In my country a guy won a big nature comp with a shot of a bird flying against the sky full of clouds. Thing is the bird and clouds were all in focus and he claimed it was shot with an 800mm lens. As soon as I saw that I smelt a rat. Heaps of other nature photographers thought the same because we all know its impossible to get a bird against the clouded sky all in focus with an 800mm. The judges still awarded the prize claiming they couldnt prove otherwise.
I got banned from a Swedish photo forum after I accused a famous photographer to not understanding photography and for doing more in post than in camera, 3 years later he was caught cheating with a "nature" photo, when that photo was proven to be a fake folk started to look into more of his photos and came to the same conclusion as me. But I did still think those images was great, I just wanted honesty and not that ant image should be forgotten or hidden, so the Faked Nikon photo is a "fake", but it still a good image if the creator had been honest.
Are you talking about the Norwegian who photoshopped stock images of animals into his pictures and who was revealed/caught in 2011? At the same time, he held courses in photography with topics/vocabulary reminiscent of new age meetings.
I always try to get the best shot possible to avoid post-production. I posted a nice shot and proudly added "No post production" to the post. and of course, I created a sh!t storm of keyboard cowboys accusing me of being a liar. Finally, I deleted the post-production remark, and suddenly, all the negative comments subsided. There seems to be a large portion of society out looking to take their anger out on any random person for no real reason. I don't share my work as much as I used to because of this kinda crap.
I shot film for 25 of my 30 years of my studio work. "there IS NO post processing" with film. I had to shoot perfect and did. It's now much easier (but I'm retired now). I don't move something out of the frame because I can post it out. It's not cheating - we're still creating the final image. FILM was much harder and that's the reason "Only PROS were pro". With digital every with a camera thinks they're a pro.
Being a judge doesn't mean you are good at photography. Finish 3 or 4 courses and you become a judge. I became one, doing mediocre photography. The Sony and the AI competition is proof that judges really did not know how to judge winning images.
I don't believe it was a competition, but my favorite blunder was when Natgeo published a photo of the milky way with like 5 dark horses of the galactic core in it.
Would love to see new competitions like Raw Shot Photography Competition. where you can only submit your show as your final shot without a single edit.
@@Photography-Explained I assume there's more to it but if it is stated like this, "only minimal editing allowed" then it's a straight way towards calling someone a cheater. It's such an unclear description. What does it mean minimal? Where is the red line? Can settings only be modified up to 5% in Lightroom? Can only 2% of the image be AI generated? More precise descriptions of rules are needed to make sure there is no misunderstandings. Why not "no editing" instead of "minimal editing"?
Depending on the rules stated in the contests I don’t see anything wrong with any image. All images are worked on. JPEG’s are processed in the camera software and RAW images are always worked on or they are flat and lacking in color, contrast and even sharpness. Film was processed and then processed again when printed. Do I add things to my images, no. I do make adjustments and remove things like power lines, yes I do. I crop, adjust the exposure, contrast, brighten and darken, I use masks and layers and I sharpen the image. I’m just trying to I express myself as an artist that uses a camera. If you want to be just a machine operator that’s your choice too
Ai should not be in photography category since no photon capture while making it. It should be something like Ai picture imagination contest. I am still beginner but in my understanding a photographer capture the light from an object while AI is pixel generated color. Yes there is editing but as far as increase and decrease from what have been captured. Ai can be another shape of imaging art: painting use paint, photography use photo, the use of ai can be aimaging for example.
In the 80's I went to Glacier Park during the salmon run to get a photo of the eagles. Year after year something always went wrong from snow to other things. In frustration, I went to the gift shop in Glacier and bought a bunch of postcards. All of the wildlife pictures were from the same photographer. I contacted the photographer and told him about my plight and frustration. I asked him how all of his photos were so perfect. He told it was easy all the animals including the eagles were stuffed animals. That experience ended my quest for wildlife photography.
Unless I took the photograph, or one of my friends did, I always assume photographs posted online are fake. I've watched too many videos posted by "photographers" along the lines of "I took this amazing photograph, unfortunately, there's an ugly tree branch in the shot, so I went into Photoshop...." etc. AI and "advanced features" in Photoshop are ruining true photography. I say we all have to go back to 35mm film. At least if you fake it in the darkroom, you needed skill to do it, not just watching a "how to" video online and clicking a few buttons. Fake photographers so desperate for likes on Instagram etc, they lost track on what it means to be genuine. Social media. The cesspool of humanity.
Der gewöhnliche Bilderkonsument will sich keine Gedanken machen. Daumen hoch oder Daumen runter. Verständnis für den Bildinhalt ist ein rares Gut und besser wird es auch nicht mehr.
Photos have been manipulated for competition for ages. When I was young there are photographer tour in my country that hire fake monks to walk with an elephent, hire kids to jump to the river, gule birds to the tree. That was like 40 years ago and the business are still on going. I studied photography when I was in the university and in the first day of the class, my teacher told me "Photography is just a tool to capture a moment of lies or truth" .... Look at that famous Afgan girl picture, who was gonna know how evil a famous photographer can be. That's why I don't let myself to feel as the media told me how I should feel. Some fact can be ture among of those lies and the other way round.
Just how did these winning images get so far without being identified as fakes?, crazy. The naivety of the event organisers/judges is quite shocking, once they get down to the final 10-20 they should start investigating, not after the event. For the runners up who missed their limelight to recieve an award during the presentations, I feel for them.
Ken Wheeler aka the angry photographer aka some Greek sounding word, passes himself off as a great photographer and says that “nobody understands light like I do”. However very rarely shows anything he has photographed and when he does it is terrible. Actually got caught red handed trying to pass off someone else’s photographs as his own on his UA-cam channel. He has long since take the video down but absolutely did this proving that he is in fact The Awful Photographer
All they have to do is say we want two follow-up shots to the one that won. So nobody can argue about lengthy setup that's why they couldn't get prior shot. You get your shot and then just snap off the tail end of the anteater moving on or the wolf landing or the plane leaving frame.
@@S3mj0n the scope of “editing” though has taken on a different definition in these days of photoshop, Lightroom and purchasing background skies off the internet.
@scottcaldwell7480 i can agree with that. Replacing or generating stuff that wasn't in the original photo with AI should not be done at all. I don't have a problem with using denoise tools for high ISO shots or changing the colour for artistic effect, but there should be limits.
Im a bit torn on the wolf one. From what you say, they preffered wild animals. Not that they did not accept captive animals. While i get the idea that it's a wildlife competition, i also think that's on the rule makers for allowing that grey area.
Amazing video always amazes me how some people try to fake images and then enter into a competition. I am a photographer myself and I’m still trying to figure out. How can I enter into any competitions? Could you maybe steer me in the right directions where I can participate in competitions Cause I know my photos are all real yes of course they’re edited but none of them are AI generated they’re all taken with my canon 5D Marc four.
As a photographer of decades long experience and a social activist who runs a 501(c)3 that does Art Based Community development , one of my primary concerns is Artist's Rights. We live in a country (the USA) that has always been far behind the rest of the world in appreciating and protecting the rights of artists to control their own work. I have seen (used) Adobe AI assisted cropping tools in my photos and found them intrusive on my creative control and only marginally beneficial. I know that a lot of work, visual and literary has been "scraped up" and essentially used without consent or attribution for the profit of the "thieves." I do not care for this. At 76, i know that this will oputlive me. While I am sentient, I will rail against it.
Was jurors drunk or blind when they pick the photos? AI graphic where you can clearly see it's not the best what AI can do and that shot with plane perfectly framed... Come one! Even child will know it's fake... I have no words
There is a UA-camr who showcases images, claiming they were captured with a vintage camera when it is apparent they were taken with a modern digital camera. I won't mention names.
I wonder if submitting the raw file along with the finished image would help in these competitions? As for the wolf jumping over the fence, if the rules say they'd prefer wild wild animal images, that does not mean it's restricted to wild animals. I don't think I would call this cheating. It is a real animal jumping over a fence. If it was restricted to wild animals only I would agree.
As to the photo of the wolf..if the rules state that "They Prefer" wild over domesticated then the photographer shouldn't be so harshly judged. Make the rules clear.
In my opinion Sir, I think Photography Judges, a handful of them don't know the dynamics of Photography! Especially the practical side of it...I wonder how intense are Photographers engaged about their works before a winning verdict can be reached? Just an opinion good friends!😮
The wolf shot is still awesome and no consideration is given for how much work went into it - I don’t believe it should be included in this list or disqualified in the first place.
