"Photography IS Film"

[ReginaldSMith]

But then, I am not trying to hide anything.

Until you know what someone is looking for, I think that's "whistling past the grave yard." And, oh by the way, you can't ever know what someone might be looking for.
The whole power of mass surveillance is based on that principle. If no one knows what the target is, no one knows where it is safe to stand.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Just pointing out that your "philosophy" has become a paranoid dream. It has nothing to do with photography.

You've said that 4 or 5 times already. I think everyone heard you. Anything of substance to say?

 

[faberryman]

[

Until you know what someone is looking for, I think that's "whistling past the grave yard." And, oh by the way, you can't ever know what someone might be looking for. The whole power of mass surveillance is based on that principle. If no one knows what the target is, no one knows where it is safe to stand.

I welcome mass surveillance of my photographs. It would be a welcome change from their current obscurity. Perhaps I could get a gallery show.

 

[Sirius Glass]

At one interview I was asked for the passwords for my social media. I told them that I did not engage in social media. I was told that EVERYONE was on social media. I said that would be hard to prove, so prove that to me. I got a lot of stumbling from the interviewer. Then I pointed out that social media provides a way for hackers to do social mining to get passwords, and that I maintained good security practices. There was a long pause, so I pointed out that since I did not have any social media that I belonged to he both had and did not have my passwords at the same time. I got the job and then as the Director of Engineering, I cancelled the requests for social media passwords.

 

[markjwyatt]

That link is a mix of sound engineering principles and pseudoscience. It's built on the completely unprovable assertion that all decision making is machine like, and hints at philosophical determinism. The Deep part of the learning simply refers to the layers through which data is changed. It's an argument from complexity, the inference being that given sufficient layers a machine will exhibit intelligence. it depends what you mean by intelligence of course, but most people would agree it demands conscious awareness. Hardcore materialists won't go along with this, but the Daniel Dennett's of the world don't believe we are conscious in any meaningful sense anyway. Which leaves the rhetorical non sequitur of someone using consciousness to argue that he isn't truly conscious.

I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

[
I welcome mass surveillance of my photographs. It would be a welcome change from their current obscurity. Perhaps I could get a gallery show.

That's the funniest post in this thread by a mile. Thank you!

 

[removedacct1]

Keep banging away though with your hammer. You're bound to hit a nail eventually.

I suspect I'm not alone in finding your responses often convey condescension.

 

[blockend]

I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.

Well I agree right back! Creativity often involves an original or unmotivated bringing together of disparate elements that people recognise and give value to. Data processing is built on the recognition of precedents, not a visceral response to anomalies. That response may rely on an appreciation of dogs, mathematics, texture, balloons, humour and culture simultaneously, along with millions of other potential factors none of which have been combined in the same way before. Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

A few words on the essence are coming to mind. Photography is:

capture a visual event


the individual’s decision


an image


with a camera


an intention


to reproduce


Display image

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.

All opinions are worthwhile.

Dead Link Removed

I'd call it "artificial creativity" and clearly it can already compete with human creativity. Ergo, it can replace human creativity which was my point in posting about it.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

A few words on the essence are coming to mind. Photography is:

capture a visual event


the individual’s decision


an image


with a camera


an intention


to reproduce


Display image

Now, I can very clearly appreciate the human element you find in the essence as you see it.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I suspect I'm not alone in finding your responses often convey condescension.

Unquestionably. It's my intentional response to nastiness and ignorance of the post to which they are attempting to refute.
You know, the one where someone jumps up and yells, "I'm calling BS!" when what was offered was say, personal experience, or the guys who do such lousy fact checking, or guys who assault my character, not the argument, or expect me to "prove" something on a forum. That sort of nonsense will get a condescending reply. I work hard at it, too.

 

[removedacct1]

Unquestionably. It's my intentional response to nastiness and ignorance of the post to which they are attempting to refute.
You know, the one where someone jumps up and yells, "I'm calling BS!" when what was offered was say, personal experience, or the guys who do such lousy fact checking, or guys who assault my character, not the argument, or expect me to "prove" something on a forum. That sort of nonsense will get a condescending reply. I work hard at it, too.

Condescending? Check
Arrogant? Check.
On my ignore list? Check!

 

[moose10101]

Condescending? Check
Arrogant? Check.
On my ignore list? Check!

Makes the thread so much more readable and interesting.

 

[MattKing]

Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.

I'm not sure it is any easier to get a person to understand those things.

 

[MattKing]

Matt,
I was an employer in the 70s and 80s. My argument is not about employment practices, it's about the effect on photography of various forms of surveillance. In the 1970s when I was employing people, it never would have occurred to me to ask to see all the photographs they'd taken. Again, that is meant to point out a difference in the societal systems from then to now.

