Skylum shows off adaptive templates for Luminar AI

LDS

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 14, 2012
1,717
248
but feels like ... cheating? the sky didn't look like that!

Depends on what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve. It's an ad photo? Really, who cares, we know they are all "fake". You're known for heavily manipulating your photos for artistic purposes and you do it openly? Fine. You're trying to make your portraits more appealing to make your customers happier? It's OK.

You trying to sell me the image "documents reality"? Let's talk...

The bigger risk with these tools is most manipulations will look alike - when you have to achieve them yourself your experience, taste, etc. will make them different, even if it's still some algorithms beneath.

But when the algorithms takes control of everything...
 
  • Like
Reactions: snappy604

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
450
493
USA
Depends on what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve. It's an ad photo? Really, who cares, we know they are all "fake". You're known for heavily manipulating your photos for artistic purposes and you do it openly? Fine. You're trying to make your portraits more appealing to make your customers happier? It's OK.

You trying to sell me the image "documents reality"? Let's talk...

The bigger risk with these tools is most manipulations will look alike - when you have to achieve them yourself your experience, taste, etc. will make them different, even if it's still some algorithms beneath.

But when the algorithms takes control of everything...

I am more of a fan of photography, and less 'digital art' - which in this case I use as a term meaning heavily processed images. I like to capture the moment as it was. With the technology, this requires some post processing of course, but there is a line where too much processing has suddenly created an image of something that never really existed. A with any artistic endeavor, where that line is is pretty personal.

But you're right. Machine learning will tend to make them look alike. Much like the 'hit music forumla' makes all the songs on the radio sound alike.

-Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valvebounce

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
581
478
You mean like processing a RAW image? You're right!

processing a RAW can go either way. You can get more accurate / real looking results with processing RAW vs say outright replacing sky.. it is a personal preference, just feels weird to me... period :) if you love changing skies or putting flying squirrels that weren't there.. cool :) just not my preference

and yes from time to time I like doing changes, but usually its obvious that its a manipulation (like making one if my kids an ooompa loompa) :) and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..
 

Valvebounce

EOS R5
CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,555
444
54
Isle of Wight
Hi Snappy.
I think advertising is one place where manipulation only makes sense to the seller, for the buyer advertising should show the truth.
I know it never will, which as someone else said, we know (or at least assume) they are lying!
Local to us we have a holiday home park, the way they are selling it on the radio makes it sound like it is on a tropical Island, not the dreary place just south of mainland Britain that we know it is!:LOL::LOL:

Cheers, Graham.

and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
301
216
processing a RAW can go either way. You can get more accurate / real looking results with processing RAW vs say outright replacing sky.. it is a personal preference, just feels weird to me... period :) if you love changing skies or putting flying squirrels that weren't there.. cool :) just not my preference

and yes from time to time I like doing changes, but usually its obvious that its a manipulation (like making one if my kids an ooompa loompa) :) and as person above said, for advertising makes perfect sense..
Putting skies that were blown out back into the scene can easily be less of a change in the scene captured than the end result of a manual RAW processing makeover.

Just because its an automated tool it will not take away all control from the user. Meanwhile current RAW processing does not prevent people from altering their captures to something far removed from "reality".

These are all just tools and they can be used to alter the scene a little or a lot or to something completely unrecognizable from what an observer could see at the time of the capture. I have seen plenty of "squirrels" magically appear or disappear in LR and PS - just look at their own advertising.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,445
2,310
Putting skies that were blown out back into the scene can easily be less of a change in the scene captured than the end result of a manual RAW processing makeover.

Indeed. To me that is "legit" post processing even for "documentary" purposes, restoring the picture to make it look like what you saw with your Eyeball Mk I (no word on when Canon is going to upgrade that).

Art, on the other hand, is a selective recreation of reality--there's choice in the selection, and choice in the recreation and artists take liberties.

I think part of the reason that people argue over whether photography is an "art" is because photography serves more than one purpose. The policeman taking pictures of a crime scene had better not be doing art. But in order to not get blown highlights and enough detail, and doing everything he can to take pictures that can be used as evidence, he must have a great deal of skill. In those sorts of situations, "photography" is NOT an art.

We can probably all think of examples where it is, so I'll stop there.