1. Schedule wolf time for one specific day. 2. Set up gear and flashes. 3. Have the handler scoot that wolf towards the fence that he likes to jump. 4. Press remote control shutter release. 5. Pack up and go home by 10 PM. Do you know how many nights you would have to wait in the woods with all your smelly self and gear, praying for a very rare animal to come through and jump the fence in focus??????? I'm sorry, but setting up flashes isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.
If it's their photo they can do anything they want as the artist/creator. I'm a 50+ year photographer and 30 year studio owner and I didn't want this but the title seemed unfair.
Um, how would you photograph a live animal and get the stars to show up in the sky in the very same exposure? Are photographers judging the wildlife photo of the year contest?
The recent advances in AI have further blurred the line, and prompted even more hand wringing and tut tutting. Don't get me wrong. I prefer the actual craft of camera photography over AI generation. But it's a huge gray area and where does it begin and where does it end? AI is another tool on that very broad scale which began with developing techniques, to dodging and burning, to the zone system to finally ultra-sophisticated computers and algorithms that interpret and translate a bunch off zeros and ones into a file format that can be seen by the human eye. Every one of us uses some form of manipulation to improve our images. That is not cheating, it is using available tools. Set the rules for the arena and stick to the rules. If you don't like the rules, go to another arena. That's the only way to keep it creative and keep it fun.
I dont think it is a gray area at all. Photographers spend time, patience, technique, experience and have a lot of disappointment before delivering. Sitting behind a computer screen for an afternoon is BS.
Loved the video, thank you....Don't know what they are going to do with AI as it's here to stay, think we have to learn to live with it, the worst thing is peoples honesty, as all shots taken in raw require edits as we all know....great video Colin Devon UK.
We have to admit that AI will get better and better and that it will get harder and harder to discover manipulation. I already discovered AI manipulated photos of so called historical black & white pictures.
@@Photography-Explained One way camera companies can keep the "photo" in photography, would be to make their proprietary camera raw files something that can't have content added to them. I don't know how they could do this, but once all photography is AI generated, we won't need cameras. So they better figure it out.
I don't agree with such a strict judgements and calling all of it cheating. Cheating is playing against the rules. If the rules are not precisely describing what techniques can be used, what can or cannot be a subject of a photo then doing something that some people assumed but it was not stated is not cheating. I have nothing against using modern tools to help creating nicer, better images. In competitions it's all about defining criteria what is allowed and what is not. Just like in racing, we have categories, different requirements in F1, WRC, Nascar and so on. Outside competitions I don't see a reason for calling someone a cheater if he removed a branch from a photo or added a plane which was not there. If I want to place a nice photograph on my wall to please my eye, I don't really care if it's all "real" photo. It's a different story if it's supposed to document something, then it is cheating but otherwise? Using a modern camera can also be called cheating. They all have their algorithms for image processing, white balance, color grading etc. It's also ok to be a purist, to go after more traditional photography skill set and to have competitions in those categories. I admire athletes that compete in olympics, runners, cyclists etc. but it's not cheating if I drive my car to go to work while I could walk or cycle. It just gives me better results to drive.
Ich glaube schon lange keinem Fotografen mehr, den ich nicht persönlich sehr gut kenne oder ich bei der Bilderstellung nicht dabei war. Allzu viele lügen, dass sich die Balken biegen. Es ist keine Schande, seine Bilder zu bearbeiten aber dann sollte man es auch erklären.
So you do with digital, it’s called the camera raw file, it is generated in camera and contains serial number data etc. If competitions required that the raw file (not a software generated raw) be submitted alongside the final edit they would be more able to determine if a phot was eligible to participate.
Just some constructive criticism, you have a tendency to start loud and higher pitched when you begin a sentence, but as you finish your point and get to the end, your tone and volume goes way down, making it hard to hear what the last couple of words were. "WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A PHOTOGRAPHER TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE, THIS TIME IN THE REALM OF wil..f...ftgh ..." Appreciate the quality content here, just something to look out for I future videos 👍
Don,t we all cheat anyway digital manipulation and ai , you manipulate your images sharpening colour correction ect so what is the difference cheating is cheating if you manipulate your image . if you shoot film and develop that is a different thing that is why Ansel adams is held in such high regards.
if you need to win to be... then you're against it before your art ergo competition does not ever produce art, it produces works. Works; layer upon layer upon layer is print work, ergo enterable. A true art piece is beyond competition, entered art becomes work. personally I hate work competition.
