Gallery photos: size limit, and should we allow AI content?

[Sirius Glass]

Why aren't we requiring flagging when someone clones in skies or other things?

I would strongly agree with requiring that cloned skies be identified. I do not enjoy seeing the same sky in photograph after photograph.

 

[koraks]

I would strongly agree with requiring that cloned skies be identified. I do not enjoy seeing the same sky in photograph after photograph.

In the past 20 years there's never been a demand from the community to be explicit on this, despite tools to make photographic montages having been around since the mid-19th century. There has also never been a systematic problem in this regard on Photrio (or before, Apug) with people posting montages and then other people complaining about it. I don't recall ever having seen a series of images here with 'the same sky in photograph after photograph'.

I'm more than happy to solve existing problems. Hypothetical ones warrant much less investment in creating additional regulations etc.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

My 2 cents on AI -
As a general rule, I dislike the vast majority of AI generated images. I would want to exclude those images from Photrio. On the flip-side, I have seen some truly well-done AI work that is aesthetically worthwhile and is being done in an ethical manner.

One example: back in 2023 I was in Mexico City and went to see the biennial at the Centro de la Imagen. One of the awarded artists was a photographer from a mostly indigenous, poor rural community where photography was out of reach of most of the families until the mid 20th century. As a result of that condition, there were no photos of the ancestors of the residents going back before 1900. His project was to take images of the current living residents, feed his own images into an AI engine, and then generate ancestor portraits that had the look and feel of turn-of-the-century tintypes. These were ethically produced- he used his own images, not other people's work, and he also explicitly affirmed the use of AI in the body of work.

A second example - a friend of mine creates a body of work combining images of human figures with botanical motifs (a young man's head-and-shoulders portrait with a crown of cacti growing from his hair, for example). It also checks off the boxes of ethics and authenticity - he's not trying to pass it off as "straight" photography, and he's using his own imagery to feed the AI engine.

The above cases are the kind of AI I think should be allowable, if we want to open that door in any way. The test for any AI imagery should require those two criteria - the person sharing it should affirm that A: the image is created from their own work, and B: that they acknowledge the image was generated by AI.

 

[koraks]

the kind of AI I think should be allowable, if we want to open that door in any way

To clarify, we have an open door; it's here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/ai-in-photography-and-other-arts.408/ So far, we have vastly more people complaining about the possibility of people posting AI than people actually posting AI. So I assume the situation will continue to contain itself towards the near future.

As to what kind of AI we're going to allow - speaking personally, like you, I also find some AI imagery more interesting, original and thoughtful than others, but that's not a police-able boundary. We're not going to create a situation where we're going to have to say "ah, but your AI isn't very good, and therefore it's not allowed." I for one wouldn't enforce any rule in that direction. As it stands and IMO: if it adheres to the forum rules we already have and it's in reasonably good taste (i.e. no porn, smut, gore, political, religious stuff etc.), people are free to share and discuss it in the designated space.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

To clarify, we have an open door; it's here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/ai-in-photography-and-other-arts.408/ So far, we have vastly more people complaining about the possibility of people posting AI than people actually posting AI. So I assume the situation will continue to contain itself towards the near future.

As to what kind of AI we're going to allow - speaking personally, like you, I also find some AI imagery more interesting, original and thoughtful than others, but that's not a police-able boundary. We're not going to create a situation where we're going to have to say "ah, but your AI isn't very good, and therefore it's not allowed." I for one wouldn't enforce any rule in that direction. As it stands and IMO: if it adheres to the forum rules we already have and it's in reasonably good taste (i.e. no porn, smut, gore, political, religious stuff etc.), people are free to share and discuss it in the designated space.

I agree we can't police the quality of AI - that will become self-policing when someone posting bad AI gets shouted down in the comments (or receives no comments at all and gets frustrated at the lack of response to their work). If I gave the impression I was arguing for some kind of curation here by the examples I gave, that was not my intent - I merely wanted to provide some examples of valid use of AI. Forgive me if I'm behind the curve - I've been away from the site for a while. Would it be a heavy lift to add a couple of checkboxes to the gallery upload to indicate that the work being uploaded is AI generated, and if so, the generated work was created using original content owned by the creator (as opposed to work supplied by the AI tool)? I think those two selections, and the ability to filter the gallery based on them, would go a long way to satisfying those who don't want to see it.

 

[koraks]

Thanks for elaborating your point; I understand!

Would it be a heavy lift to add a couple of checkboxes to the gallery upload to indicate that the work being uploaded is AI generated, and if so, the generated work was created using original content owned by the creator (as opposed to work supplied by the AI tool)?

