here that don't require a camera Photographic processes · V&A. We have several here on TPF that use some of these processes. I suspect they'd disagree that they don't "create an image".

Rather than trying to define AI as creative or not, I see it as nothing more than a different medium. Interestingly enough a friend recently told me that his photography club had recently ruled to limit AI in their photography competition. I suspect we'll see more of that in the future as AI becomes it's own separate medium, much like the alternative processes in the link I shared.

 

[AlanKlein]

English is not my first language, but I believe taking a picture means using a camera. You can't take a drawing or a painting because it doesn't exist in nature. You create a drawing of a forest, but you can't create a photograph of a forest, camera does that for you ( camera does not create either in a true sense of the word since it only mechanically captures facts - light bouncing off objects). So I believe we have been taking pics only since the invention of daguerreotype in 1839.

Welcome to the forum. Of course, you need a camera to shoot a photo. You don't need to speak English to understand that. They even understand that in foreign lands. Unfortunately, if you stay here long enough, people will try to convince you that up is down and down is up and a camera is really a silly idea not required for photography.

 

[ales]

Of course, you need a camera to shoot a photo. You don't need to speak English to understand that.

I was talking about a phrase "taking a picture". I can't say that in my language because we never use a word that means "reach for and hold". In my language we "make a photograph" (which is wrong, since humans don't actually make photographs). But you used "taking a picture" in relation to thousands of years of visual art, which was a surprise to me, I don't think I ever saw such use of a phrase regarding drawing/painting. I Googled it and apparently is an english idiom that is only related to photography. So in case I was wrong I felt the need to tell you, that my first language isn't English before I continued with my opinion.
If "taking a picture" can only mean using a camera, then the nature of a photograph is already properly presented in your language - its a "found", "readymade" object that you take.

 

[smoke665]

Unfortunately, if you stay here long enough, people will try to convince you that up is down and down is up and a camera is really a silly idea not required for photography.

Are you're talking about specific category of photograpy, or is this just a generic talking point you threw out. How about this "non-camera imagery" Using Lasers to Map in Glorious Detail | Hakai Institute . This is back in 2017, they created a 3D object without needing glasses to view, Researchers use lasers to display 'true' 3-D objects AI is expanding rapidly in the medical field Contributed: The power of AI in surgery

 

[smoke665]

Thanks for confirming my point.

I know we've been at odds at variuos times in the past. If you have an opinion to express then I'd welcome the opportunity to debate either in the open forums or by PM, but cheap shots from the shadows are not very becoming on you.

 

[cgw]

Then there's this:

Copyright Office Refuses to 'Register Works Entirely Generated by AI'

The Office doubles down on AI.

petapixel.com

Just keep reading the expanding "how-to" literature on spotting AI images.

 

[smoke665]

Then there's this:

Copyright Office Refuses to 'Register Works Entirely Generated by AI'

The Office doubles down on AI.

petapixel.com

Just keep reading the expanding "how-to" literature on spotting AI images.

My son and I were just talking about the latest Avatar movie. He was actually somewhat disappointed by the overuse of technology. What Are the Technologies Used in Avatar: Way of the Water | Skill-Lync Blogs As film makers move more toward it I wonder how this copyright change will affect them. I wouldn't think studios would be willing to spend millions of dollars on movies that they couldn't protect