Dov,

I don't know of a 1x policy specifically aimed at AI but an FAQ regarding the use of stock photos states "...all parts of an image must be taken by yourself. If your image is a montage, all included elements should be photographed by you." I do know that they want to be a photography based website and not AI.

The interesting thing is how this post appears. Has AI somehow made it "disappear". LOL

Mike

Thank you so much, Mike, for your response.

Well, 1X has a category called Creative Edit, and this category is not limited to photogrraphy. When I use Photoshop I can generate a tree (which does not exist) or a remote planet, which is the outcome of a manipulation. This brings us very close to using products generated by an AI software.

I have no idea why my question disappeared. I may have made an error while typing my question and I tried several times to make it show up, but failed. But, eventually you succeeded in reading it. As they say: All's well that ends well.

I don't believe a photography site should restrict AI based creations/ modifications. If you look the post processing tools that most photographers use to enhance their photos - most of them if not all of them use AI based algorithms!!!. That said AI is getting very powerful - I am testing one such software that allows one to create a photo realistic image with just few commands - I believe current algorithms are not as seasoned yet as the latest cameras (also use AI these days!!!) so looked carefully one can determine the glitches in the algorithms. 1X may lose out on particular segment of creativity, so I feel we should explore and may create a separate segment/ area as experimental / futuristic creations and see where it takes us. I feel there is a lot we can learn from AI algorithms as to how they think and bring out images based on how we ask to create. I am not ready yet, but soon I will post some images to get feedack - stay tuned.

Sunil So you don't think any photography web site should ban or restrict AI based images - Take a look at this image - This girl does not exist it's a computer generated person. - Is this what you want?? The ban has already started on some of the Model web sites and rightly so in my view.

Sunil,

1x is per definition a site for photography. What has picture generation in common with photography? I mean you got away by tinkering a lightning into a non-fitting scene in "Calm and Storm". How much better would it feel for you if you reallycaptured a lightning? Apart from the photograph looking realistic? 

I think the people on this site appreciate to work with light, not rendering technologies. They probably tune it in SW, as you mentioned "AI" may be involved. We all know selections of subjects, presets applied a more intelligent way depending on the subjects, replacement routines with healing brush or context sensitive fill have enabled post processing to go far beyond what was doable in dark rooms decades ago.

But the base of any fine art photo or even composing is capturing light and its reflections on subjects and surfaces. That's the sport here and the reason we admire works presented on 1x. Because we have a sense for the efforts, luck or patience it took. And that's not waiting on a rendering to finish just.

My 2 cents

Mike, the topic is not about my photo post processing vs. in general the NEW Market opportunity that allows creativity and showcase interesting ideas, imagination by thinking about how AI will generate what you are thinking about. E.g. take my photo you mentioned, it was my imagination to think about the storm and improvise my image accordingly - similarly some portraits get improved - so it is NOT about that - it is about what is happening in the technology space and should we (1X) ignore it or adopt it.  BTW that imagination of mine - someone purchased - like I said before, it is subjective and at the end of the day it is a business after all. 

Daniel, you're missing my point. I do not know where you got this image or did you generate it. Generating realistic looking images via AI is not easy - it takes a learning similar to what you do in post processing making your portraits better than what the actual people look like or how your original photo looks like. Use of the tools for post processing also use AI methods for enhancing backgrounds, skin tones, removing pieces and maintaining backgrounds etc. The AI generated images are creating a "different" market opportunity - all I am saying is we (1X) cannot ignore that - just because it is generated by AI, one needs skills and learning - just as one needs taking good photos and also need skills to make those photos excellent. 

For the sake of photography as an Art form we must draw a line Sunil Kulkarni AI sharpen ok - AI de-moise ok - AI produced image from scratch like this portrait No NO NO NO NO No No No - Never - If this happens on this site - An open door to flood the site with this -  I will walk away

let them have their own site AI Art and keep them away from the Real Photographers

Sunil, 

I got that. Let me give you an example of what I mean referring to the pleasure capturing a photograph vs. "generating" a picture for a photogpaher.

This is my most-sold photo offered by 1x. It generated about half the revenue of all my photos together, was sold 80+ times, for hundreds of Euros/Dollars.

Like yours, it is a result of what I imagined beforehand, and not what I could photograph. Here you can read why: https://1x.com/blog/permalink/8229

Maybe future software generates that reflection of rippled water by a single click. But when ever I see new revenue occuring for this photo, it feels like cheating to me. If I had the luck to really capture it, I would be proud to have found this particular scene.

That's what I'm referring to. The challenge we take up to as photographers. To use light and nowadays Photoshop to make our vision available for others. And the temptation to use CGI for things we could not find or capture is there. For me it feels different, as described above.

