Images being removed.

FunPhotographer said

Sensual Art said

RedWren said

I see you're a VIP member too, bit of a rubbish way to treat you!

PP's rules are applied in order to ensure honesty and fairness.  For example, I (as a photographer) want to know that what I'm looking at is a photograph of a real person who might come and model for photographs for me.

As over time these lines are only going to get more blurred and time consuming to enforce with the current rules, perhaps going forward we can have a rule that the model is a member of the site (or was at the time of upload) and they have to be tagged in it?

That could be an invisible tag when viewed by others members (unless the model accepts it, like now) but is visible to admin and the uploader/model, and is easy to cross-reference with the models portfolio if there's cause for any suspicion.  No tag = no upload.

In other words, we push the networking aspect of the site rather than the portfolio hosting aspect.

This could not possibly work because some models are not on this site, and some people photographed aren’t models at all. On other continents, they tend to use different sites. Essentially, you would be saying that photographers can only showcase work on their portfolios created by creatives on this one site, which would never work. Additionally, some models take their own photographs or get friends to do it who are not photographers, so again, they couldn’t tag a creator.

ANDY00

For me there's little value in viewing an image of a model, in relatively low resolution, no matter how fantastic it is, who I am unable to potentially network with.  So, yes, that is indeed essentially what I am saying.

It would mean a fundemental shift in emphasis of the site to a purely networking one.  I disagree that it could not possibly work, though whether it is a sensible thing to do is up for debate.  If you take your own photographs as a model then you tag yourself as the photographer and model.

FunPhotographer said

ANDY00

For me there's little value in viewing an image of a model, in relatively low resolution, no matter how fantastic it is, who I am unable to potentially network with.  So, yes, that is indeed essentially what I am saying.

It would mean a fundemental shift in emphasis of the site to a purely networking one.  I disagree that it could not possibly work, though whether it is a sensible thing to do is up for debate.  If you take your own photographs as a model then you tag yourself as the photographer and model.

It would never happen. The site is a community, meaning many creatives, not just one. It would need a significant number of patrons wanting that change, and in my opinion, that will never happen. For one thing, to join the site, you need to have images to prove you’re a photographer or model, and that would, in your scenario, need to be from creatives already on the site. This would mean only people on the site could help others join, and we would run out of creatives within a year. You haven’t thought it through at all.

Also, not liking low-resolution images? Most images on the net are 72dpi. If you want high-definition images, this is clearly not the site for that.

Many photographers, like myself, shoot people who are not models and have no ambition to be models. That would severely limit content being added to the site and available shoots. Photographers use multiple platforms to find models, including various sites and social media, and the same goes for models. In your scenario, they wouldn’t be able to showcase that work here because not all the creatives are on this site. People would leave and choose to join other sites. It would have a massive negative impact on the site and the number of patrons, which is one of the most important aspects of a photography networking site—the number of photographers and models available.

As someone who has been here to see many other sites wither and die—like Purestorm, Modelmayhem, and that Scottish one, etc.—I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take a big change to kill a site. Just a step in the wrong direction, and people go where the creatives are.

Edited by ANDY00

You make some relevent points, especially regarding new members joining. Though when I joined I had no images of models and when I subsequently booked shoots they were all with models on the site and were duly tagged as such.

Perhaps a hidden tag linking to another social media platform of the model such as Instagram might be an alternative approach?

I guess debate on the idea might help shape it into something workable, with better rules/guidelines than we have today that causes threads like this one to be started.  But, yes, you may well be correct that the general membership is content that what we already have will be enough to cope with the further emergence of AI.  If so, that's fine with me.

FunPhotographer said

Perhaps a hidden tag linking to another social media platform of the model such as Instagram might be an alternative approach?

While I'm normally the sort of person who will see any problem situation and immediately try to solve it, there are others who will take the opposite position, namely "for every solution, I shall find a problem."  Sadly, in the case of this question, there are more problems than solutions.  PP's position is therefore a reasonable one - if a picture looks (to a human) like it was machine-generated, go through the process to find out whether it was.

I met a chap from Canon UK yesterday and had a long chat with him about how to get more paid Fashion photography work.

He took a look at my portfolio and his first words out of his mouth were… and I quote:

“Your work looks old fashioned!”

He continued after seeing my look of despondency.. by telling me my work looked technical proficient but that he had recently commissioned photographers for Canon projects and asked me to look at the work of one of them.

He described this photographer as having embraced the use of generative Ai to enhance the photographic backgrounds and also create interesting graphic design elements that the people who ‘pay’ for fashion photography now want to see.

So if the discerning and importantly ‘paying’ photography market is embracing the use of Generative Ai to add graphic design to the production of end imagery…

Does this mean Purple Port and its rules on the matter are ‘old fashioned’?

