Hi Martha! Fortunately, there was a big chunk of discussion on the ethical, legal and social implications of what has gone on and how we account for this going forward. I do think it's troublesome. The images we make and make available online seem to be no longer ours...at least the bits and pieces. At the symposium, the extraordinary keynote speaker, Hito Steyerl, was asked what we can do now to protect ourselves and our images. Her simple reply was, "It's too late."
That's a good read, Jeffrey. Thanks for sharing this. Yes, the standards are tight in that department and thankfully so. It's the not so journalistic publications online that I worry about.
Thankfully journalism no longer abides by the doctoring of photographs of journalistic publication. The times of moving pyramids has changed. I'm sure this will also aplly to AI. Here are a few of the more prominent photographers who have been fired for doing so.
The best point you made about AI is that technology does not make someone an artist. In addition to photography, I am a professional retoucher. I started in 1978 using brushes and dyes on emulsion. When Photoshop first came out, I began adopting it. And many of my clients said to me; "Sorry Rick, I have Photoshop and probably won't need you anymore." It wasn't long before they came back..... Apologetically.
I've been deep into AI since June. I love it. I combine it with photo, and use it alone. I really wanted to go to this seminar, but...you know, HNL is a hike from there. I hope they put it online.
Looking forward to receiving the link to the Zoom for your How To Choose...
In re AI, I did not enjoy having my website screenscraped to train a large data project. I responded to that theft of intellectual property accordingly. But having another tool does not require acquiescing to such shenanigans. As to whether a photo defrauds the audience if it's not photojournalism, I'd say that the intent of the photographer is the determining factor. If the photo moves the skateboarder higher into the air than s/he really was, that's not photojournalism and is probably intended to defraud the viewers. If the photo combines the lion's face with the hunter's face, that's clearly not intended as photojournalism. Eh?
Hi Martha! Fortunately, there was a big chunk of discussion on the ethical, legal and social implications of what has gone on and how we account for this going forward. I do think it's troublesome. The images we make and make available online seem to be no longer ours...at least the bits and pieces. At the symposium, the extraordinary keynote speaker, Hito Steyerl, was asked what we can do now to protect ourselves and our images. Her simple reply was, "It's too late."
That's a good read, Jeffrey. Thanks for sharing this. Yes, the standards are tight in that department and thankfully so. It's the not so journalistic publications online that I worry about.
I hope so too, Diana! I am going to reach out to Charlie Traub now (who helped organize it) to see if/when it does. Stay tuned!
Thankfully journalism no longer abides by the doctoring of photographs of journalistic publication. The times of moving pyramids has changed. I'm sure this will also aplly to AI. Here are a few of the more prominent photographers who have been fired for doing so.
https://listverse.com/2017/12/27/10-photojournalists-disciplined-for-doctoring-pictures/
Hi Michael,
The best point you made about AI is that technology does not make someone an artist. In addition to photography, I am a professional retoucher. I started in 1978 using brushes and dyes on emulsion. When Photoshop first came out, I began adopting it. And many of my clients said to me; "Sorry Rick, I have Photoshop and probably won't need you anymore." It wasn't long before they came back..... Apologetically.
If Muhammad doesn't come to the mountain, then the mountain will come to Muhammad
I've been deep into AI since June. I love it. I combine it with photo, and use it alone. I really wanted to go to this seminar, but...you know, HNL is a hike from there. I hope they put it online.
Looking forward to receiving the link to the Zoom for your How To Choose...
In re AI, I did not enjoy having my website screenscraped to train a large data project. I responded to that theft of intellectual property accordingly. But having another tool does not require acquiescing to such shenanigans. As to whether a photo defrauds the audience if it's not photojournalism, I'd say that the intent of the photographer is the determining factor. If the photo moves the skateboarder higher into the air than s/he really was, that's not photojournalism and is probably intended to defraud the viewers. If the photo combines the lion's face with the hunter's face, that's clearly not intended as photojournalism. Eh?