A good shot is a good shot. We mix genuine images with AI like all the time. If the customer is happy, I am happy. That is commercial photography. Contests are different but honestly… I don’t have time to participate and frankly don’t give a f*ck. Videos like these are pathetic.
📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/
do you guys have insta page?
Not yet. Really focusing on UA-cam at the moment. Thanks for asking though.
In my country a guy won a big nature comp with a shot of a bird flying against the sky full of clouds. Thing is the bird and clouds were all in focus and he claimed it was shot with an 800mm lens. As soon as I saw that I smelt a rat. Heaps of other nature photographers thought the same because we all know its impossible to get a bird against the clouded sky all in focus with an 800mm. The judges still awarded the prize claiming they couldnt prove otherwise.
Maybe he took it in f/32 because at that time, the sun shone from the earth surface. 🤪
I think the judges are not photographers. Or not the right kind...
We had these arguments 25 years ago when digital cameras came in. Eventually we will have image competitions not photography ones.
I got banned from a Swedish photo forum after I accused a famous photographer to not understanding photography and for doing more in post than in camera, 3 years later he was caught cheating with a "nature" photo, when that photo was proven to be a fake folk started to look into more of his photos and came to the same conclusion as me. But I did still think those images was great, I just wanted honesty and not that ant image should be forgotten or hidden, so the Faked Nikon photo is a "fake", but it still a good image if the creator had been honest.
Are you talking about the Norwegian who photoshopped stock images of animals into his pictures and who was revealed/caught in 2011? At the same time, he held courses in photography with topics/vocabulary reminiscent of new age meetings.
I always try to get the best shot possible to avoid post-production. I posted a nice shot and proudly added "No post production" to the post. and of course, I created a sh!t storm of keyboard cowboys accusing me of being a liar. Finally, I deleted the post-production remark, and suddenly, all the negative comments subsided. There seems to be a large portion of society out looking to take their anger out on any random person for no real reason. I don't share my work as much as I used to because of this kinda crap.
I shot film for 25 of my 30 years of my studio work. "there IS NO post processing" with film. I had to shoot perfect and did. It's now much easier (but I'm retired now). I don't move something out of the frame because I can post it out. It's not cheating - we're still creating the final image. FILM was much harder and that's the reason "Only PROS were pro". With digital every with a camera thinks they're a pro.
Being a judge doesn't mean you are good at photography. Finish 3 or 4 courses and you become a judge. I became one, doing mediocre photography. The Sony and the AI competition is proof that judges really did not know how to judge winning images.
If they caught that many altered entries, imagine how many slipped through undetected.
I don't believe it was a competition, but my favorite blunder was when Natgeo published a photo of the milky way with like 5 dark horses of the galactic core in it.
That's a good idea for a follow up video. "Photography blunders..."
That wolf wasn't even that interesting at any level
The wildlife guy--Rodriguez--was within the rules as you showed them.
I didn’t read it but if what he said was verbatim, the use of “prefer” means he was definitely not breaking rules.
Some of the genuine winners of past competitions have been bad enough, with judges awarding prizes for horrible HDR, etc.
Would love to see new competitions like Raw Shot Photography Competition. where you can only submit your show as your final shot without a single edit.
@alexnail runs a competition that only allows minimal editing.
@@Photography-Explained I assume there's more to it but if it is stated like this, "only minimal editing allowed" then it's a straight way towards calling someone a cheater. It's such an unclear description. What does it mean minimal? Where is the red line? Can settings only be modified up to 5% in Lightroom? Can only 2% of the image be AI generated? More precise descriptions of rules are needed to make sure there is no misunderstandings. Why not "no editing" instead of "minimal editing"?
I like the idea of no edits raw image submissions. Film negatives allowed. Boom!
Depending on the rules stated in the contests I don’t see anything wrong with any image. All images are worked on. JPEG’s are processed in the camera software and RAW images are always worked on or they are flat and lacking in color, contrast and even sharpness. Film was processed and then processed again when printed. Do I add things to my images, no. I do make adjustments and remove things like power lines, yes I do. I crop, adjust the exposure, contrast, brighten and darken, I use masks and layers and I sharpen the image. I’m just trying to I express myself as an artist that uses a camera. If you want to be just a machine operator that’s your choice too
Yawn. Removing power lines. Do I do this, no.
