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

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

in what way do you feel things might get messed up if AI content gets its own place on Photrio?

Just curious. Does human generated art content including cartoons, paintings, pencil sketches, calligraphy, embroidery, digital art, photo collage (and in particular, collage made using other artists works) etc. have a place in Photrio?

 

[koraks]

If there were active demand for it from our existing user base, I think considering it would be fair game. That's precisely what is happening here.

Also, I think people would not object if it would be posted in some parts of the forum. If presently someone were to share their oil paintings, we would probably move that thread to the Lounge and let people discuss it as they please.

It seems that there's something special about AI that brings up strong sentiments, often negative ones. I personally think much of those sentiments are rooted in entirely sensible/plausible concerns and I think that either way, we should take those into account. At the same time, I don't think those sentiments can be the sole reason for categorically banning a development. We may decide that it just isn't the scope of this forum - much like, say, embroidery. But I have a feeling we're going to have to take a more explicit stance on AI-gen imagery than we do on embroidery.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can see myself getting AI to manipulate images that I took, if that is possible, as I know nothing of AI... but it reminds me of the occasional google map/street view vacation that I've taken when I'm bored...wandering around the streets of cities around the globe, finding something interesting, screen shooting it, then sticking it in photoshop, cropping, adjusting contrast, dodging/burning, manipulating/eliminating colour, etc etc... lots of fun, and bloody creative.
What's my point? I don't know...

 

[Chan Tran]

I have no opinions about AI generated images as I am not interested in the image gallery. However, what about AI generated text contents? I think it should not be allowed. I don't say they are not useful but if you post something here it should be yours.

 

[koraks]

what about AI generated text contents?

It's a fair question to ask and perhaps we should include it in the scope of the discussion, although in my mind, they're distinct things with distinct problems. Concerning AI-generated text on the forum: I'm personally OK with it only if it's very clearly recognizable, for instance like so:

Here comes an AI-generated answer to the question what the pros & cons of allowing AI-generated content on Photrio would be:

Pros of Allowing AI-Generated Imagery

• Broader creative exploration
  Members could experiment with hybrid workflows—combining analog capture with AI augmentation or inspiration.
• Attracting younger demographics
  AI art is popular among younger creators. Allowing it could bring new members who might later discover film photography.
• Cross-pollination of ideas
  Discussions about AI could spark debates on authenticity, aesthetics, and the philosophy of image-making—deepening the forum’s intellectual scope.
• Inspiration for analog projects
  AI-generated concepts could serve as sketches or mood boards for analog shoots, darkroom experiments, or alternative processes.

Cons of Allowing AI-Generated Imagery

• Dilution of Photrio’s identity
  Photrio is explicitly an analog photography forum. Allowing AI risks undermining its core mission and alienating long-time members.
• Confusion and authenticity concerns
  Mixing AI with analog could blur lines—users might not know whether an image is film-based or machine-generated.
• Cultural clash
  Many analog photographers value the tactile, chemical, and mechanical aspects of photography. AI imagery could feel antithetical to that ethos.
• Moderation challenges
  Distinguishing between AI-generated and analog images would require new rules, tagging systems, and moderator oversight.
• Risk of disengagement
  Long-term members who joined for analog purity might leave if AI content dominates or even appears alongside traditional work.

Final Recommendation

For a forum like Photrio, the safest path is to keep AI-generated imagery out of the main analog sections to preserve its identity. If there’s interest, Photrio could experiment with a separate “Hybrid & AI Experiments” subforum, clearly labeled, so discussions don’t dilute the analog focus but still allow exploration.

This way, Photrio maintains its credibility as the home of analog photography, while offering space for those curious about blending analog and AI workflows

We have seen instances of people posting AI-generated content that was not explicitly marked as such on Photrio and there was considerable backlash. I don't see that changing, ever, and I personally would not be in favor of allowing it, either.

Again, just my personal views.

 

[retina_restoration]

AI generated imagery can be quite fascinating

Yes, it can be. But it’s NOT photography and has no place here. Please don’t let the slop in!!!

 

[Alan Johnson]

What company proposes this new deal?

 

[retina_restoration]

@tcolgate thanks for your thoughtful response and giving insight into your reasoning behind this. I assume that @Alan Johnson feels similarly about this; perhaps he can confirm.

I think what you said about digital photography resonates with how I see it - as long as people who object against this can navigate around it, I don't really see what harm it would do if we give it a place. I can see how it would concern people if it would somehow suppress or swamp other content or discussion. However, with digital, we haven't seen that happen so far, even though it creeps in on analog discussions from time to time - but so far that seems to be largely be accepted (think of digitizing film with a DSLR, performance of lenses on analog vs. digital cameras etc.) and/or we can effectively separate the two sufficiently to keep people on board. In my mind, if (it's an IF!) we allow AI in some way, the ground rule would be the same - that it cannot replace/displace/kill the existing spirit of Photrio which is rooted in conventional photography.