In the 1970s and 1980s, in certain industries it would have been prudent to ask prospective employees for a complete list of what they had produced and had published.
Social media is just almost infinitely accessible self publishing, that has the power to reach many more people than even the most widely distributed newspapers were able to reach back then.
An employer who ignores that power and hires without even considering the internet "footprint" of a prospective employee is like an employer who hires a known author without learning about their writings.
The societal systems barred (due to issues of practicality) 99.99999+% of the populace from distributing their thoughts, opinions and photographs from almost all of the rest of the world. Those systems have changed almost completely, and what was once a thoroughly constrained and restricted ability to share photography has been replaced with one where there is a veritable explosion of ability to share photography.
Photography hasn't changed, but the pipeline for sharing it certainly has.

 

[markjwyatt]

Well I agree right back! Creativity often involves an original or unmotivated bringing together of disparate elements that people recognise and give value to. Data processing is built on the recognition of precedents, not a visceral response to anomalies. That response may rely on an appreciation of dogs, mathematics, texture, balloons, humour and culture simultaneously, along with millions of other potential factors none of which have been combined in the same way before. Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.

Agreed. Creativity is often crossing the uncrossable chasm, aka "thinking out of the box". Algorithms are a poster child for "the box". That is not to say algorithms do not have value they do in some cases (they do tedious work for us).

 

[MattKing]

Not something brand new, but significant for people who print their own pictures on lasers and inkjets.
Dead Link Removed

Again, we have two interesting aspects. First, that while no law required this tracking of prints, the printer companies were only too happy to fulfill the request of the state to do so. Second, it is of course, just another chilling effect on photography in this age.

Those "fingerprints" were added predominantly to deal with counterfeiting operations. Modern printers are capable of producing really high quality copies of a variety of valuable things, including currency.
What used to require an equipped print shop and a skilled pressman (presswoman?) now requires a visit to Staples.
The same sorts of identification can generally be done by skilled and very careful comparisons between printers themselves and examples of their output.
Just like they used to do with typewriters or handwriting analysis.

 

[markjwyatt]

All opinions are worthwhile.

Dead Link Removed

I'd call it "artificial creativity" and clearly it can already compete with human creativity. Ergo, it can replace human creativity which was my point in posting about it.

Not sure how embedded information detracts from the potential for creativity. Interesting piece though. Lot of photographers watermark their digital work/reproductions. Not really scary, perhaps prudent.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

An employer who ignores that power and hires without even considering the internet "footprint" of a prospective employee is like an employer who hires a known author without learning about their writings.

If I were hiring today, I'd look for what I always have looked for in people - good skills, wide ranging knowledge beyond mere technical matters, and personal integrity. About 90% of that I can determine face to face. I wouldn't have any more interest in their Facebook account than I would have going through their bedroom, or briefcase. A "job" is a transaction and nothing more. To root through people's non-job life may be possible, but I find it unethical and destructive for a free society. But, I well understand I'm on the extreme side of personal liberty and most of current society is on the highly limited side of personal liberty. So, i'm in a tiny minority.

 

[BrianShaw]

I suspect I'm not alone in finding your responses often convey condescension.

Your not alone.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Not sure how embedded information detracts from the potential for creativity. Interesting piece though. Lot of photographers watermark their digital work/reproductions. Not really scary, perhaps prudent.

The downside of all that artificial creativity is that it will continue to replace human photography because it is simply cheaper. In other threads I cited how photographers used to get paid $1500 - $2500 for limited use of an image for a book cover, and now those photo rights are bought for about $25 from stock house with millions of amateur photogs submitting 000's of shots a week. With AI, stock houses won't even need the legions of amateurs. Photo rights prices will fall through the floor and real people won't have that way to make a living. THAT is a big impact on photography.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Those "fingerprints" were added predominantly to deal with counterfeiting operations.

Understood. There is always a law enforcement rationalization for every form of tracking and surveillance. It's the subsequent use and abuse which forms the dangers of theses systems. Tracking a political activist (such as the FBI is notorious for doing for generations now) is then just a part of that counterfeit tracking system. There's of course always a superficial public rationale for every one of the what..millions? of laws. Printer tracking is just a thread in the massive fabric of surveillance.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Not sure how embedded information detracts from the potential for creativity. Interesting piece though. Lot of photographers watermark their digital work/reproductions. Not really scary, perhaps prudent.

@markjwyatt

I posted the wrong link for the point I was making about AI creativity. Sorry, I was responding to two different people and got them crossed. Here is the link I wanted to point out artificial creativity: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15973712/google-ai-research-street-view-panorama-photo-editing

 

[BrianShaw]

If I were hiring today, I'd look for what I always have looked for in people - good skills, wide ranging knowledge beyond mere technical matters, and personal integrity. About 90% of that I can determine face to face. I wouldn't have any more interest in their Facebook account than I would have going through their bedroom, or briefcase. A "job" is a transaction and nothing more. To root through people's non-job life may be possible, but I find it unethical and destructive for a free society. But, I well understand I'm on the extreme side of personal liberty and most of current society is on the highly limited side of personal liberty. So, i'm in a tiny minority.

I quite agree.