Is straight photography dead?

[warden]

But here’s the rub: it was a straight print from a straight photograph of someone wearing a Queen Elizabeth II mask at a Jubilee street party. The adjacent negative shows the mask side-on.

That’s great! I hope you didn’t correct them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Could you explain that further. I'm not familiar with the concept.

The human eye cannot see the infrared light. The eye is not capable of seeing infrared light. What you are seeing is the light source's output in the visual range, definitely not any light in the infrared spectrum. Just like we cannot see ultraviolet light, but ultraviolet light shows up on photographs taken without a UV or Skylight filter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some people like loud music and spicy food. Others tastes are quieter. Some people like me enjoy Velvia while others like more sedate Provia or Portra. But that doesn't make it fake or not authentic. We still see the scene pretty much as it was as long as there's no cloning.

Velvia, VividColor and UltraColor films do not show colors as they appear in the real world, those films show exaggerated saturation of some colors. Do not confuse that with the authentic colors.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some people feel the entire universe is an illusion.

That is called being disillusioned.

 

[koraks]

• I heard a smell,
• I smelled a sound,
• I saw a man trying to take a straight photo, but it all came out crooked.

Synaesthesia can be pretty awesome - and confusing, I guess!

 

[snusmumriken]

That’s great! I hope you didn’t correct them.

Not I. I was happy to ponder the double deception. I was being accused of deception, when in fact the reality itself was staged. If it had been a serious matter, that’s a bit scary isn’t it?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sirius - no color film ever represented real world color as our eyes see it. As far as Velvia goes, it could differentiate certain hues of brilliant green or purple better than any other film, but only if you worked within its realistic contrast range, which people seldom did, and just wanted to go hyper with it. Astia was the most color accurate overall. I once shot an old pre-E6 Agfachrome 50 which would render warm tones better than any film since, and would even capture fluorescent lichen and algae colors, but couldn't yield saturated Spring greens. Neither could classic ole Ektachrome 64; but it would do sage greens and bluish neutrals better than any current film. Every single color neg film ever invented has certain serious color repro issues. There is no silver bullet, never will be. "A man has to know his limitations". But I have little patience for the current craze to just go hog wild overboard with every silly app and so forth. That's their right; but I'll never personally call it photography or go out of my way to view it.

 

[Rrrgcy]

And some people feel there is a god. Strange funny world, isn't it?

Don...I accept that there is photography and also that there is no photography. Both conditions are equally true. Can you accept that?

BORIS Eldagsen about his AI created submission winning said, “I call my images “images”. They are synthetically produced, using “the photographic” as a visual language. They are not “photographs”.
Not-even-a-photograph, and I say, “BOOM!”

(btw, they‘ve erased him and his award winner on the site.)

Sony World Photography Awards 2023 | boris eldagsen

www.eldagsen.com

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe someone needs to ask AI to create an image of itself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are some good things to say about AI. Since it can evidently lie on its own, that means we don't need to waste a lot of time and money electing politicians anymore.

 

[warden]

Not I. I was happy to ponder the double deception. I was being accused of deception, when in fact the reality itself was staged.

Well played sir.

 

[faberryman]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

Please refrain from any societal level comments. This is a photography forum, though more and more I think members have lost interest in photography, and are content to discuss subjects like the best pickle relish to put in tuna fish salad,

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

Please refrain from any societal level comments. This is a photography forum, though more and more I think members have lost interest in photography, and are content to discuss subjects like the best pickle relish to put in tuna fish salad,

In a word? NO

 

[Pieter12]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

Please refrain from any societal level comments. This is a photography forum, though more and more I think members have lost interest in photography, and are content to discuss subjects like the best pickle relish to put in tuna fish salad,

And no to the pickle relish.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Sirius - no color film ever represented real world color as our eyes see it. As far as Velvia goes, it could differentiate certain hues of brilliant green or purple better than any other film, but only if you worked within its realistic contrast range, which people seldom did, and just wanted to go hyper with it. Astia was the most color accurate overall. I once shot an old pre-E6 Agfachrome 50 which would render warm tones better than any film since, and would even capture fluorescent lichen and algae colors, but couldn't yield saturated Spring greens. Neither could classic ole Ektachrome 64; but it would do sage greens and bluish neutrals better than any current film. Every single color neg film ever invented has certain serious color repro issues.

Yup. The reason Kodachrome was so gorgeous was not because it looked like real life but because it looked like Kodachrome.