Yes and no; in fact this would align with some structural work @Sean is currently gearing up to do. However, as it stands, I don't see AI imagery appearing in the main gallery; we've taken a pretty firm position on that. However, the designated place I mentioned will in principle remain in place and people can share their AI-generated work there. Since that will be very explicitly part of the scope of that place, additional tagging may not be necessary - although we'll certainly consider it if it seems sensible. Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[BrianShaw]

Since Sean is doing structural work on the site, perhaps he should consider a rebrand as "Photquattuor" and create a separate area for AI imagemaking.

 

[koraks]

I really think it's going to be more like "Photri-and-one-sixty-fourth-o".

 

[Sirius Glass]

To clarify, we have an open door; it's here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/ai-in-photography-and-other-arts.408/ So far, we have vastly more people complaining about the possibility of people posting AI than people actually posting AI. So I assume the situation will continue to contain itself towards the near future.

As to what kind of AI we're going to allow - speaking personally, like you, I also find some AI imagery more interesting, original and thoughtful than others, but that's not a police-able boundary. We're not going to create a situation where we're going to have to say "ah, but your AI isn't very good, and therefore it's not allowed." I for one wouldn't enforce any rule in that direction. As it stands and IMO: if it adheres to the forum rules we already have and it's in reasonably good taste (i.e. no porn, smut, gore, political, religious stuff etc.), people are free to share and discuss it in the designated space.

The choice of AF In/AI Out should be Boolean and a mixture which out be impossible to moderate. Even moderators have lives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks for elaborating your point; I understand!


Yes and no; in fact this would align with some structural work @Sean is currently gearing up to do. However, as it stands, I don't see AI imagery appearing in the main gallery; we've taken a pretty firm position on that. However, the designated place I mentioned will in principle remain in place and people can share their AI-generated work there. Since that will be very explicitly part of the scope of that place, additional tagging may not be necessary - although we'll certainly consider it if it seems sensible. Thanks for bringing it up!

In a subforum that one could set to be ignored?

 

[koraks]

In a subforum that one could set to be ignored?

Yes, subforums can be ignored, so this one too.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not really interested in AI generated images for myself but, as an artist, I certainly would like to be able to see others' work.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Moderator's note:
Please try to avoid language that is mostly a dismissive label without substance or content, and choose instead to be more specific in your evaluation.
"low-quality, mass-produced imagery with no substance or skill behind it" is informative.
"slop" really doesn't tell us much, and for all I know might be a very rude slur in Australia!
Thank you @cirwin2010 for replacing the unclear with the specific.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna247864

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would strongly agree with requiring that cloned skies be identified. I do not enjoy seeing the same sky in photograph after photograph.

If it is so obvious,then why does it needto be identified?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If it is so obvious,then why does it needto be identified?

Early notification allows one to minimize the exposure.

 

[Heinz]

For me, the photrio gallery should not be used for prompt generated AI images. The focus of photrio is different, I think.
(I joined when it was mostly analog as APUG, but the "photrio" concept is also ok for me).

As a discussion in the forum I find this thread here interesting - because the opinion on this topic of people who are likeminded in the sense that they all appreciate images as artful products is interesting for me.

After having a rather negative attitude to all AI generated content, I now slowly start to appreciate some forms of artful use of these new tools. However, I have the impression one has to search for such rare examples.

In this sense I like to contribute one of these rare examples which I just found yesterday (only in German or French language however):

In German: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/123808-000-A/prompt/

In French: https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/123808-000-A/prompt/

Have fun with it! (The links above show the "making of" - there are 10 different examples in this small series).

Heinz

 

[koraks]

@Heinz, thanks so much for sharing those! Arte is a great resource/channel. Highly recommended in general.
Please rest assured that for now there is no plan whatsoever to allow AI-prompted imagery in the Photrio gallery. There's a secluded spot on the forum where it can be posted/discussed. So far, it's not insanely popular but I personally hope that in due course it may be one of those places where pearls hidden in the vast oceans of muddy excrement can be highlighted and discussed.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Koraks seems to be of the opinion that an A.i. sub-forum would be ‘just another option’ amongst the various forum discussions. But let’s be honest here - it’s inclusion is a legitimation of sorts of prompt based image production using A.I. as another form of photography alongside analog / digital etc. Of course it is.

And to those who think A.I. images can be just marked as such - that assumes a knowledge of actual photography in order to grasp the significance of such distinctions. Whilst many forum members grew up with film and therefore understand the evolution of the field, many young people have no idea of film - really. They’ve never ever seen a piece of film and have no idea it even exists/ persists as a tool. I know this as an educator who works with young people.

