I think we need a statement on what the photograph is trying to tell us. i-e I am presenting a photograph image as a painting, the image looks so good, and I was stuck with a flat blue sky or white wall of nothing, and I know this is not what was there. Verise, I removed a branch or some other small distraction. I never intended to criticize anyone for their effort to improve the look of a photograph.
Peter
Peter, to which topic/post are you referring, or is this just a general statement regarding replacing backgrounds and/or removing distracting elements?
-P
Hi Preston
I was generally refering to bird or wild life, but these changes could also be included in general photography. AI will only get better at changing the reality of photography. So if we do make major changes to a photograph, should it now be in a new community?
Peter
A year or so back there was a check box on the posting form that was for indicating a composite, but it went away for some reason. At this point, some AI generated things are easily identified, but others are harder and I hope that folks on this forum at least will be clear about any major elements they’ve added.
1 Like
Hi Peter,
Personally, I believe AI has the potential to be a power for good, but there is also the real possibility it could be used for nefarious purposes.
In terms of photography, both newsworthy events and photography as art, AI should not cause a change that affects the veracity of the event or image.
It would be my hope that photographers, in all its various genres, would steadfastly resist the use of AI simply because the real truth of human creative thought and reasoning should not be subservient to a machine intelligence.
Personally, I will not use AI, nor will I ever replace a sky, or object using current tools. I may remove a branch or beer can, in the course of editing, and if I do remove a larger object , I will disclose it.
As @Kris_Smith said, and I agree, that members here would be up-front about the use of AI.
I would like to hear the thoughts of others on this timely and important topic.
-P
2 Likes
Great topic of conversation and one that is more relevant today than ever, but some aspects of it are far from new. The removal of elements or compositing of photographic elements to create an image existed prior to the advent of photoshop, ie Jerry Uelsmann. Photoshop accelerated and unearthed the ability to do things easier and more efficiently but depending upon the hands the technology lies in, not necessarily better. The old adage, just because you can doesn’t mean you should, rings louder than ever. I recently viewed an exhibit of 8 prints by Ruud van Empel at the San Diego Museum of Art. His work is all composited and very surreal and had images produced prior to photoshop usage and more recent work utilizing the power of the technology. The overall feel of the images were unchanged but at close detailed examination the recent work was cleaner in the compositing work.
In terms of my thoughts on the integrity of photographs (because I think that is at the heart of the issue) if one envisions an artistic composition and they are working in the medium of photography and they capture multiple images that are then utilized to create a final artistic creation, I absolutely support that expression. I do believe, again in terms of integrity, that that image should be identified as a composite.
The line for me is generative AI. If one uses text prompts to create a photograph or add an element to a portion of their photograph, then that image is no longer solely their artistic creation, in fact they’ve actually infringed upon the copyright of another photographer or artist and I am of the belief, we as photographers and artists should absolutely stand up against this. I get a bit hung up on all the filters that can be purchase as well for “creative effect”. Create your own look, yes it will take countless hours and trial and error, versus just paying for some preset looks and clicking on different ones to see which one finds appealing. Previsualize and then build from there. Sorry, I digress there, HA!!!
Basically, I see AI as certainly having potential for good in the world and can add efficiencies to numerous tasks and even save lives with the power of analyzing tremendous amounts of data in nanoseconds. When it comes to artistic expressions, if one is utilizing other peoples images to create an image they are going to claim as their own, I struggle with not seeing that as anything other than disingenuous.
In closing, consider the drivers of AI in terms of photography. Was it pushed by photographers or entities to make $$$. Adobe stock skyrocketed with the announcement of Firefly, the valuations on companies like ChatGPT are massive. They are harvesting the work of individuals like ourselves and then feeding it back to us.
Again, sorry for the rant and if it went off topic a bit, currently on an airplane and I think the cabin pressure had its way with me. 
2 Likes