Quote:
Originally Posted by arjaybe
Should a photographer be allowed to take credit for a picture created by a camera? How about a camera that makes automatic adjustments to improve the image? Or a camera that combines three images to create a better one?
|
That question was settled over 150 years ago. Those are tools and the photographer, (or movie maker) sets up the shot, even if it's an automated photo triggered by a noise, light or a moving animal.
HDR and related by combining images is just a tool.
Even image processing "plug-in" filters are just tools, like dark room dodging, or printing an image the size of a wall, and editing with paint, then re-photographing.
AI generated images are using at the input images mad by other unknown humans processed without any acknowledgement of the multiple sources.
Photography with images that could be preserved is about 190 years old. The idea of it and experiments are much older. Certainly some famous "old masters" used the Camera Obscura principle to project the scene to a flat surface. But they created the scene and framing of it, just as digital photographers and movie makers do today. The point is that AI images is a lie. They are not made from scratch by "clever" programming. They totally rely on other images, usually copied without permission, citing of source or anything. AI is fundamentally a lie. There is no real AI.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography