• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Danziger Gallery Exhibits "AI-generated color version" of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico" at AIPAD

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
204,274
Messages
2,866,501
Members
102,207
Latest member
gustavocf
Recent bookmarks
1
The problem I have with current AI is that it simply copies stuff off the web. There is no verification if it's true or just opinion, and if it is actually correct. Or correct at the moment, instead of years ago.

Right now, it's like a puppy, really eager to please and thinks everything you say is a great idea. It will always give an answer, over saying it can't find an answer, even if that answer it comes up with is total BS. I've seen it very adamant that it has found the perfect solution when I know it's clearly wrong. No, that part from a 2015 BMW really does not fit a 1966 Jaguar...

It can be a useful tool, but the output needs to be examined and verified with a critical eye and a skeptical mind.
 
  • BrianShaw
  • Deleted
  • Reason: off topic
On a slightly different drift, I still cannot figure out why Danzinger even needed Ai for a colorized ruse like that. Ordinary PS would have been more than ample. Was the mention of it just more bait implying that he was doing something new and exciting? - but actually rather corny, and conspicuously technology-adolescent.
 
Alfred Stieglitz was quite adept at this.

Art is a business. Let's face it, everyone needs to make a living, including artists and their support system. The only folks that seem to think that at should be pure and unadulterated and virginal are internet pundits who either aren't artists or have some other revenue stream to support heir art pursuuits/
 
It’s easier to ask AI. Other than prompting you don’t need any skill and don’t need to “do” anything, etc. Anyway PS probably has AI tools by now.
On a slightly different drift, I still cannot figure out why Danzinger even needed Ai for a colorized ruse like that. Ordinary PS would have been more than ample. Was the mention of it just more bait implying that he was doing something new and exciting? - but actually rather corny, and conspicuously technology-adolescent.
 
Yet, alas, what is Ai going to answer? You ask it to paint you a native American costume, is it going to skim a lot of John Wayne movies? Maybe they did take the time to enter the geographical coordinates of Hernandez and the time of year and day to replicate the position of the sun, maybe not. Still, it rings more postcardish than true; and that's because they started out with a highly darkroom-manipulated print to begin with, intended to work well in black and white fashion rather than in color.
 
Alan... have you read post #439. It's great advice! In fact, I'm taking it...

C'ya.

EDIT: In parting, though, I submit for your approval or outrage another consideration: appropriation or tribute?


Frankly, I;ve been busy in my garden and getting cancer treatment. This forum is a great diversion.
 
I’m puzzled by the notion this protection is some sort of altruistic gift from the market. (at least that’s the way it reads to me)

It's not a gift from the market. It's more of a win-win deal with the government. Patents and copyrights were set up by the government to encourage new art and scientific discovery. By protecting the artists and discoverers during the patent and copyright periods, it encourages them to invent new products and artistic creations because they have been given exclusive control and profit for a set time period. The public gets new inventions and art. The law prevents other people from taking their work and discoveries and making a separate profit.

However, in exchange for government protection, they have to turn over that work to public use after a set period. This allows the public to build on those discoveries and artworks, returning even more good to the community. Both sides benefit from this arrangement. It doesn't serve the public good to have no patents and copyrights or to lock them up in perpetuity by providing permanent patent and copyright protection periods.
 
On a slightly different drift, I still cannot figure out why Danzinger even needed Ai for a colorized ruse like that. Ordinary PS would have been more than ample. Was the mention of it just more bait implying that he was doing something new and exciting? - but actually rather corny, and conspicuously technology-adolescent.

RAther than interperting what Danziger meant, here is his printed statement regarding this work:

Press Release​

I would like to respond to the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust recent statement criticizing my creation and exhibition of an A.I. generated color version of Ansel Adams’ famous “Moonrise Over Hernandez” at the AIPAD art fair.

