And so it begins

IMG_2142.jpeg

A
IMG_2142.jpeg

  • sly
  • May 20, 2025
  • 7
  • 1
  • 47
On The Mound.

A
On The Mound.

  • 2
  • 1
  • 59
Val

A
Val

  • 5
  • 2
  • 110
Zion Cowboy

A
Zion Cowboy

  • 10
  • 5
  • 100
.

A
.

  • 2
  • 2
  • 132

Forum statistics

Threads
197,792
Messages
2,764,370
Members
99,473
Latest member
Shootiqué
Recent bookmarks
0

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
So I'm super good then, thanks!
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,878
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
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.

Sort of like submitting a urinal as a piece of art.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
2,957
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Sort of like submitting a urinal as a piece of art.

Duchamp was nothing like AI But Sol Lewitt sure was. He was "doing" AI long before AI was invented.

Here is an example from the Whitney where his brief instructions were his only involvement in the wall art, which he did not produce:

Screen Shot 2023-04-18 at 10.23.25 AM.jpg

You can see many of these realized on a grand scale at MASS MoCa. Lewitt and James Turrell are worth the trip alone imho.


Typing Lewitt's exact instructions into Dall-E produces nonsense fyi:

Screen Shot 2023-04-18 at 10.23.57 AM.jpg
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,183
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Duchamp was nothing like AI

But that wasn't the point of @VinceMT's remark as I read it. I think Vince emphasized the criticism that ready-mades formed to the dominant views in the art world. Submitting an AI artwork and/or selecting it as a winner can be seen as a similar form of criticism of the views that prevail in the world of photography. Well, that's my take on the parallel between both examples, in any case.

Btw, I don't think the motivations are actually the same in both cases. I think Duchamp's flavor of activism was a different one, and inspired by different motives, than that of the photographer who submitted the AI work to a contest.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
2,957
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
But that wasn't the point of @VinceMT's remark as I read it. I think Vince emphasized the criticism that ready-mades formed to the dominant views in the art world. Submitting an AI artwork and/or selecting it as a winner can be seen as a similar form of criticism of the views that prevail in the world of photography. Well, that's my take on the parallel between both examples, in any case.

Btw, I don't think the motivations are actually the same in both cases. I think Duchamp's flavor of activism was a different one, and inspired by different motives, than that of the photographer who submitted the AI work to a contest.
Yeah I wasn't trying to refute what Vince was saying, he just made me think of Duchamp. I get what he (and you) are saying. (No offense Vince!)

The photographer that submitted the AI should have kept with it and done the Q&A that the organizers were hoping for imo rather than dropping out. And he should have accepted the prize too.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,878
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
But that wasn't the point of @VinceMT's remark as I read it. I think Vince emphasized the criticism that ready-mades formed to the dominant views in the art world. Submitting an AI artwork and/or selecting it as a winner can be seen as a similar form of criticism of the views that prevail in the world of photography. Well, that's my take on the parallel between both examples, in any case.

Btw, I don't think the motivations are actually the same in both cases. I think Duchamp's flavor of activism was a different one, and inspired by different motives, than that of the photographer who submitted the AI work to a contest.

Thank you. That IS what I was referring to. I can’t mind read the motivations of either the subject photographer or Duchamp but I can see the resulting impact on the art world.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,497
Format
35mm RF
I would question the judges who gave this award. If you look closely at many aspects of this image you can see it has zero integrity.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,295
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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.

Photo stock companies could license their photos to AI creators. Then there wouldn't be copyright violations. In fact, Getty Images is already suing an AI software company in Europe and the US for theft of their photos for just this purpose. They're trying to get the courts to rule on this to establish precedence and case law.
 

VinceInMT

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,878
Location
Montana, USA
Format
Multi Format
There is an entire genre/technique in art known as “collage.” Maybe that is where AI photography lands.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,533
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
No one is magnifying a negative 60x unless it’s microfilm. An LVT negative can easily be magnified to usual sizes without looking different than one produced in camera. Just look at Salgado’s recent work.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,533
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
It's one of the several logical responses that certainly will happen (and arguably, is already happening).



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.

The judges were unaware it was an AI image and pulled it when they realized the origin.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
No one is magnifying a negative 60x unless it’s microfilm. An LVT negative can easily be magnified to usual sizes without looking different than one produced in camera. Just look at Salgado’s recent work.
Unless it's projection where maths tells me (my setup): enlarge 36mm wide positive to fit 1.86m wide screen and you get: 1860/36=~52
So, you're right, it's not 60x in my case actually! But go to film cinema and itl'll be much more magnified, because cine film progresses vertically in most applications.

And another one comes to mind: CPU lithography. So this too should be "easily" doable too if needed.
 
Last edited:

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
I actually don't know exactly what it's called - I mean the machine that's used to create 5nm and smaller structures on silicon that operates with UV light - produced by a single manufacturer in the world.

It's mentioned here:
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,183
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I actually don't know exactly what it's called - I mean the machine that's used to create 5nm and smaller structures on silicon that operates with UV light - produced by a single manufacturer in the world.

I'm quite familiar with that. The image on the reticle is reduced (not enlarged) in size 4x during projection. There's also a lot of hocus pocus going on within the projection path to compensate all sorts of optical effects that play a role at such extremes. I think most of the reticle manufacturing is done with e-beam lithography, but that's a bit of a guess. I never really looked into the reticle supply chain very much.

Btw, to the best of my knowledge, AI has been used extensively for years already in semiconductor layout, in various approaches. Much of the literature on this is out in the public domain, so shouldn't be too hard to get some insight into this.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
My point/idea being - if you can make structures sub-5nm, you can print them on film in pictorial context, and such a film should hold up to projection no problems.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,183
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Uhm. No.

Printing sub-5nm structures on photographic film as we know it is not a realistic idea. But for sake of the argument let's assume we're talking about some kind of inorganic material with excellent surface flatness - a bit like a silicon wafer, but transparent. Some form of high-grade optical glass perhaps.

You'll then run into the problem that projecting sub-5nm structures will involve wavelengths that are invisible and can only travel in a perfect vacuum, so the whole projection idea is kind of moot to begin with. They won't be able to penetrate the theoretical slide with the pattern. Sure, you could work with reflective optics instead of transmissive (that's how it's done in extreme UV lithography), and you'll still be left with the problem that the whole projection would have to take place in a vacuum and for the benefit of an observer that's somehow capable of recording radiation in the single-digit nm region.

Evidently, there's no realistic application for this that somehow relates to a 'pictorial context'. The only thing that comes to mind is a gimmick that has been around for many decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_art But it's not intended for projection...

With much larger structures, let's say in the micrometer scale, all of this of course is perfectly possible. But it has been possible for decades already, and again, real-world applications related to pictorial use pretty much end at common stuff like DLP projectors.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
I don't know the scale required (no tech background to have an idea) for such a theoretical slide to look natural and you probably are right that it doesn't require nanometers, but micrometers. I was just entertaining an idea from top of my mind.
 

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
And so it begins...

: D
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,196
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I actually don't know exactly what it's called - I mean the machine that's used to create 5nm and smaller structures on silicon that operates with UV light - produced by a single manufacturer in the world.

It's mentioned here:


Thank you. Very interesting. As a retired electrical engineer who complained when US manufactures in the early 1970's started sending chip manufacturing overseas, this is personally interesting.
 
Last edited:

Ivo Stunga

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,169
Location
Latvia
Format
35mm
Yeah, I too found this interesting and amazingly fragile per se: have a turmoil in a single country and hi-tech gets threatened as a species.
 

Sean

Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Messages
13,077
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
No idea how this passed as a real photo. AI has known issues (at the time) with fingers and hands:

Screenshot 2023-04-23 at 5.24.22 PM.png
Screenshot 2023-04-23 at 5.24.15 PM.png


Seriously?
 
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