Mike Kreiten CREW 

Sunil Kulkarni PRO

Mike, the topic is not about my photo post processing vs. in general the NEW Market opportunity that allows creativity and showcase interesting ideas, imagination by thinking about how AI will generate what you are thinking about.

Sunil, 

 

I got that. Let me give you an example of what I mean referring to the pleasure capturing a photograph vs. "generating" a picture for a photogpaher.

 

 

This is my most-sold photo offered by 1x. It generated about half the revenue of all my photos together, was sold 80+ times, for hundreds of Euros/Dollars.

Like yours, it is a result of what I imagined beforehand, and not what I could photograph. Here you can read why: https://1x.com/blog/permalink/8229

Maybe future software generates that reflection of rippled water by a single click. But when ever I see new revenue occuring for this photo, it feels like cheating to me. If I had the luck to really capture it, I would be proud to have found this particular scene.

That's what I'm referring to. The challenge we take up to as photographers. To use light and nowadays Photoshop to make our vision available for others. And the temptation to use CGI for things we could not find or capture is there. For me it feels different, as described above.

Mike, 

I read your blog and respect your honesty of disclosure and conflicting feelings about capturing a photograph vs manipulating it to the point it becomes a generated image of what we would have liked to capture had circumstances been different.  I get the feeling of "cheating" when you see the revenue rolling in. I sold a single photograph many years ago for hundreds of dollars (8 of them to be exact) after being contacted by someone from a museum who was tasked with finding images that would form part of a 50 panel outdoor exhibit showcasing canada's oceans. They were interested in one of my images they'd seen on 500px. I sent them this image, which was reviewed by their panel of judges and heard back that they wanted to license it. However what I didn't disclose at first was the fact that I had altered the image with photoshop, not by much, but enough for it to not be a true photograph, representing the scene as I captured it on that day (with some minor LR edites for highligts, shadows, etc). Wanting to have a clear conscience, I sent a email disclosing that the image had been manipulated in PS an how. The response was that they were looking for true photographs and asked me to send them the unaltered version, which I did and they accepted. I live with a clear conscience that I sold a photograph (not an image) and feel proud that it is on display for the world to see. So I guess the moral of the story here is to be honest about what you represent as a photograph verses a manipulated version. I think we all expect that images here on 1x are manipulated to one degree or another, obviously some more than others and even others generated works of art.

We accept that on this site, but how much we push the slider to the left or right is a matter of ongong debate in terms of whether it can still be called a photograph. If 1x is a being marketed as a Photography site, then I think we have the answer. There's a place for both (all)  kinds of imagery, but I think traditional photography deserves it's own category.

Kimberly,

A pleasure to read your story behind a photograph, very interesting. We're getting a bit off-topic, but who cares? As you most probably know, I discuss a lot about photography in our critique forum. One point I often highlight is that the pictures in our head are a combination of the sensors we have, our eyes, and our brain, the pixel processor when compared to a camera. The dynamic range a camera can capture, even those with a dynamic range of 14EV+ is still only 1/1000th of what our natural "tools" are capable of. Very easy to understand when you see a person against a bright sundown. EIther you "focus" and see the person - while you probably start pinching your eyes closer - but you still see the colors of the sky. Well, take a camera. If you measure on the person, the sky will wash out, colors get lost. Does your light meter refrenence the sky, the person potentially becomes a silhoutte just. 

The point I want to make is that there is rarely a "true photograph" coming straight out of your camera. In post with minimal actions as you described, we try to reproduce the scene as we've seen it, to show it to others a similar way. Fine art photograhy takes it a step further and shows our vision, does not have to be realistic at all. And the most photos we see on the 1X front page are the latter. 

I love your distinction of images and photographs, I've been making that same distinction for many years, too. For me it's less about the intensity of post processing steps.  I consider it a difference if a photographer made good use of the base material, light. Photo-graphy means drawing with light. If it's just showing something, in some light, making it posible to capture it, to me it's a picture and no photograph. :-)

Hi Kimberly and Mike,

1x says it is a "fine art" site (notice I put the phrase in parenthesis to make it more inclusive). By implication, photography is art to 1x.

Cheating in art" Why is this even discussed since I consider art as having no rules? I think this can be verified by visiting any large museum.

Photographers such as Brazzi, Man Ray, Pete Turner and others who did photo combinations broke the rules a long time ago.

No art stays frozen in time.

I think Mike's photo sold primarily on photo content (subject matter, light and drama).

When I was selling prints in a art gallery, the curator looked at the photo on a table or inside my portfolio. No curator ever once asked me what gear I used or anything about dynamic range or noise.  This idea was reinforced when one of my best sellers was an upside-down photo.

AL

Not sure some people here actually understand how AI imagery is generated.. typing a few words onto a prmpt, doesnt make you an artist.
You are just ripping off other people's work from all over the internet. And by publishing or awarding them, 1X is being as guity as the fake artist.