Modern Work Flow, Speedy Results (latest PS, AI)

For me the l“ line“ would be that an image has to have 3 components to be uploaded as a photograph.

1) A real photographer ( No computer generation),

2) A real camera/lens used to capture

3) A real model or subject without playing with the proportions or changing faces etc.

Also levels have to be kept as shot (or lowered) and the model needs to recognise herself/himself.

Theta Aeterna said

For me the l“ line“ would be that an image has to have 3 components to be uploaded as a photograph.

1) A real photographer ( No computer generation),

2) A real camera/lens used to capture

3) A real model or subject without playing with the proportions or changing faces etc.

Also levels have to be kept as shot (or lowered) and the model needs to recognise herself/himself.

But wouldn't that then exclude new aspiring models who take selfies with filters and also anyone who used PS to reduce a models 'love handles' or a swollen stomach as a result of temporary issues? I'd suggest that the rules be relaxed a little but that any images uploaded with any AI tweaking has to have a description including which of the components are AI.

I had an image on the FPI queue before. The model image was shot in camera but I generated some (in my opinion rather splendid illuminated headpieces for her). I subsequently got an admin message stating unless I sent the original file to prove it was an in camera shot it was being removed. I couldn't be bothered with the drama so it disappeared. The model was tagged in the image and furthermore I contacted her before I published any of the images to ask if she was okay with me using AI to generate some additional images not made in camera.

Subsequently other AI images (of a similar nature to the one I posted) appeared on the FPI list and were not removed. It would seem that only images that people on here moan about are subject to any  scrutiny so that in itself causes an unfairness issue. I am not bothered about the image being removed at all and I didn't get all bent out of shape about it or rant about it on the forums as its had zero impact but it is relevant to this thread. Any rules about AI content need to be very clearly set out and applied to everyone equally. I posted some of my stuff on a FB photography group a while ago which were edited but had no AI and some disgruntled luddite moaned that they were AI generated. They weren't at all, just photographed and edited with a painterly style.

I think if AI material is going to be excluded then there needs to be a comprehensive list of criteria, given that AI has seeped into all aspects of photography these days, so there are no grey areas and anyone posting images on here experiences an equal playing field. To be crystal clear I don't think any solely generated images have a place here.

Russ Freeman said

Allesandro B said

Prior to AI tools it was hard work, required skills, was time-consuming, and was often fairly obvious.

Nowadays, anyone can do it in a few minutes, and with almost no skills and effort, and it *at least* looks superficially convincing to such an extent it can be used to deceive.

It's not my trainset, it's our community. As a community, we ought to work together to ensure it has integrity.

Maybe the community is okay with pages of FPIs and comp wins that are merely machine hallucinations, maybe it's okay to allow people to join who claim to be photographers but have only ever used midjourney for five minutes.

I think it still is fairly obvious. I don't disagree with you about integrity.

I've played about with generative fill and have rarely been pleased with the result.

As a rule,  personally I'd say the subject needs to be a real person beyond that the genie is out of the bottle and whilst generated backgrounds are mostly a bit crap at the moment its only going to improve. 

I personally feel that to totally lift rules regarding AI is to throw the towel in on photography.  I think it can be policed, in the same way as drink driving. You will see some that are obviously driving over the limit whilst others are caught with random checks.  A lot of images are of models that are familiar to us so that will help.  The question is, what do you do to those that break the rules? Simply removing the images won't be enough of a deterrent.  From my own perspective, I see absolutely no point in showcasing AI images.  The quality of the image is dictated by the prompt and anyone can learn this in an hour. It's free and its childs play. 

GPA6 said

-sp●●n- a few days ago, maybe a week, I liked an image of yours, the one with the violin. Then I took a closer look and unliked it, because AI had been applied to the subject. That's my take. The state background changes are acceptable but not subject, even if it is similar.

You should recheck the image as the current version of the violin image is AI free.

Regardless of people's thoughts on AI, including the site owner...this image is now an FPI 😀

BigBaldTone said

Regardless of people's thoughts on AI, including the site owner...this image is now an FPI 😀

I noticed that, too!

I think this is a good use case. The original shot is still mostly intact and has been augmented quite “traditionally”.

The intent seemed clear from the outset that some comp work was going to be done to the original image. Skills lacking at the time probably put that intent to bed. Been there myself. There right now actually on a couple of images.

Yes the legs stand out a bit and the DoF is a little unnatural but with some filmic colour grading as a final process I think you could push this into “wouldn’t raise an eyebrow initially” territory.

