Staunch supporters of the traditional approach to photography will continue to repeat all the arguments about AI being bad, mainly because it is fast and based on shared visual content. But pushing a button on a camera is also fast, compared to drawing or painting, and using Photoshop to en…
Staunch supporters of the traditional approach to photography will continue to repeat all the arguments about AI being bad, mainly because it is fast and based on shared visual content. But pushing a button on a camera is also fast, compared to drawing or painting, and using Photoshop to enhance your sky in an image is also AI. In fact, cell phones and contemporary cameras all have some AI built in, and most people don’t even know that.
It is where the real world and AI intersect that problems arise: fake pictures of politicians, salacious misrepresentations of those someone wants to hurt – abuse of new technology is not a fair way of measuring its total value.
When you apply AI to create images that deal with a world in which no cameras are possible – the world of fantasy – you are on more solid ground. I have been spending considerable time over the last several months using AI support in creating photo-like illustrations of folk tales, legends, and sagas from the European repertoire, and these allow the viewer an illusion of being there because they look similar to photographs. Other than these depicting stories from folklore from the time before cameras, there is no way to compare them to contemporary specifics from the real world. The individuals, creatures, and places are all made up. Some have coined the term synthography for this new way of creating images.
ChatGPT is wrong in calling it merely digital interpretation. It is a collaboration between the transmitted verbal stories, my human imagination in applying the stories, my creativity concerning the refinement and exactitude of the verbal prompts, the AI’s reinterpretation of shared cultural and visual data based on my verbal prompts, and further human editing and curating of the results. More complex than it seems at first glance! Eldagsen also explains the components well…
I'm sorry, but we never called "photography" a painting. We called it photography or painting with light. We also didn't send paintings, calling it photographs, to photography contests.
That discussion is stale. I think we shouldn't call AI generated images photography. So that people who are interested in AI can do their thing and the others who aren't can do theirs.
Thanks for continuing this important discussion.
Staunch supporters of the traditional approach to photography will continue to repeat all the arguments about AI being bad, mainly because it is fast and based on shared visual content. But pushing a button on a camera is also fast, compared to drawing or painting, and using Photoshop to enhance your sky in an image is also AI. In fact, cell phones and contemporary cameras all have some AI built in, and most people don’t even know that.
It is where the real world and AI intersect that problems arise: fake pictures of politicians, salacious misrepresentations of those someone wants to hurt – abuse of new technology is not a fair way of measuring its total value.
When you apply AI to create images that deal with a world in which no cameras are possible – the world of fantasy – you are on more solid ground. I have been spending considerable time over the last several months using AI support in creating photo-like illustrations of folk tales, legends, and sagas from the European repertoire, and these allow the viewer an illusion of being there because they look similar to photographs. Other than these depicting stories from folklore from the time before cameras, there is no way to compare them to contemporary specifics from the real world. The individuals, creatures, and places are all made up. Some have coined the term synthography for this new way of creating images.
ChatGPT is wrong in calling it merely digital interpretation. It is a collaboration between the transmitted verbal stories, my human imagination in applying the stories, my creativity concerning the refinement and exactitude of the verbal prompts, the AI’s reinterpretation of shared cultural and visual data based on my verbal prompts, and further human editing and curating of the results. More complex than it seems at first glance! Eldagsen also explains the components well…
I'm sorry, but we never called "photography" a painting. We called it photography or painting with light. We also didn't send paintings, calling it photographs, to photography contests.
That discussion is stale. I think we shouldn't call AI generated images photography. So that people who are interested in AI can do their thing and the others who aren't can do theirs.