Is film better for the truth?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Scratched or unscratched.

 

[StevieB]

No manipulation is obviously not true because every action he takes to make his images with his Hasselblad is obviously a manipulation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No manipulation is obviously not true because every action he takes to make his images with his Hasselblad is obviously a manipulation.

Well, Van Gogh manipulated his paint brush too. What's manipulation got to do with anything?

 

[StevieB]

Well, Van Gogh manipulated his paint brush too. What's manipulation got to do with anything?

Why does it have to do with anything? You and Mr Glass are upset because of images that result from altering a photographic scene through manipulation, because you consider the final photograph to not be the truth, a fake photo. It isn't a fake photo it's a photo. The photographer you posted is guilty of altering the scene he photographs using the same tools photographers have been using for generations.
I do not understand the VanGogh reference. I do know that Modernist Art began with him and Monet and he was a free thinker. Do you think he should be cast off for not painting realistic paintings? He used the tools he had to paint what moved him. Shouldn't photographers be permitted to do the same?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, Van Gogh manipulated his paint brush too. What's manipulation got to do with anything?

He manipulated a knife too and we know how that turned out.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

A while back I suggested this because that's where we're going. Why replace only the sky? Replace the ground at the same time. We're almost there. In fact, why buy a camera at all, or film or memory cards. Save on gas. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, and do your photography at your desk in your pajamas. All we need is an image and call in photography anyway.

Eventually you will be able to assemble your photographic art from libraries of samples. Already done in music. Clip art anyone? Or, flower arranging?

 

[markjwyatt]

Finally the truth! At 2:42 a man with a Hasselblad and the right spirit! "We do not crop! We do not manipulate!"

To be followed by a photo book titled "Steal this photograph"

 

[Helge]

Eventually you will be able to assemble your photographic art from libraries of samples. Already done in music. Clip art anyone? Or, flower arranging?

Way behind the curve there Brendan. ;-).
Deep learning networks can already synthesize images that needs very close inspection to reveal themselves as constructed. And that is from mere descriptive requirements.
This tech will truly turn photography on its head in a few years.
One of the consequences will be that film will be even more appreciated for its frankness, earnestness, forthright manner and for lack of better term, truth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Way behind the curve there Brandan. ;-).
Deep learning networks can already synthesize images that needs very close inspection to reveal themselves as constructed. And that is from
Mere descriptive requirements.
This tech will truly turn photography on its head in a few years.
One of the consequences will be that film will even more be appreciated for its frankness, earnestness, forthright manner and for lack of better term, truth.

Snapshots people take of family and vacations, including digital, will become even more popular. Why waste big bucks on fine digital cameras when you get better results with the click of a computer button. ONly shots of the family can't be AI'd.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't care what film is. It's more fun to work with. That I know.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One of the consequences will be that film will even more be appreciated for its frankness, earnestness, forthright manner and for lack of better term, truth.

 

[warden]

Meet DALL-E, the A.I. That Draws Anything at Your Command (Published 2022)

New technology that blends language and images could serve graphic artists — and speed disinformation campaigns.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Helge]

Snapshots people take of family and vacations, including digital, will become even more popular. Why waste big bucks on fine digital cameras when you get better results with the click of a computer button. ONly shots of the family can't be AI'd.

Especially the shots of family members can be generated. The AI would have access to a huge library of background information, “stock” photos and environment information. And it will have the most competent and patient judges to learn and correct any mistakes from.

It will basically be the return of the expensive family painting, only indistinguishable from a real photo.

Unless that photo was recorded on film that is.

It’s possible to fake almost anything, the difference is the deliberation and effort needed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Especially the shots of family members can be generated. The AI would have access to a huge library of background information, “stock” photos and environment information. And it will have the most competent and patient judges to learn and correct any mistakes from.

It will basically be the return of the expensive family painting, only indistinguishable from a real photo.

Unless that photo was recorded on film that is.

It’s possible to fake almost anything, the difference is the deliberation and effort needed.

I wasn't referring to backgrounds being dubbed in but to pictures of the relatives themselves.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wasn't referring to backgrounds being dubbed in but to pictures of the relatives themselves.

Choose the relatives and AI lines them up as ducks in a line. You get to change the order of the ducks. Now you can change the line of relatives to different beaches with a click. Heck you could have everyone lined up in bathing suits in front of Carnegie Hall or the Lincoln Memorial in the snow. Think of the abominations that can be produced.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My point is that family and shots of friends will become more important than ever of what people shoot. We're already inundated with photos that are beyond reality due to the Photoshopping that goes on. Why waste your time shooting a mountain when AI can give you a picture better than Ansel Adams? So personal shots of people will become even more frequent and important. Why waste time, gas and effort trying to get your own shot when you can assemble a beautiful montage at home with a click of the button?

 

[Sirius Glass]

My point is that family and shots of friends will become more important than ever of what people shoot. We're already inundated with photos that are beyond reality due to the Photoshopping that goes on. Why waste your time shooting a mountain when AI can give you a picture better than Ansel Adams? So personal shots of people will become even more frequent and important. Why waste time, gas and effort trying to get your own shot when you can assemble a beautiful montage at home with a click of the button?

Yes, think of the money one can save with FauxTow$hop! One no longer needs to have all that pesky and expensive camera stuff when they can make a picture out of nothing with nothing but commercially and free files on the web. News Flash: No need to have cameras any longer!

 

[jnamia]

My point is that family and shots of friends will become more important than ever of what people shoot. We're already inundated with photos that are beyond reality due to the Photoshopping that goes on. Why waste your time shooting a mountain when AI can give you a picture better than Ansel Adams? So personal shots of people will become even more frequent and important. Why waste time, gas and effort trying to get your own shot when you can assemble a beautiful montage at home with a click of the button?

if you look at photographs from photo studios past and present, people are always photographed in front of a background. I don't really understand what the problem is if someone wants to have a photograph made infront of a AI background, it's not a new concept. I have photographs of my grandfather in his army uniform from ww1 when he went to a photo studio in France somewhere, the background was an elaborate painting of Eiffel Tower, photographs of my grandmother's cousin whose photographs I restored were all from some posh NYC portrait studios in the from the 20s on up until his death, he even wore costumes in some of the photographs taken of him. If being photographed infront of a backdrop or wearing a costume isn't the same as an AI background I'm not sure what is, and it kind of makes the idea that if its film its the truth not make much sense. this thread is kind of funny.

 

[Helge]

I wasn't referring to backgrounds being dubbed in but to pictures of the relatives themselves

Neither was I.
Family pictures have always been some of the most construed, kitschy and stilted performance pieces.
They would be really easy for an AI to learn to fake.

 

[Helge]

if you look at photographs from photo studios past and present, people are always photographed in front of a background. I don't really understand what the problem is if someone wants to have a photograph made infront of a AI background, it's not a new concept. I have photographs of my grandfather in his army uniform from ww1 when he went to a photo studio in France somewhere, the background was an elaborate painting of Eiffel Tower, photographs of my grandmother's cousin whose photographs I restored were all from some posh NYC portrait studios in the from the 20s on up until his death, he even wore costumes in some of the photographs taken of him. If being photographed infront of a backdrop or wearing a costume isn't the same as an AI background I'm not sure what is, and it kind of makes the idea that if its film its the truth not make much sense. this thread is kind of funny.

Of course film can be faked. It’s just harder and harder to do well.

I’ll bet a lot that those background photos would be pretty easy to spot as fake.

A person out to really fool people today would use various digital tools.

If you have a negative and especially a negative roll, there’s is very little chance that you’d have bothered to fake anything but stuff easily done in-camera.

 

[Don_ih]

this thread is kind of funny

There have been a lot of insightful comments in this thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

if you look at photographs from photo studios past and present, people are always photographed in front of a background. I don't really understand what the problem is if someone wants to have a photograph made infront of a AI background, it's not a new concept. I have photographs of my grandfather in his army uniform from ww1 when he went to a photo studio in France somewhere, the background was an elaborate painting of Eiffel Tower, photographs of my grandmother's cousin whose photographs I restored were all from some posh NYC portrait studios in the from the 20s on up until his death, he even wore costumes in some of the photographs taken of him. If being photographed infront of a backdrop or wearing a costume isn't the same as an AI background I'm not sure what is, and it kind of makes the idea that if its film its the truth not make much sense. this thread is kind of funny.

The photograph was taken that way. That is not the same as changing the background after the photograph was taken.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Neither was I.
Family pictures have always been some of the most construed, kitschy and stilted performance pieces.
They would be really easy for an AI to learn to fake.

One would be wise to change to order, age and weight of the ducks as well as reduce the head hair on the male members to be realistic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

if you look at photographs from photo studios past and present, people are always photographed in front of a background. I don't really understand what the problem is if someone wants to have a photograph made infront of a AI background, it's not a new concept. I have photographs of my grandfather in his army uniform from ww1 when he went to a photo studio in France somewhere, the background was an elaborate painting of Eiffel Tower, photographs of my grandmother's cousin whose photographs I restored were all from some posh NYC portrait studios in the from the 20s on up until his death, he even wore costumes in some of the photographs taken of him. If being photographed infront of a backdrop or wearing a costume isn't the same as an AI background I'm not sure what is, and it kind of makes the idea that if its film its the truth not make much sense. this thread is kind of funny.

Besides the point I was making. First off, everyone realizes the portrait studio shot was a studio shot with backdrops. But the main point I was making was about people shots in general. As more and more landscapes are produced with AI in a computer, people will just stop being interested in taking their own landscape shots. It will become so fake, no one will care to "compete" with AI. Only people shots of family and friends will have meaning. We will become a world of snapshots. Instead of advancing in our photography due to the great technical cameras and processes, we'll go back to just shooting off the hip family shots like the old Kodak box cameras of 70 years ago. That's all most people will care about. Photoshop and AI will otherwise kill photography with a camera. Why bother?

 

[MattKing]

Alan,
That pre-supposes that people care about what is being depicted in photographs. They do when it comes to family shots and a few other things, but otherwise they care about how the photograph looks.
For most people, how the photograph got to look that way doesn't matter. For some of those interested in photography, the method and materials matter.
Method and materials seems to matter more for prints or projected slides than images viewed on a screen, but again, only for some.