1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

  • What they need to prove the value of A.I. assisted imaging is a compari

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 16 16:39:40 2021
    1. Blur the scene out. Shoot images of it.
    2. Shoot images of it and process it through the A.I. in the phone, or whatever.
    3. Shoot images of the scene normally.

    See how accurate the A.I. is in reproducing the scene.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon Dec 20 09:49:04 2021
    On 2021-12-17, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
    1. Blur the scene out. Shoot images of it.
    2. Shoot images of it and process it through the A.I. in the phone, or whatever.
    3. Shoot images of the scene normally.

    See how accurate the A.I. is in reproducing the scene.

    I have seen sample images where eyes of animals or children look like
    they are wearing mascara...

    All these tools are a crutch for improper technique. Having said that,
    some professionals like them because if they miss focus, they can still
    present the image to their client. Personally, I would find it
    unsatisfying to have an image that has been "enhanced".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Incubus on Mon Dec 20 16:03:58 2021
    On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 04:49:10 UTC-5, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-12-17, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
    1. Blur the scene out. Shoot images of it.
    2. Shoot images of it and process it through the A.I. in the phone, or whatever.
    3. Shoot images of the scene normally.

    See how accurate the A.I. is in reproducing the scene.
    I have seen sample images where eyes of animals or children look like
    they are wearing mascara...

    All these tools are a crutch for improper technique. Having said that,
    some professionals like them because if they miss focus, they can still present the image to their client. Personally, I would find it
    unsatisfying to have an image that has been "enhanced".

    Personally, I don't care about advertising or whatever pro photog stuff is done, but documentary photography, or worse, scientific photography
    should never rely on this stiff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Incubus@21:1/5 to RichA on Tue Dec 21 10:56:53 2021
    On 2021-12-21, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 04:49:10 UTC-5, Incubus wrote:
    On 2021-12-17, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
    1. Blur the scene out. Shoot images of it.
    2. Shoot images of it and process it through the A.I. in the phone, or whatever.
    3. Shoot images of the scene normally.

    See how accurate the A.I. is in reproducing the scene.
    I have seen sample images where eyes of animals or children look like
    they are wearing mascara...

    All these tools are a crutch for improper technique. Having said that,
    some professionals like them because if they miss focus, they can still
    present the image to their client. Personally, I would find it
    unsatisfying to have an image that has been "enhanced".

    Personally, I don't care about advertising or whatever pro photog stuff is done, but documentary photography, or worse, scientific photography
    should never rely on this stiff.

    I agree and I understand it's not supposed to. I consider all of my photographs documentary in the sense that they capture a scene or an
    objeect &c. as it was.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)