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

[0x001688936CA08]

If an image was made with a lens and light, it’s probably a photograph.

Pretty much everything else, even if it looks like a photograph, seems out of place here.

 

[thinkbrown]

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

Damn I really like that analogy.

Personally, without getting into whether or not AI generated imagery is art or not, I think it's pretty clearly not photography. In the same way that I'm fairly sure photrio doesn't have a painting section, an AI imagery section feels equally out of place.

Now I just have to sit back and wait for someone to point out a painting section I've never seen

 

[runswithsizzers]

AI imagery has nothing to do with photography!

I might accept the idea that AI imagery is not photography (depending on how you define "photography"), but to say it has "nothing to do with photography" is debatable. If I understand correctly, AI models are trained by "looking at" huge numbers of photographs. So any photo-like image generated by AI is derived from, and based on, traditional human photography, right?


The difficulty is defining what is a photograph. Many will argue along the lines of:

If an image was made with a lens and light, it’s probably a photograph.

While AI uses neither a lens nor light directly to generate an image, the AI was trained using photographs that were made with lenses and light. Is it fair to say photorealistic AI images are a distillation, or a synthesis of all the photography that went into creating the model? And is it possible that the AI has "seen" and analyzed far more photographs than most Photrio members (and perhaps more than ALL Photrio members, combined)? So the AI may have a better definition of what makes a photograph than we do?

By-the-way, I am not using the above to argue for the inclusion of AI generated images on Photrio. My previous discussion is intended only to promote discussion that may (or may not) lead to different perspectives and more precise definitions.

Personally, my vote would be to discourage the posting of AI generated images on Photrio. I do like looking at AI images, but at present it is just too confusing to mingle photorealistic AI images with photos made by traditional methods. For now, I believe it be would be better if AI images were viewed and discussed on other websites clearly devoted to that purpose.

I do not see any reason to discourage posting digital photographs which have been edited using AI-based tools. If I tediously select a sky for exposure reduction using a masking brush, that does not make the final result any more pure, or higher art, than if I ask Lightroom to select the sky for me. And using Lightroom to darken the sky in a digital photo is not all that different from burning in the sky when making a darkroom print, or using a graduated neutral density filter when taking the photograph. All just different tools in the tool box.

 

[djdister]

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

Indeed. And along those lines, don't forget William Mortensen. This article in The Guardian cites the following:

"Mortensen’s methods often made it hard to distinguish whether the results were photographs or not. He used traditional printmaking techniques, such as bromoiling, and developed many of his own. He would create composite images, scratch, scrape and draw on his prints, then apply a texture that made them look like etchings, thereby disguising his manipulations. Consequently, every print was unique. Ultimately, Mortensen’s aim was to create something that, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be a photograph, yet portrayed scenes so fantastic they caused wonder and astonishment in the viewer."

 

[koraks]

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

I used online search (not AI; duckduckgo), keyed in "business registration new zealand", which resulted in a number of hits of which I took one that seemed relevant, this allowed me to search for "photrio" and that produced a clear hit. If you follow the same routine, you'll notice that one of the hits is actually the official New Zealand government business registration portal, which you can use to find the entry for Photrio Ltd.

Could you please explain the background to your question?

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

I think the Photrio population has been demonstrated to be biased at least as strongly. In itself I'm not too worried about something or someone being biased; it's something I can keep in mind. btw, I posted that bit of output not as an argumentation that I personally subscribe to (although it seems fairly decent overall to me), but more as a way to demonstrate how we could share AI-generated text here in a way that makes it easily recognizable as such, using the quote formatting tags. Perhaps if @Sean has inspiration to do so, he might look for a plugin for the forum that adds an AI-specific tag that makes a bit of text (and/or imagery) explicitly and clearly visible as AI-generated.

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

I agree. I'm really rooting for that, but I also think it's something we could probably better solve client-side, which is how people have been doing it already for some time. We see people participating here esp. from e.g. China who use AI-translation to communicate with the forum; I think that's a great development that allows us to really reach out globally on our joint passion.

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

Definitely, that too.
I personally also believe we should make a distinction between "I hate it" and "this will destroy our community". I presently see a lot of the first being formulated as the second, but it doesn't really convince me to be honest. I fully accept that people absolutely hate AI and everything to do about it, but I've yet to see one credible argument that if we make a section in the forum where people can play with this, it would somehow make the whole forum go to waste. That's not going to happen.

By-the-way, I am not using the above to argue for the inclusion of AI generated images on Photrio. My previous discussion is intended only to promote discussion that may (or may not) lead to different perspectives and more precise definitions.

Thanks, that's also what I intend with my "devil's advocate" posts, although I do personally feel that there's a lot of fear/anger/anxiety related to this topic that doesn't seem entirely justified to me. Nobody's proposing that we somehow flood Photrio with AI-generated content in any way.

To be clear, if we were to expand the existing space that @Sean already mentioned in #44, we'd do it in such a way that people who object against seeing AI content would be in a position to systematically ignore/'unsee' it. I also don't see it happening that we'd encourage or even allow AI-generated imagery to play a prominent role in regular forum threads outside of the above-mentioned AI-dedicated area.

 

[koraks]

In the same way that I'm fairly sure photrio doesn't have a painting section, an AI imagery section feels equally out of place.

But nobody ever asked for it. Somebody did start uploading AI-generated images to the Gallery and I suspect he's not the last person with the inclination to do so. So this is a development that we may have to consider in some way. The result of that consideration could vary from "never, under any circumstances" to "allowed within strict stipulations".

Also, to those who compare AI-generated content to photography (i.e. @0x001688936CA08 and @retina_restoration, but others as well): I don't think the question is whether AI-images are equal to or a substitute to actual photographs. Nobody says they are, or tries to push that point. The question is whether and/or under which conditions we could discuss/show that sort of content on Photrio. It's clear that many here don't want to be involved in such activity and that's fine. But that does bring the question whether that also means it should be disallowed for everyone on this forum. That's not so clear to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No AI produced images in the Gallery, the internet provides enough coverage of AI produced images. Besides people provide the contents for forum posts, AI can find its own formats if it is smart enough to figure it out.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

The difficulty is defining what is a photograph.

I think the "lens-based" approach is the simplest and most practical, making it quite straightforward.

There are outliers, like photograms, chemigrams and other artefacts created using photographic equipment and materials, but it's revealing that these are not simply called photographs.

Also, to those who compare AI-generated content to photography (i.e. @0x001688936CA08 and @retina_restoration, but others as well): I don't think the question is whether AI-images are equal to or a substitute to actual photographs. Nobody says they are, or tries to push that point. The question is whether and/or under which conditions we could discuss/show that sort of content on Photrio. It's clear that many here don't want to be involved in such activity and that's fine. But that does bring the question whether that also means it should be disallowed for everyone on this forum. That's not so clear to me.

The nature of the AI-images that look very much like photographs are forcing this "equal to or substitute for" consideration, and some people here are in fact saying and pushing for AI content to be considered "equal to or a substitute for" simply by uploading them to a "photo" gallery.

Are people asking for an AI section? Is there a genuine and quantifiable want in the forums for AI-generated images?

 

[koraks]

The nature of the AI-images that look very much like photographs are forcing this "equal to or substitute for" consideration, along with the fact that people are uploading images here that are, by definition, not photographs. Additionally, some people here are in fact saying and pushing for AI content to be considered "equal to or a substitute for" simply by uploading them to a "photo" gallery.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with that analysis. The one person who recently uploaded AI-generated images to the main Gallery did so because there was no other logical place for it on this forum. He also clearly marked the images as AI-generated.

Are people asking for an AI section? Is there a genuine and quantifiable want in the forums for AI-generated images?

At least one person was trying to interact with the community by sharing AI-generated imagery with us, and nothing suggests that his motives for doing so were detrimental to the community. Since there's so much resistance to AI, the logical conclusion is that if we allow this, it would have to be in a dedicated section so as not to rustle the feathers of those who object. In my mind, that makes the want at least genuine. Whether it's quantifiable is another matter and frankly at this point I don't think it's a question that would result in either allowing or disallowing this. We have plenty of subforums for interests that apparently lack a quantifiable demand. Apparently that has never been a problem before.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

Accommodations being made simply because one person didn't have an appropriate outlet necessarily degrades the integrity and purpose of Photrio, at least in my opinion. It appears I'm not alone with that opinion.

There are many outlets for other art forms on the internet, and Photrio beginning a slide down a slippery slope to being all things to all members is probably a shortcut to irrelevance.

 

[retina_restoration]

Accommodations being made simply because one person didn't have an appropriate outlet necessarily degrades the integrity and purpose of Photrio, at least in my opinion. It appears I'm not alone with that opinion.

There are many outlets for other art forms on the internet, and Photrio beginning a slide down a slippery slope to being all things to all members is probably a shortcut to irrelevance.

I agree 100%
This is a photography forum, not a computer art forum. If it appears that Photrio is losing the battle (willingly or otherwise) to limit or segregate AI imagery then I will stop participating in the forum. (not that anyone will really care, and that's fine too)

I can see hints of the "equal to or substitute for" thinking in this discussion, and that is a slippery slope once you start thinking along these lines.

 

[retina_restoration]

I might accept the idea that AI imagery is not photography (depending on how you define "photography"), but to say it has "nothing to do with photography" is debatable.

I don't think it's debatable at all. But instead of me reiterating that AI imagery is not photography, I will leave it to you to prove that it is photography. Let's see how you do...

 

[jeffreyg]

My guess if you showed a youngster or someone unfamiliar with his images a Jerry Uelsmann print they would probably say it was Photoshopped or Ai.
It doesn’t matter to me if Ai is permitted or not. If someone created an Ai image and printed it and then photographed with film it might then be considered a photograph of a picture.

 

[koraks]

Photrio beginning a slide down a slippery slope

I don't really see that happening, but thanks for sharing your concern. Let's work to prevent it. I personally don't think that allowing AI-gen content within a confined area of the forum is a risk in this regard.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My guess if you showed a youngster or someone unfamiliar with his images a Jerry Uelsmann print they would probably say it was Photoshopped or Ai.
It doesn’t matter to me if Ai is permitted or not. If someone created an Ai image and printed it and then photographed with film it might then be considered a photograph of a picture.

Maybe, but he had multiple enlargers and the images he made were formed in his own mind, with images he took himself, and were produced with impeccable skills.

Typing a scenario into a computer and letting some company generate an image for you is hardly comparable to Uelsmann.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I don't think it's debatable at all. But instead of me reiterating that AI imagery is not photography, I will leave it to you to prove that it is photography. Let's see how you do...

There is a difference between "is not photography' and "nothing to do with photography" -- I agree with the first, but the second one, I am still thinking about.

If there had never been any photography, could photo-realistic AI images exist? There would be no photos to train the models with, so I think, not. If the existance of AI photo-images depends on the previous existance of what we call photography, then AI imagery has something to do with photography. Exactly what, or how much? Maybe it is too soon to tell?

 

[jeffreyg]

Maybe, but he had multiple enlargers and the images he made were formed in his own mind and produced with impeccable skills.

Typing a scenario into a computer and letting some company generate an image for you is hardly comparable to Uelsmann.

I wasn’t comparing his images to Ai rather suggesting that most people are more familiar with today’s technology. Years ago my daughter took a photography class at the University of Florida with him and I believe he used as many as five enlargers to make some of his prints. I did go to an exhibition he had in Coral Gables and met him and yes even at close inspection his prints were perfect. You could not tell they were from multiple negatives.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Collage, or incorporating collage into a painting, can be considered fine art.

Writing a letter with a description of your piece to Collage-Co asking them to whip up one for you would not be considered a fine art.

Stick a fork in it.

 

[koraks]

Guys, with all due respect - the question is not whether AI-gen imagery is art, photography etc. The question is, if we allow it in a place on this forum, will it break the entire forum?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

If allowed; sub forum with its own gallery.

A related question...if I block a member, will their images disappear from the main gallery when I go there?

 

[ezphotolessons]

I do not think there are any photography websites that cater-to AI generated photorealistic images other than "me-mes" on social media. It might be a good idea just have another box-two-click at the top of the paige so people don't get offended (maybe that is why the 3 boxes are there?). This could be a gargantuan-draw for a growing groop who would happily pay to exibbit their cool AI Photos. real pictures or not AI pictures can be fun too look at.

 

[koraks]

A related question...if I block a member, will their images disappear from the main gallery when I go there?

Yes, certainly! It works for posts as well as gallery images.

I do not think there are any photography websites that cater-to AI generated photorealistic images other than "me-mes" on social media. It might be a good idea just have another box-two-click at the top of the paige so people don't get offended (maybe that is why the 3 boxes are there?). This could be a gargantuan-draw for a growing groop who would happily pay to exibbit their cool AI Photos. real pictures or not AI pictures can be fun too look at.

Thanks for offering this insight which is a little different from most of what we've heard so far. It's good to know that some people look at it this way as well.
Btw, I do know that on some other photo forums there are dedicated threads or categories for AI-gen imagery. Photrio wouldn't be the first to undertake something like that. I don't see much spillover into the rest of the place once a dedicated place is established for it.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Yes, certainly! It works for posts as well as gallery images.

Thanks, good to know.

 

[jeffreyg]

Put me down as it doesn’t matter to me. Probably 95+% of the subjects presented on the site are not of interest to me but I am still a subscriber and would remain one if Ai was permitted. If so it should be labelled as such.

 

[koraks]

Put me down as it doesn’t matter to me. Probably 95+% of the subjects presented on the site are not of interest to me but I am still a subscriber and would remain one if Ai was permitted. If so it should be labelled as such.

Thanks; yes, that makes sense! You make me realize we could add a poll to this thread. Mind you, not to imply that the majority vote will automatically be realized, but it'd be interesting to see some numbers on this.