As the image is in the public domain I had every right to create a new and transformative work. My interest in doing this was based on my love of the iconic image, my interest in seeing how A.I. could be used as a tool for creativity, and to create an imagining of what Adams saw in real life as he was driving along US. Highway 84 that made him stop his Pontiac station wagon and scramble to set up his bulky 8x10 view camera as the sun was setting on the adobe church and cemetery crosses while the moon appeared through the clouds.

I had long believed the image was in the public domain but to confirm this beyond doubt, I hired one of the most respected copyright lawyers in the country to insure this was the case. It was indeed confirmed to be in the public domain and I was free to create a transformative color rendition of the image and to exhibit and sell the resulting prints.

From my perspective, this was done with great respect to the image and the artist. When it was exhibited it was very clearly attributed as to exactly what it was. (See the actual wall label above). As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months. My goal was to create an image that felt visually convincing and compelling on its own terms while remaining grounded in admiration for the original photograph. As far as I was concerned, I would only show or sell the image if I felt it was perfect.

This was obviously a subjective judgment. You can see the result above. But what it meant to me was that the color version I was creating had to be two things. It had to look completely convincing (not “colorized”) and it had to be a beautiful image on its own, both to people who knew the black and white original as well as to people who did not know the image. The response at the AIPAD fair was largely positive. Most negative comments were directed at A.I..

Interestingly, it should be noted that in Adams earliest prints of the image the sky was a light grey. As he began to make more prints Adams printed the sky darker and darker and eventually he took the risky step of chemically intensifying the negative to make the sky even darker. As The Trust pointed out in their statement “Ansel Adams was an innovator who continually expanded the expressive and technical possibilities of the medium. He was remarkably prescient about – and excited by – the potential of computers to transform photography.”

As anyone who is familiar with my 50 year career in photography would know, I have always stood up for photographers’ rights. I have publicly defended photographers whose work was found to be illegally appropriated and spoken at legal forums on the subject of appropriation, taking the side of photographers whose work was unfairly copied, but also understanding the nuances involved in the subject. Given both the public domain status of “Moonrise” and the transformative nature of my exercise, it was clear I had the right to create a new work. Public domain works have long served as foundations for reinterpretation, experimentation, and new creative dialogue across generations of artists.

Finally, I have turned down requests to talk to writers at several publications about the issue, as my intent was not to create controversy but to create something beautiful and interesting. As the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust’s statement was publicly disseminated across social media I am now responding, however, I would like to apologize for not informing them in advance of this project.

I would like to give the last word to Ansel Adams as posted on the official Adams Instagram:
"I am frustrated by both exposure-scale limitations and rigid film-color response. As 'reality' is out of the question, I can indulge myself with explorations of the 'unreal' color which may or may not have intriguing aesthetic effects: I would not want 'post-card' realism, but I would enjoy 'enhancements' of the colors which I fear is not possible with conventional material today….. The scope of control with the electronic image has not been explored, but I feel confident astonishing developments await us in this area." - A.A. (1983).

James Danziger.
 
Sadly, the only thing in that statement that even remotely addresses Drew’s question is ,”Most negative comments were directed at A.I.” Honestly, watercolor might have been a more realistic rendition.

Drew’s hypothesis is as good as any as to why AI was selected to do the job. Latent adolescent impetuousness…

The best answer, though, is that he hasn’t said why AI versus any other method. We don’t know these things…
 
Last edited:
Here is the note mentioned above in Danziger's statement that was posted next to his Moonrise prints:

Clipboard_06-03-2026_01.jpg
 
Sadly, the only thing in that statement that even remotely addresses Drew’s question is ,”Most negative comments were directed at A.I.” Honestly, watercolor might have been a more realistic rendition.

Drew indicated that he thought the whole operation was AI generated and that PS was not used. That is not true.

From Danziger's statement"
"...As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months..."

The note (see post #463) next to the prints says the AI original was "Proofed, regenerated, and Photoshopped from 11/25 - 4/26."
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I;ve been busy in my garden and getting cancer treatment. This forum is a great diversion.

Sorry to hear about the need for treatment Alan. Best wishes on your health.
 
I never said that, Alan, but only that something like that could have been entirely done PS.