But AI imagery has nothing to do with photography! Those are not photographs!!

 

[skahde]

I wan't to share content and ideas with other human beings. Not stuff stolen and regurgitated by computers. "Generative AI" is pure marketing, as it's still 100% based on creative input made by humans.

 

[koraks]

What company proposes this new deal?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question or its relevance; can you explain, please?
Btw, it's fairly easy to find the registration for Photrio Ltd. in NZ's company register.

 

[koraks]

But AI imagery has nothing to do with photography! Those are not photographs!!

The second statement is arguably true by definition. The first at least when taken literally is more debatable.

 

[Willy T]

But AI imagery has nothing to do with photography! Those are not photographs!!

Exactly. Sean's image is not in any sense a photograph.

I think that parsing (and ultimately divisive) distinction will be in consideration of to what degree the "AI manipulation" via Photoshop, et al, of an actual photograph will be accepted. Or not.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Btw, it's fairly easy to find the registration for Photrio Ltd. in NZ's company register.

Chatgpt didn't manage it, can you provide a link if it is easy?

 

[ntenny]

I don’t think I’d stay if the doors were opened to AI-generated imagery. I wouldn’t stomp off in a huff or anything, but I’m interested in photography and not interested in AI image generation.

My feeling is that there are plenty of venues already for distribution of AI content, and indeed a whole gigantic wing of the tech industries devoted to promoting it. I don’t see what would be gained by merging Photrio into that already-existing world.

-NT

 

[loccdor]

My opinion:

AI to remove dust: ok
AI to give you photographic ideas or answer technical questions: ok
AI to add completely new subjects to a photograph: begrudgingly accept
AI to generate the entire picture: doesn't belong on a photography site, belongs on a CGI forum

I think the chemigrams mentioned are an edge case that works because photography historically has had a link to chemical processes. I would not say their acceptance is analogous to accepting AI.

 

[skahde]

Here comes an AI-generated answer to the question what the pros & cons of allowing AI-generated content on Photrio would be:

AI has been shown numerous times to favor pro-AI positions. It's not an unbiased instance to ask such questions.

 

[loccdor]

One AI feature that actually could be awesome for Photrio is some type of automatic language translation as for example, YouTube comments have.

 

[Sean]

Yes, it can be. But it’s NOT photography and has no place here. Please don’t let the slop in!!!

I just want to pump the brakes and clarify things before assumptions get made, rehashed, reposted, misunderstood etc.

There is currently no formal proposal to the community that this be implemented. Someone asked the question and people are debating it and sharing their views on it, that is all.

There is an AI forum here on Photrio that was recently added a few weeks ago to somewhat house these topics:

AI in Photography and Other Arts​

People can post a thread on generative AI or techniques and results there if they like (if anyone wants to ignore that forum they can), or there is the social groups area if someone wants to start their own group for 100% AI generated work they can (similar to how someone could start a group for 'Classic Ford Mustangs' if they wanted to).

Thanks

 

[Sean]

What company proposes this new deal?

Hi Alan, there is no proposal as stated in my last post. This info looks outdated. The biz name was changed a while back to Photrio Ltd. 100% my company (based in NZ). Thanks

 

[MurrayMinchin]

They belong on a CGI forum.

Ordering a pizza with your favourite toppings doesn't make you a chef.

 

[retina_restoration]

The second statement is arguably true by definition. The first at least when taken literally is more debatable.

Okay, I can accept that. I would alter my statement to say: Ai-generated imagery is about the theft of every photograph ever made and vomiting up an approximation of all that the Ai has ingested, Intellectual Property Rights be damned.

Let me also say that I have nothing against people who want to use AI tools to make images, but it doesn't belong here, since the output is NOT a photograph, by definition.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

AI is a computer-generated drawing, not a photograph. It doesn't belong on a photo site.

 

[gbroadbridge]

. It doesn't belong on a photo site.

Isn’t a photo site something that is found on a digital image sensor?

I get your point, but the devil is in the details and definitions.

 

[djdister]

We may want to draw a distinction between "prompt generated imagery" versus "AI aided editing" (such as the spot healing brush in Photoshop)...

 

[skahde]

We may want to draw a distinction between "prompt generated imagery" versus "AI aided editing" (such as the spot healing brush in Photoshop)...

Good point. Not to forget what extensive analog manipulations pictorialists used to achieve their results.