 

[Pieter12]

Sirius - no color film ever represented real world color as our eyes see it. As far as Velvia goes, it could differentiate certain hues of brilliant green or purple better than any other film, but only if you worked within its realistic contrast range, which people seldom did, and just wanted to go hyper with it. Astia was the most color accurate overall. I once shot an old pre-E6 Agfachrome 50 which would render warm tones better than any film since, and would even capture fluorescent lichen and algae colors, but couldn't yield saturated Spring greens. Neither could classic ole Ektachrome 64; but it would do sage greens and bluish neutrals better than any current film. Every single color neg film ever invented has certain serious color repro issues. There is no silver bullet, never will be. "A man has to know his limitations". But I have little patience for the current craze to just go hog wild overboard with every silly app and so forth. That's their right; but I'll never personally call it photography or go out of my way to view it.

I always found Ektachrome Professional to render the most faithful color. I used to use it for documenting paintings.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

I think it will guide me to produce photographs NOT resembling AI generated images.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The tungsten version of Ektachrome seemed the most accurate at one time in relation to controlled artificial lighting. But Fuji dupe film, basically tungsten-balanced Astia was even better. But a lot depends on the nature of the colors involved. What might work well for reproducing artificial colors might have quite a few relatively blind spots in nature. For example, a purple dyed fabric which looks the same as a purple flower to us might not look the same at all to a particular film or species of insect. It's a complex topic, and now with fewer color films to choose from.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The tungsten version of Ektachrome seemed the most accurate at one time in relation to controlled artificial lighting. But Fuji dupe film, basically tungsten-balanced Astia was even better. But a lot depends on the nature of the colors involved. What might work well for reproducing artificial colors might have quite a few relatively blind spots in nature. For example, a purple dyed fabric which looks the same as a purple flower to us might not look the same at all to a particular film or species of insect. It's a complex topic, and now with fewer color films to choose from.

I used Ektachrome Tungsten film extensively when I was doing a lot of available light night photography. It was my film of choice for night photography then.

 

[Hassasin]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

Please refrain from any societal level comments. This is a photography forum, though more and more I think members have lost interest in photography, and are content to discuss subjects like the best pickle relish to put in tuna fish salad,

I don’t and hope to never pay attention to artificially produced anything. Fake is fake, even if it may look straight.

In a word, it won”t. I would much rather first become part of the fake “decisive moment” movement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don’t and hope to never pay attention to artificially produced anything. Fake is fake, even if it may look straight.

In a word, it won”t. I would much rather first become part of the fake “decisive moment” movement.

I think what may happened if social media gets clogged with landscape shots, photographers might just switch to personal and street photography where Ai might be less important or used.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think I may have asked this question a while back, but I do not recall anyone responding, so I will throw it out there again. How do you think AI generated images will affect your photography?

Please refrain from any societal level comments. This is a photography forum, though more and more I think members have lost interest in photography, and are content to discuss subjects like the best pickle relish to put in tuna fish salad,

Almost not at all. It strikes me that to use AI you have to set it a task. I don’t have any imagination - which is why I do photography rather than painting or writing novels - so I wouldn’t know how to instruct it.

AI could lead to a much better tool for removing dust spots from negative scans though …

 

[Hassasin]

Almost not at all. It strikes me that to use AI you have to set it a task. I don’t have any imagination - which is why I do photography rather than painting or writing novels - so I wouldn’t know how to instruct it.

AI could lead to a much better tool for removing dust spots from negative scans though …

Was that not a question about how "images created by AI" will affect YOUR photography?

Was at first going in your direction, and for that I don't care about any AI already available in editors, reason why I liked Picasa, when it was stand alone program, and all other similar simple editors where one can do just the basic adjustments and there is little tempting "technology" to mess with. Sliders are beyond enough for me to fake things up beyond expectations.

 

[Hassasin]

I think what may happened if social media gets clogged with landscape shots, photographers might just switch to personal and street photography where Ai might be less important or used.

AI is only at its beginning and already faking images of all sorts that are not obviously fake. For sure we will be falling for some "reality" before we find out it was all fake. In such a case I will just flush it out of my system and try to see it as a never happened.

 

[VinceInMT]

Almost not at all. It strikes me that to use AI you have to set it a task. I don’t have any imagination - which is why I do photography rather than painting or writing novels - so I wouldn’t know how to instruct it.

IMO, “imagination” is the step in the creative process that visualizes or recognizes what may be an interesting image to create. Drawing and painting is no different from photography in that it is a learned set of skills made better with practice.

In that vein, while I have no shortage of ideas, I have been playing around with AI to see how it can up with prompts/suggestions for images to draw/paint/photograph, not so much for my own use but to advise the art department from where I just graduated. It is curiously effective. It also writes decent artist statements, better than some of my peers could do with their assignements.

I can provide some examples for those who don’t access the AI software themselves.