Hang in there, and I hope that you recover quickly. Keep posting, even if this particular thread itself wears thin.
 
Using AI rather than just Photoshop could have been a technology demonstration or conservation of energy, or both.
 
I never said that, Alan, but only that something like that could have been entirely done PS.

Hang in there, and I hope that you recover quickly. Keep posting, even if this particular thread itself wears thin.

Interestingly, Danzinger went out of his way to note that he put in extensive human design. As a trade insider, he surely knows that the courts already disallowed copyrighting a photo created by AI alone. The courts said copyrights require human design. So using AI alone would not allow him to copyright his colorized photo if he wanted to. He needed PS and other human design elements.

AI says you can copyright a combination of AI plus human design . However, it must be di minimus and not transformative. It gets very complicated. The original RAW shot is copyrighted. But the edited version may or may not be depending on how much AI you used. Even parts may be copyrighted but not other parts. It's really crazy.

From Danziger's statement"
"...As for the print itself, while A.I. served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing, and refinement over many months..."
 
I prefer my meat cooked, not RAW, so don't have to worry about that issue. I don't see any "design" to his heisted version of Moonrise that wasn't there already. He just colorized it. Over many months (???) - if so, why ?? There's nothing complex or sophisticated going on there. This being election week, I'm pretty fed up with all the PS and Ai concocted "human editing" of imagery anyway - it's been going on for months already. If those people want to engage in constant mudslinging, a Medieval catapult would work just as well. Leave us photographers out of it. So go find your own shot, Mr. Danzinger, and then we'll see if you're really more than just a pirate or not.
 
Last edited:
Art is a business. Let's face it, everyone needs to make a living, including artists and their support system. The only folks that seem to think that at should be pure and unadulterated and virginal are internet pundits who either aren't artists or have some other revenue stream to support heir art pursuuits/

What is that even supposed to mean? I'm sure you think it means something - but it doesn't. Most art is done by people with day-jobs. Even selling a print for $10000 won't contribute much to what you need for a year. Try to get real.
 
Hi Don. I guess I can’t help you understand. Apparently you are so vested in your opinions that you can’t comprehend the opinions or experience of others. So be it. That’s as real I I can get. Peace.
 
Bring back trebuchets!
I prefer my meat cooked, not RAW, so don't have to worry about that issue. I don't see any "design" to his heisted version of Moonrise that wasn't there already. He just colorized it. Over many months (???) - if so, why ?? There's nothing complex or sophisticated going on there. This being election week, I'm pretty fed up with all the PS and Ai concocted "human editing" of imagery anyway - it's been going on for months already. If those people want to engage in constant mudslinging, a Medieval catapult would work just as well. Leave us photographers out of it. So go find your own shot, Mr. Danzinger, and then we'll see if you're really more than just a pirate or not.
 
I prefer my meat cooked, not RAW, so don't have to worry about that issue. I don't see any "design" to his pirated version of Moonrise that wasn't there already. He just colorized it. Over many months (???) - if so, why ?? There's nothing complex or sophisticated going on there. This being election week, I'm pretty fed up with all the PS and Ai concocted "human editing" of imagery anyway - it's been going on for months already. If those people want to engage in constant mudslinging, a Medieval catapult would work just as well. Go find your own shot, Danzinger, and then we'll see if you're really more than just a pirate or not.

It seems that way. A poster colorized an Adams Moonrise print and posted it in this thread on one of the early pages. It looked like Danziger's print.

Apparantly, you can copyright a later print if changed substantially like darkening the skies, even though the original copyright on the negative has expired. What print did Danziger use to start the process? He would have had to use a print that was one of the original ones that no longer had a copyright. That means he darkened the skies during editing. If he used a later print with the already darkened skies that was still copyrighted, he'd be in trouble.
 
But it's perfectly obvious that he used one of the later ones. Perhaps Ai understood, "Give me a deep blue sky instead of a black one". The "Museum edition" was even later, and was basically the same thing, but in small 8x10 portfolio print size, printed by AA himself, or at least under his direct supervision.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom