| ▲ | prmoustache 6 days ago |
| The weird thing is that people are seemingly enjoying this. Yesterday we went to a store to have a look at a few smartphone for my partner. She primarily wants a good camera above any other parameter. I was seeing her preferring those that were counterfeiting the reality the most: she was like, "look I can zoom and it is still sharp" while obviously there was a delay between zooming and the end result which was a reconstructed, liquid like distorded version similar to the upscaling filters people are using on 8/16bit game console emulators. I was cringing at seeing the person I love the most preferring looking at selfies of picture of us with smoothed faces and a terrible fake bokeh in the background instead of something closer to the reality. |
|
| ▲ | gyomu 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’m a photographer, and am on a bunch of beginner photography groups. These groups used to be a mix of people being confused at how their camera worked and wanting help, people wanting tips on how to take better pictures, and sometimes there was requests for editing pictures on their behalf (eg “I found this old black and white faded picture of my great grandparents, can anyone help restore it?”) These days, 99.9% of the posts are requests that involve synthesizing an entirely new picture out of one or more other pictures. Examples: “can someone bring in my grandpa from this picture into this other family picture?”. Or “I love this photo of me with my kids, but I hate how I look. Can someone take the me from this other picture and put it in there? Also please remove the cups from our hands and the trees in the background, and this is my daughter’s ex boyfriend please also remove him”. What’s even crazier is that the replies of those threads are filled with dozens of people who evidently just copy pasted the prompt + picture into ChatGPT. The results look terrible… but the OP is always pleased as punch! People don’t care about “reality”. Pictures have lost their status of “visual record of a past event”* and become “visual interpretation of whatever this person happens to want”. There’s no putting back the genie in the bottle. *: yes, you can argue they were never 100% that, but still, that’s effectively what they were. |
| |
| ▲ | flir 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "I'm delighted by this picture of some weird cartoon people that are in the same pose as my grandparents" puzzles me deeply, also. | | |
| ▲ | quxbar 6 days ago | parent [-] | | You've never seen those stands at the boardwalk where artists draw caricatures? They're extremely formulaic and rarely resemble the subjects aside from a few distorted features, but humans have being paying other humans to pump out that slop for ages. | | |
| |
| ▲ | slipperydippery 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 1) This is, amusingly, kind of a shift back to when portraits had to be painted. 2) This seems very similar to me to those weird fuzzy double-exposure, heavily posed portraits that used to be really popular, or in general not that different from going and having family photos taken at a cheap mall photo studio with one of five shitty looking background-tarps. I suspect there are some interesting class components to that second one (Fussell may even have mentioned it in his book, I can't recall, but it's definitely the kind of thing that probably could have served his analysis) but overall I think the "unwashed masses" have long preferred really shitty, lazily/poorly staged & manipulated photos to authentic ones. Now they can just apply that same aesthetic preference to photos that weren't originally like that. | |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Young people often ask "what's the point of fine art photography? It's just capturing what I can already see with my eyes, I prefer art like paintings which are more creative and imaginative" And the answer is often "GOOD photography is about capturing a fleeting moment in time, forever, so that we can enjoy it longer" But what is happening now is going the other way - people are using photography to be more imaginative, as a creative medium more akin to composing a painting. Transforming reality rather than merely recording it | |
| ▲ | petralithic 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But people have be editing photos like that before AI and even before Photoshop, I don't see the big deal. What I've seen recently is synthesizing whole new pictures with AI, by training a LoRA on their face and body and asking the AI to create themselves with a specific setting or background. | | |
| ▲ | roelschroeven 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I value old photographs of my and my family not because they look good or whatever but because they show where we've been and what we've been doing etc. They're documented history. Once you start heavily editing, making them showing things that weren't there, you loose that history. I think that's a loss. | | |
| ▲ | conductr 6 days ago | parent [-] | | They’re not mutually exclusive though. My wife has our portraits taken about twice a year and sometimes during a vacation or major event. So we have those, we also have tons unedited candid photos we take on a daily basis and never share (or only on a closed platform like a shared Album in iOS Photos), then my wife does a lot of editing and montage stuff for some of the stuff she posts more broadly to SM. I post nothing to SM so can’t speak from personal experiences here, but what I’m saying is there isn’t a single use case anymore. We have the tools at our disposal to just scratch curious itches even when they don’t get posted or shared (which I’d bet is a majority of photos). You’re viewing it as reductive but it’s expansive from what I’ve seen. | | |
| ▲ | prmoustache 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ironically one of our framed photo is my partner and me posing next to an historic building in a pueblo magico in Mexico. A stray dog decided to piss on the wall when my sister in law was taking the picture. She actually realised it and took a second picture but it turned out we like the first one better as it is just much more authentic. | |
| ▲ | JohnFen 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They’re not mutually exclusive though. I get what you're saying, but I don't think I entirely agree. If we live in a world where you can't tell if a picture is real or fiction, then it becomes necessary and reasonable to think of all pictures as fiction. | | |
| ▲ | conductr 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This is only an issue with a single photo or low sample sizes. In the case of family photos, you’d like have a whole bunch of them to reference and could spot inconsistencies more easily. If it becomes so good to be completely indistinguishable from reality, then not sure what the gripe is. You could just as easily think of all pictures as unaltered. It’s a matter of optimism/pessimism or perhaps red pill/blue pill. Granted, if your grandparents are showing you their vacation pictures from their world travels that never happened, this is a different scenario that is weird and can could happen. It’s a balance of trusting nothing you see while making a few exceptions for your family and whatnot | | |
| ▲ | JohnFen 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > If it becomes so good to be completely indistinguishable from reality, then not sure what the gripe is. Being 100% convincing doesn't make it true. Not being able to tell what's true from what's fake is a self-evident problem. It means you're at risk of forming an invalid view of the world. The only safe approach would be to never believe anything, at which point we've even lost recent history. Madness lies that way. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | exitb 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The motivation behind taking pictures has definitely changed over time. People used to keep them mainly for themselves and their close family. Then they started to share with close and not so close friends. Now they use it to boost their "personal online brand". Yes, it was possible to heavily manipulate pictures with Photoshop, or even in analog photography, but it wouldn't make any sense for most people. | |
| ▲ | csomar 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But people have be editing photos like that before AI and even before Photoshop Very few people who had the skill, time or money. I think we are now discovering that everybody wants to edit the photos, they just couldn't do it before in what they consider a reasonable amount of effort. | | |
| ▲ | petralithic 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I agree, but I am specifically looking to understand the above photographer's point. They said the requests they used to get versus what they get today have changed, but I argue that that doesn't make any sense, people have always wanted to edit their photos in the "now" example even back then. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It totally makes sense that people don't request things they don't expect to be possible. | | |
| ▲ | petralithic 6 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is that their "these days" example was already possible 20 to 30 years ago, so if they're just seeing these requests today then they're missing out on what people have wanted even back then. |
|
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In other words: this is a complaint about how cheap modified pictures, that look real at first glance, are. |
| |
| ▲ | roomey 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People were pirating before napster, but napster made it easy, accessable, and let people do it with little to no barrier. It's the same with this.. yes photo editing could always be done, but it's far easier now to get better results. It's accessibility changes the game | | |
| ▲ | petralithic 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm specifically responding to their point about how "these days" people want different things and I'm saying that they always wanted those things, nothing new about it. | | |
| ▲ | mingus88 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I disagree. My parents generation took photos on point and shoot cameras. They waited a week or longer to get them developed, never really knowing what they took. These photos ended up stuck to pages in an album to be brought out occasionally, or they were really good, in a frame placed on display. They have pictures from the 80s still out on their mantle. Maybe once a decade they would go to a studio like at Sears and get a pro to get the whole family together. These would be edited, but also very rare. Even the thought that they would be taking pictures for anyone else to ever see would rarely cross their minds, let alone the need to make major edits. Regular people simply didn’t have this vanity or need for approval when taking pics like the smartphone era | | |
| ▲ | petralithic 5 days ago | parent [-] | | My parents' generation also took photos but if something was off, they'd ask our photographer relative to edit them. This was over 20 years ago. At least some part of the population did know what photo editing was and did it, either themselves or with the help of someone else. |
| |
| ▲ | latexr 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the contrary, there is plenty new about it. People’s perception of how much you can change influences how much they ask. Seeing new possibilities gives you new ideas. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Atheros 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'll see the big deal when you realize that you don't trust absolutely any photos or videos of current events unless the photos are provided by a news source that you trust. You'll see the big deal when you take a picture of something real and show it to a friend who isn't interested because they don't think the thing in the photo actually exists. |
| |
| ▲ | vendiddy 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I generally love AI. But I lament these blurred lines of reality. Is this photo real? Was this reply ChatGPT or did they actually write it? It makes me feel uneasy. | | |
| ▲ | johnisgood 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I feel the same way. Thankfully there are still obvious signs in case of using LLMs, but it is not always so obvious. I think we may be better off assuming X is fake, and go from there. Sad but what could we do? There are websites that tell you (with a %) whether or not something has been written by an LLM. Unfortunately, however, some of my writings come out false positive. We may need to do improvements on this front, and I believe we will. | | |
| ▲ | prmoustache 6 days ago | parent [-] | | reality can be faked even without use of LLMs. Take for instance instagram, youtube shorts and tiktok. I see people watching tons of small either supposedly funny or shocking videos. And people seem to believe they are totally real and not organize/produced content until I challenge them on a number of trivial details that make those videos totally unbelievable they would have been recorded by chance or in an opportunistic manner. | | |
| ▲ | xnorswap 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That attitude actually feels a couple of years out of date to me, now the response is often along the lines of, "So what, everything is staged, it's just for fun, get over it and stop being a killjoy". There's a general belief that nothing is real, but we should still just act, and be influenced by it, as if it were real. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rurp 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is wild to me. I take plenty of smartphone photos and have literally never in my life wanted to distort a picture in this way. None of my pictures are ever getting published or being used to promote a product; being a visual record of a past event is exactly what I want out of them. I'm honestly pretty surprised to hear this is turning into such a minority view. | |
| ▲ | joaquincabezas 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No wonder why Google says: “Generate, transform and edit images with simple text prompts, or combine multiple images to create something new. All in Gemini.“ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45026719 |
|
|
| ▲ | ulrikrasmussen 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, this is the exact same reason that frame smoothing exists. When you walk into a store, all the TVs are lined up showing some random nature show or sports event, and frame smoothing will make your TV look a little more smooth than the others, even though it completely ruins the content. It's made for making sales, not for making things actually look good. |
| |
| ▲ | xnorswap 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't "ruin the content", it's a psychological issue which would be fixed by more high quality productions actually producing high frame-rate content, so the association reverses. It seems insane to actively make all content worse, having movies worsened down to a lower frame-rate just because we have a hangover from decades old technology. It's a shame that Peter Jackson's Hobbit wasn't a great movie. Had it been, then maybe it could have been a better driver of high frame-rate movies. | | |
| ▲ | matt-attack 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Your premise to lower (temporal) detail his automatically worse is a naïve view. I’m certain you’re aware that impressionism is a valid, quite successful form of art. Do you think there are any critics who say a Monet painting would be far better if it, just had more detail? Oh if only Van Gough used a smaller brush his paintings would have been so much better! It needs “more k!”. Film making at 24fps (while originally selected for pragmatic reasons having to do with film cost and sound fidelity) turned out to be a happy accident. It produces an Impressionistic Effect entirely similar to a money painting. 24fps is absolutely not reality. Our brains know it too. The same way they know that those giant brush strokes in a Van Gough painting are also NOT REALITY. Turns out our brains like to be toyed with. Art is just always “trying to document precisely what our senses would have experienced if we were there”. That is just a false premise and one they misunderstands art in general. | | |
| ▲ | xnorswap 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I reject that, it's a product of familiarity being more comfortable. 24fps was not a deliberate choice that was made a century after we previously had high frame-rate. It was a limitation at the time. Impressionism was a deliberate choice, it came centuries after more detailed paintings were being done. And there were indeed many critics of the movement at the time. 24fps in movies is just banking on the comfortable, the familiar. It isn't art, it's giving people what they expect and not challenging people. It has about as much artistic merit as the N'th Mission impossible movie or MCU movie. | | |
| ▲ | matt-attack 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I totally disagree. If you read my statement I specifically stated that 24 was not designed to be impressionism. It was just a happy accident that it worked out that way. We've since tried all sorts of other frame-rates. Slower is to studdery, faster removes the impressionism and starts biasing towards realism. Once you get to 72fps or higher, it's essentially pure reality, and your brain knows it. Look, detailed photos can be art. Not saying that HFR cannot be art, but we'd all agree that realism and impressionism are simply different forms of art. And often times those who like one, doesn't like the other. So you have to accept that those are find the appeal of 24fps due to its "different than reality" look, they might easily find HFR material to be "boring and hyper real" in the same way I might look at a crystal clear photo of Paris and think the same, whereas a Monet impression of it, is way more appealing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Sammi 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I loved the first Hobbit movie, which was the only one that was mostly based on the book. It was the first and unfortunately also the only theater experience that I've ever had, that didn't make me feel frustrated that I couldn't make out anything that was happening in the fast sequences. | | |
| ▲ | ptsneves 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah! I thought I was the only one who felt movies or series change scenes too fast. I often find myself needing a small pause, when it is in Netflix, to recapitulate with my wife what just happened. This happens even in lawyer dramas like Suites. | | |
| |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Lower framerate isn't worse, it's just different. But the artifacts introduced by TV frame interpolation absolutely can ruin the content completely. | |
| ▲ | SirMaster 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I disagree with this. Even if the film is shot in HFR I don't like how it looks. It's just SOE, soap opera effect, and it has nothing to do with any artifacts from motion smoothing, because the look is the same even if it's filmed in HFR. The only things I like in HFR are sports or maybe home videos. Any sort of movie or TV show where I want the suspension of disbelief, I am still much preferring 24fps. Of course this is just my opinion, but home theater is a big hobby of mine and so I spend a fairly great deal of time looking at different content and analyzing it and thinking about it and how I feel about it or enjoy it. Not attempting to take anything away from those who do like HFR, but just saying that it's not for everyone. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | windward 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At some point it became unacceptably rude to gatekeep, king-make, or be otherwise judgemental of taste. It was at around the same time that subcultures and counterculture melted into an homogenous mass. I think we lost something in that. Embarrassment can be useful for moving us out of our comfort zones. |
|
| ▲ | 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | gt0 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is weird. One funny thing I've noticed is that software developers (including myself) seem to rebel against it the most. A surprising number of software developers I know shoot film. No digital cameras, they just take photos, get the prints, and they're done. It seems to be the non-technical people who are most OK with the inauthenticity that comes with AI "enhanced" photos. |
|
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Couldn't you pretty reasonably create Bokeh algorithmically, since it's destroying information rather than creating it? |
|
| ▲ | Atheros 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| May I ask how religious (or woowoo) your partner is? The number of people who care about having an objectively true understanding of as much of reality as possible is disappointingly small and I suspect that these photo trends are just making that fact more obvious. |