And taking a pic in a studio and comping a background/scene together is pretty standard. Nothing new in that regard.

Congrats on the resurrection.

On the AI discussion though, the OP demonstrates what can now be done in an hour or so. The original shot still takes some planning though, and some level of execution to make it useable. And humans. It needed humans.

You could knock five of these out per day once you’re in the flow, but that would still be after a few days at least of organising the shoot, taking the pictures, deciding on good shots etc. let’s say that’s a week of effort.

Then you bash ten good images out in a weekend of focus.

Ten images per seven days. That doesn’t feel too bad. It won’t clog up the system, it won’t overload servers or social media.

AI “photographers” can bash “portraits” out 10 every minute. Then post all of them. Before you know it we can’t move for the slew of content and you lose the ability to focus on anything because it loses its meaning. Like keyring/fridge magnet stalls in popular tourist spots.

Let’s not turn photography into a fridge magnet market just yet.

Edited by harbuzenger

harbuzenger said

On the AI discussion though, the OP demonstrates what can now be done in an hour or so. The original shot still takes some planning though, and some level of execution to make it useable. And humans. It needed humans.

You could knock five of these out per day once you’re in the flow, but that would still be after a few days at least of organising the shoot, taking the pictures, deciding on good shots etc. let’s say that’s a week of effort.

Then you bash ten good images out in a weekend of focus.

Ten images per seven days. That doesn’t feel too bad. It won’t clog up the system, it won’t overload servers or social media.

AI “photographers” can bash “portraits” out 10 every minute. Then post all of them. Before you know it we can’t move for the slew of content and you lose the ability to focus on anything because it loses its meaning. Like keyring/fridge magnet stalls in popular tourist spots.

Let’s not turn photography into a fridge magnet market just yet.

Edited by harbuzenger

That sounds like a full time job ;)

I personally think that all work which is not from the photographer should be attributed, not an exact link, but even if saying "background stock image", or "AI generated background", "worked on by retoucher"

-sp●●n- haha. Not necessarily 7 days of graft, but chronological time at least. There is an effort argument for sure, but it’s saturation that concerns me more. It’s hard enough getting a few views as it is. What else do we do this for if not for someone to see it.

My Instagram feed is full of AI “artists” being offered up. When you look at the interactions it’s just other AI “artists” leaving the standard ❤️ or 🔥

Dreary.

Attributing could be a way to go I guess.

indemnity said

FiL said

Why are her legs so short? It looks like her feet are about a pace behind her and trying hard to catch up.

Have to agree a bit of the Mrs Merton look in that respect.

It's that gum-chewing alien bird in Mars Attacks to a T. Confident that her 'attributes' will be sufficient to ensure her quarry will overlook her otherwise obviously wonky bits!

Where I see this as a benefit is when these 'have a portfolio become a model' can get the victim in, shoot the image and then insert the backgrounds/styles of choice. It will also be good for the boudoir shooters, taking a few snaps of the subject, editing them to death and then slotting all the elaborate scene items in. There are places that charge several hundred for these. Once the formula and a range/library of backgrounds has been put together the end result can be done in minutes even while they wait, whereas previously it would take hours to do each one. Pop up/mobile shoots to the customers wishes could be provided, and at an almost instant work flow speed. Pick your back ground style/concept first, shoot, click process click print...have a nice day...next. The customer in most cases couldn't care how it's done, they just want the best image at cheapest cost. Let's be realistic here, this AI has unbelievable potential, even if it's not for everyone. This is just based on the straightforward customer need scenario. The ability to just create something is a whole different avenue, however, in reality it isn't creating, I personally see it as the AI stealing images and piecing them together like a jigsaw and selling someone else's work.

This is probably a bit harsh but it is possible to take a phone snap apply a filter and it will look substantially better than some of the images you see produced by an 'instant photographer' (new camera owner) the model's bts images are in many cases better than the ones from a shoot on a dslr. I see AI as a development from that IG filter concept for the average person playing with it.

Edited by indemnity

-sp●●n- well done on the FPI today 🙂 seems while everyone has been arguing its value to exist the very work they’re arguing about made it to the front page 🙂

Edited by Retouchguy

Fair play to spoon, he couldn't have been any more honest about his editing process. Id like to find out if models are OK with images like this and if it would be etiquette to get their permission before publishing? Any thoughts? I think I'd be inclined to ask until it becomes the norm.