A.I. is not a benign technology vis a vis the practices of many photographers on here. It steals IP systematically and is costing jobs too. We can’t wish it away, but people’s skeptical feelings are not to be dismissed as illiberal Luddite-ism. They are very well founded.

As things stand, because of the collective contributions of a community of photographers globally, Photrio has become an increasingly definitive resource of current information on analog photography. I hope that’s clear and useful to younger people inquisitive in the future about these practices. Just assuming as self-evident that those young people will easily grasp the distinctions that are clear to us would be a fail.

Finally - a couple of months ago there was a discussion on here in the lounge about Elon Musk’s new A.I. generated alternative to Wikipedia. I seem to recall many contributors including Koraks arguing the necessity of very clear distinction between those two ‘sources’ of information. I’d argue the same imperative applies to our consensus understanding of photography on Photrio.

 

[koraks]

Koraks seems to be of the opinion that an A.i. sub-forum would be ‘just another option’ amongst the various forum discussions. But let’s be honest here - it’s inclusion is a legitimation of sorts of prompt based image production using A.I. as another form of photography alongside analog / digital etc. Of course it is.

1: It's indeed just another option.
2: Image-making using AI does indeed happen at a large scale; whether or not it's "legitimate" is a complex question that I'm not seeking to answer.

I seem to recall many contributors including Koraks arguing the necessity of very clear distinction between those two ‘sources’ of information.

I'm all for that distinction. Nothing has changed in my opinion in this regard.

I also believe that there are numerous ethical, social, technical and artistic challenges or even downright problems associated with AI image making. That in itself is also nothing new; every major technological development we've witnessed has involved such challenges.

The AI-subforum is a section of the forum you can easily ignore if you don't want to see it.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Koraks,

You continue to use the “another option” argument as if it’s benign. My post argues it’s not so benign - it has implications.

As to whether A.I. is or is not photography, - the clear majority of contributions to this discussion seem fairly clear that it doesn’t match their understanding of the term “photography”.

Of course the site owner & moderators are free to do what they feel is best. But I’m fairly confident that nobody is on here for the A.I. content. And the discussion about the implications of the A.I. industry for photography and the creative industries goes way beyond the forum management at Photrio unfortunately.

The classifieds section on here will explode when everyone unloads their many cameras!

 

[koraks]

Explain to me how us having a single sub-forum here on Photrio is going to result in "everyone unloading their many cameras". Conversely, explain how not having that sub-forum will stop the adoption of AI for image-making across the globe.

We currently cater for 0.00000001% of people with an interest in photography and I notice that the crowd interested in AI image making overlaps only in a small way with that demographic in the first place. I think you're wasting effort barking up the wrong tree.

But I’m fairly confident that nobody is on here for the A.I. content.

I for one am quite interested in sensible, intelligent discussion about the opportunities and challenges involved in AI image-making, especially from a perspective of photographers or people with an interest/background in photography. If you read this thread, there have been one or two others who have expressed similar interests. That's what we want to accommodate. We don't have a hidden agenda to push AI on you guys.

I understand the fear of change and all that, but as said - wrong tree.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Well the ‘fear of change’ trope is a frankly very patronising comment to those who are critical. It’s a classic argument from the tech side to position critics as Luddite’s. It’s an argument that gets dusted off as needed ever since the Industrial revolution.
Surely you’re aware of that?

As to all the ‘explain to me’ questions - the camera unloading was meant as humor - sorry if it wasn’t much of a joke.

Otherwise- you’re the moderator, so if you don’t like the discussion why have you invited it?

Edit: I suppose what I’m saying is that the site owners / moderators can put up whatever they like. But if you’re going to invite a discussion about the significance of this with forum members, then don’t dismiss / patronise inconvenient opinions. As I’ve said already, the discussion around the implications of A.I. for photography goes way beyond Photrio.

In my first post in this thread I tried to situate the discussion in relation to Photrio’s importance as a resource for young photographers for whom the distinctions are certainly not ‘obvious’. I’ve tried to contribute to this discussion in a broad sense. Photrio can be what the owners want it to be but don’t go looking for approval unless you’re also prepared to accept critique.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Otherwise- you’re the moderator, so if you don’t like the discussion why have you invited it?

You realise, I hope, that moderators may also participate in discussions

 

[koraks]

@Ardpatrick I frankly don't understand the antagonistic approach you take here, and at a personal level as well as in my capacity as a moderator I do not appreciate it.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Strange debate, rather like a poetry forum deciding to allow novels because novelists also use words.