• 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

And so it begins

Latest Gallery

IMG_1779.JPG

H
IMG_1779.JPG

  • 0
  • 0
  • 41
Frio River

A
Frio River

  • 5
  • 0
  • 70

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,579
Messages
2,856,716
Members
101,912
Latest member
Safelightlabs
Recent bookmarks
0
Good for him, bad for the future of this planet.
 
ā€œBut you can't make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them. It can't last.ā€
ā€• Ray Bradbury
 
This gets me to wondering; shouldn't there be a push to enshrine the image makers right to forbid their images from being sampled by AI technology?

Yes, I know, totally impractical and it would be impossible to enforce, but at least a token gesture in that direction should be made.
 
Kino said:
This gets me to wondering; shouldn't there be a push to enshrine the image makers right to forbid their images from being sampled by AI technology?

Yes, I know, totally impractical and it would be impossible to enforce, but at least a token gesture in that direction should be made.
Click to expand...

US Patent Office has just opened up for "public comments" on allowing AI to have patent rights. So should there be some protection before this expands beyond control? That point is not far away either.

I am not sure what exactly this particular artist intended with this "social" experiment in "arts" but at least opened up a field few saw coming not long ago.
 
I had a friend, worked with him when I was with UPI in the 70s he moved to newspapers became the photo editor or a couple big dailies. He hung onto film longer that most, if a press photographer had a picture of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich noodling the the Rose Garden he wanted a negative. Maybe we will see more film to authenticate an image.
 
Paul Howell said:
I had a friend, worked with him when I was with UPI in the 70s he moved to newspapers became the photo editor or a couple big dailies. He hung onto film longer that most, if a press photographer had a picture of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich noodling the the Rose Garden he wanted a negative. Maybe we will see more film to authenticate an image.
Click to expand...
A film negative can always be made from a digital original. And since photojournalists don't shoot film anymore, any film negative will automatically be suspect. AI imagery should be required to embed a token indicating it was generated by AI.
 
Last edited:
Hassasin said:
Good for him, bad for the future of this planet.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the planet, when I produce an AI image it takes the software a full minute or more to make the work happen, but not using my processor. There is a lot of number crunching going on, and I imagine a computer farm in Arizona or wherever is red hot and polluting to keep the images flowing globally, all "for free", at least now.

Compare that to professional render farms that I occasionally use to produce CGI animations. They charge me by the job and by the gigahertz hour required to produce the animation. Lots of computers, power, cooling, etc and I pay for it all. Imagine what's happening when tens of millions of people simultaneously ask for some branded AI to produce "images of a gerbil riding a unicycle in the style of Van Gogh" or whatever. AI might end up making energy hogging crypto systems look green.
 
Oh no she's being attacked by a vampire and its her older self....weird.
Its not a good picture, the lightings all wrong, the concept has been done to death and it looks like it was taken in the 1930's not the 2023's. Must of left the print in the Selenium way too long to get such an ugly green.
 
awty said:
Oh no she's being attacked by a vampire and its her older self....weird.
Its not a good picture, the lightings all wrong, the concept has been done to death and it looks like it was taken in the 1930's not the 2023's. Must of left the print in the Selenium way too long to get such an ugly green.
Click to expand...

Judges often pick images that may not be what others might deem the best, much less good. The point was they picked it. One could have produced a similar abomination with totally traditional means.
 
Pieter12 said:
Judges often pick images that may not be what others might deem the best, much less good. The point was they picked it. One could have produced a similar abomination with totally traditional means.
Click to expand...

They chose it to be controversial and gain attention to themselves other wise they would chose a good picture, but nobody would notice.
 
No biggie. Last time I won an art award with my photography I really duped them, I didn't draw or paint any of it. Just clicked the shutter. Much easier than typing into AI machine.
 
ic-racer said:
No biggie. Last time I won an art award with my photography I really duped them, I didn't draw or paint any of it. Just clicked the shutter. Much easier than typing into AI machine.
Click to expand...

According to a recent discussion, you might do even better if you draw or paint on your photograph.
 
AI has nothing to offer if we ban the use of electricity in delineating pictures.
Think about all the image making that was done in the world before electric power was available: Marble sculpture, fresco, mosaic, oil painting, photography, engraving, lithography, mezzotint, etching ... and so on.
That's plenty of room for creative art without a whiff of artificial intelligence; just natural intelligence.
 
Maris said:
AI has nothing to offer if we ban the use of electricity in delineating pictures.
Think about all the image making that was done in the world before electric power was available: Marble sculpture, fresco, mosaic, oil painting, photography, engraving, lithography, mezzotint, etching ... and so on.
That's plenty of room for creative art without a whiff of artificial intelligence; just natural intelligence.
Click to expand...
And how would you go about doing that?
 
Maris said:
AI has nothing to offer if we ban the use of electricity in delineating pictures.
Think about all the image making that was done in the world before electric power was available: Marble sculpture, fresco, mosaic, oil painting, photography, engraving, lithography, mezzotint, etching ... and so on.
That's plenty of room for creative art without a whiff of artificial intelligence; just natural intelligence.
Click to expand...

That would be good for film users. Others might take umbrage.
 
This just might be an additional impulse for people to find Film (plates, emulsions) Photography being the only Photography left.
 
Ivo Stunga said:
This just might be an additional impulse for people to find Film (plates, emulsions) Photography being the only Photography left.
Click to expand...

It's one of the several logical responses that certainly will happen (and arguably, is already happening).

awty said:
They chose it to be controversial and gain attention to themselves other wise they would chose a good picture, but nobody would notice.
Click to expand...

I personally think they chose it for the exact same reason the 'photographer' submitted it, and that they effectively have made the same statement as a result.
 
Pieter12 said:
A film negative can always be made from a digital original. And since photojournalists don't shoot film anymore, any film negative will automatically be suspect.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. You just knocked the Deardorff shooting contact printers off their soapbox LOL. Not to imply that all who work in LF and contact print stand on that particular soapbox, but we've all seen and heard those that do.
Ivo Stunga said:
This just might be an additional impulse for people to find Film (plates, emulsions) Photography being the only Photography left.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, but consider the above statement.

Photojournalism aside, I haven't seen much interest in materials and processes from galleries willing to show photography. At least not around here. Whether or not the work drives a narrative or assuages a specific demographic seems to be the main concern.

And for those of us who do care about M&P, well, we work a certain way because that's how we like to work. No need to justify to anyone. But that's just for personal work. When the discussion turns to photojournalism, it's different. Isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Mark Minard said:
I'm with you, but consider the above statement.
Click to expand...

Well, fuck... Pardon my Latvian. Is it easy to do without any pixels present on the film in say 60x projection? How it's done? Haven't educated myself on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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