If photography is evolving.. should not Purple Port?

Raj Singh Did the pictures he said the market now wants require an actual model, just with a generated background, or were the models now also redundant?

Raj Singh said

I met a chap from Canon UK yesterday and had a long chat with him about how to get more paid Fashion photography work.

He took a look at my portfolio and his first words out of his mouth were… and I quote:

“Your work looks old fashioned!”

He continued after seeing my look of despondency.. by telling me my work looked technical proficient but that he had recently commissioned photographers for Canon projects and asked me to look at the work of one of them.

He described this photographer as having embraced the use of generative Ai to enhance the photographic backgrounds and also create interesting graphic design elements that the people who ‘pay’ for fashion photography now want to see.

So if the discerning and importantly ‘paying’ photography market is embracing the use of Generative Ai to add graphic design to the production of end imagery…

Does this mean Purple Port and its rules on the matter are ‘old fashioned’?

If photography is evolving.. should not Purple Port?

AI-generated backgrounds are allowed, just as digital and vinyl/paper backgrounds are allowed. However, the model needs to be real, digital backgrounds have always been allowed on all sites.

One of the first digital AI-inspired images I saw was the Vogue cover with safari animals and models in the savannah. It featured giant lions and elephants alongside the models, which everyone thought was amazing. And they were—but all shot in a studio.

But this site is not and has never been geared towards the high fashion industry. It's a photography and model networking site that hosts both amateurs and professionals alike.

Edited by ANDY00

Sensual Art

Oh yeah, fashion with a model wearing them. But some (a few) were so processed of them to almost render them anonymous… and more just another graphic element.

Edited by Raj Singh

ANDY00

But if the high end fashion photography (or any that embraces generative AI) is evolving the question remains is PP geared ‘against’ it (or them)… rather than being embracing of all photography?

Edited by Raj Singh

Raj Singh said

ANDY00

But if the high end fashion photography (or any that embraces generative AI) is evolving the question remains is PP geared ‘against’ it (or them)… rather than being embracing of all photography?

Edited by Raj Singh

Not at all, in my opinion. The only stipulation is that your photography must have a real person or model. If you’re generating 100% AI images for fashion, this is just the wrong site to showcase it. Why would a photography and model networking site be interested in 100% AI-generated images with no photography and no models? There’s nothing stopping you from having that stuff in your own personal portfolio; it just needs to be separate from your portfolio on this site.

Don’t get me wrong, as can be seen in multiple posts on here, I love AI and regularly stand up for it on the site. It's a great tool and will continue to be a great tool to help photographers. But the key word is "tool." Having it do all the work to create an unreal fantasy doesn’t really fit with the aesthetics of this sites narrative.

Edited by ANDY00

If photons * were involved as the primary tool to create an image, then it’s a photo and it’s okay for PP.

If you typed a request for a machine to make the image then it is not a photo and you should upload it to somewhere else.

I don’t see the need for every web site to allow the same uploads as every other web site.

*before someone nitpicks; I am aware of camera-less photography techniques that may use parts of the em spectrum that are not visible to us humans.

" COUNTABLE NOUN A2

A photograph is a picture made using a camera.

He wants to take some photographs of the house. [+ of] 

Her photograph appeared in The New York Times. 

Synonyms: picture, photo [informal], shot, image More Synonyms of photograph

2. VERB B2

When you photograph something, you use a camera to obtain a picture of it.

She photographed the children. [VERB noun] "

This makes it clear. I consider PP a place to share photographs. Pictures taken with a camera. 

ClickMore 📷 said

" COUNTABLE NOUN A2

A photograph is a picture made using a camera.

He wants to take some photographs of the house. [+ of] 

Her photograph appeared in The New York Times. 

Synonyms: picture, photo [informal], shot, image More Synonyms of photograph

2. VERB B2

When you photograph something, you use a camera to obtain a picture of it.

She photographed the children. [VERB noun] "

This makes it clear. I consider PP a place to share photographs. Pictures taken with a camera. 

And sketchers and artists and retouchers etc , just saying! :-) The important bit is that a human needs to be involved in the creation, its not just about using a camera, as long as it wasn’t AI doing all the work.

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00

I have not described 100% AI generated images and I agree with you and our exulted leader on the matter.

But where an image is built upon a model then it should be viable here.

This site btw accepts images where there is no model whatsoever!

Now whether what is built upon a model be it before shutter release like make up, clothing, a full gimp suit that renders her entirely anonymous or multiple filters, projections….. or post production including via AI generative graphic enhancements…

The model has done their job in the process and is deserving of the credit.

But the image, if not 100% AI, should be allowable here.