Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Where do you draw the line with editing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BF Hammer" data-source="post: 843219" data-attributes="member: 48483"><p>Let's call it a fuzzy smear instead of a hard, high-contrast line drawn for me.</p><p></p><p>My preference is for more natural images. Some photos need more processing help, others barely need an exposure adjust. Is manipulating objects in a scene during composition fair game? I think so as long as no damage is done. Cloning out elements? I tend to not do that as I don't have have that much skill for it. But I am willing to clone out dust spots that distract. Replace a sky? Then it might be a digital art project instead of photography. A person's intent has much to do with it all.</p><p></p><p>Let's not dismiss the role of training generative AI tools in the first place. Adobe is using all of your images that are edited with their software (and remember it is all their's, no matter how much you pay to rent it) for training the AI filters. Generative AI produced could be borrowing from your own work. So my preference would be to have EXIF data that automatically adds info indicating the image is AI generated, inspired by [photographer name].</p><p></p><p>Manipulating images have been an ethical debate for over a century, even on film. Airbrushing blemishes, or outright faking the Loch Ness Monster with a fuzzy toy submarine.</p><p></p><p>I have done some images that are in the fake category, but I always point out that I created the image instead of just presenting a photo. From 2024, I created this eclipse photo by overlaying an old photo of the full moon over the moon's shadow. No I did not capture earthshine that easily.</p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/jCbPFpO.jpeg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>But contrast that almost natural image to a rather famous "fake" image by Peter Lik:</p><p><img src="https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large-16-9/s3/lead/2018/02/lead-image-lik-photos.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Clearly that is fake as can be. Actual photos Peter took then combined into single images, but that is not even close to natural. Beautiful artwork though.</p><p></p><p>I won't call anybody out specifically, but there is one regular contributor here that saturates and sharpens all photos to the point of not being realistic. I think is is just a photoshop filter this person bought, but very overused for my personal taste. Like that one person in an office that uses too much cologne. Not that I would say that should not be done, it just is in that fuzzy smeared line area.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BF Hammer, post: 843219, member: 48483"] Let's call it a fuzzy smear instead of a hard, high-contrast line drawn for me. My preference is for more natural images. Some photos need more processing help, others barely need an exposure adjust. Is manipulating objects in a scene during composition fair game? I think so as long as no damage is done. Cloning out elements? I tend to not do that as I don't have have that much skill for it. But I am willing to clone out dust spots that distract. Replace a sky? Then it might be a digital art project instead of photography. A person's intent has much to do with it all. Let's not dismiss the role of training generative AI tools in the first place. Adobe is using all of your images that are edited with their software (and remember it is all their's, no matter how much you pay to rent it) for training the AI filters. Generative AI produced could be borrowing from your own work. So my preference would be to have EXIF data that automatically adds info indicating the image is AI generated, inspired by [photographer name]. Manipulating images have been an ethical debate for over a century, even on film. Airbrushing blemishes, or outright faking the Loch Ness Monster with a fuzzy toy submarine. I have done some images that are in the fake category, but I always point out that I created the image instead of just presenting a photo. From 2024, I created this eclipse photo by overlaying an old photo of the full moon over the moon's shadow. No I did not capture earthshine that easily. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/jCbPFpO.jpeg[/IMG] But contrast that almost natural image to a rather famous "fake" image by Peter Lik: [IMG]https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large-16-9/s3/lead/2018/02/lead-image-lik-photos.jpg[/IMG] Clearly that is fake as can be. Actual photos Peter took then combined into single images, but that is not even close to natural. Beautiful artwork though. I won't call anybody out specifically, but there is one regular contributor here that saturates and sharpens all photos to the point of not being realistic. I think is is just a photoshop filter this person bought, but very overused for my personal taste. Like that one person in an office that uses too much cologne. Not that I would say that should not be done, it just is in that fuzzy smeared line area. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Where do you draw the line with editing?
Top