Ai should not be in photography category since no photon capture while making it. It should be something like Ai picture imagination contest. I am still beginner but in my understanding a photographer capture the light from an object while AI is pixel generated color. Yes there is editing but as far as increase and decrease from what have been captured. Ai can be another shape of imaging art: painting use paint, photography use photo, the use of ai can be aimaging for example.
In the 80's I went to Glacier Park during the salmon run to get a photo of the eagles. Year after year something always went wrong from snow to other things. In frustration, I went to the gift shop in Glacier and bought a bunch of postcards. All of the wildlife pictures were from the same photographer. I contacted the photographer and told him about my plight and frustration. I asked him how all of his photos were so perfect. He told it was easy all the animals including the eagles were stuffed animals. That experience ended my quest for wildlife photography.
Unless I took the photograph, or one of my friends did, I always assume photographs posted online are fake. I've watched too many videos posted by "photographers" along the lines of "I took this amazing photograph, unfortunately, there's an ugly tree branch in the shot, so I went into Photoshop...." etc. AI and "advanced features" in Photoshop are ruining true photography. I say we all have to go back to 35mm film. At least if you fake it in the darkroom, you needed skill to do it, not just watching a "how to" video online and clicking a few buttons. Fake photographers so desperate for likes on Instagram etc, they lost track on what it means to be genuine. Social media. The cesspool of humanity.
Der gewöhnliche Bilderkonsument will sich keine Gedanken machen. Daumen hoch oder Daumen runter. Verständnis für den Bildinhalt ist ein rares Gut und besser wird es auch nicht mehr.
Photos have been manipulated for competition for ages. When I was young there are photographer tour in my country that hire fake monks to walk with an elephent, hire kids to jump to the river, gule birds to the tree. That was like 40 years ago and the business are still on going. I studied photography when I was in the university and in the first day of the class, my teacher told me "Photography is just a tool to capture a moment of lies or truth" .... Look at that famous Afgan girl picture, who was gonna know how evil a famous photographer can be. That's why I don't let myself to feel as the media told me how I should feel. Some fact can be ture among of those lies and the other way round.
Just how did these winning images get so far without being identified as fakes?, crazy. The naivety of the event organisers/judges is quite shocking, once they get down to the final 10-20 they should start investigating, not after the event.
For the runners up who missed their limelight to recieve an award during the presentations, I feel for them.
Ken Wheeler aka the angry photographer aka some Greek sounding word, passes himself off as a great photographer and says that “nobody understands light like I do”. However very rarely shows anything he has photographed and when he does it is terrible. Actually got caught red handed trying to pass off someone else’s photographs as his own on his UA-cam channel. He has long since take the video down but absolutely did this proving that he is in fact The Awful Photographer
Many years back, i think Olympus got caught cheating in an advert. The image they used for the Olympus trip camera was shot on an OM1.
All they have to do is say we want two follow-up shots to the one that won.
So nobody can argue about lengthy setup that's why they couldn't get prior shot. You get your shot and then just snap off the tail end of the anteater moving on or the wolf landing or the plane leaving frame.
90% of “photographers” are actually “computographers” these days.
I proposed renaming (example) My Village Photographic Club to My Village Photoshop Club.
Some were amused, some spluttered objection.
Editing was always a big part of photography
@@PaulMansfield that is great! 😁
@@S3mj0n the scope of “editing” though has taken on a different definition in these days of photoshop, Lightroom and purchasing background skies off the internet.
@scottcaldwell7480 i can agree with that. Replacing or generating stuff that wasn't in the original photo with AI should not be done at all. I don't have a problem with using denoise tools for high ISO shots or changing the colour for artistic effect, but there should be limits.
Im a bit torn on the wolf one. From what you say, they preffered wild animals. Not that they did not accept captive animals. While i get the idea that it's a wildlife competition, i also think that's on the rule makers for allowing that grey area.
Amazing video always amazes me how some people try to fake images and then enter into a competition. I am a photographer myself and I’m still trying to figure out. How can I enter into any competitions? Could you maybe steer me in the right directions where I can participate in competitions Cause I know my photos are all real yes of course they’re edited but none of them are AI generated they’re all taken with my canon 5D Marc four.
As a photographer of decades long experience and a social activist who runs a 501(c)3 that does Art Based Community development , one of my primary concerns is Artist's Rights. We live in a country (the USA) that has always been far behind the rest of the world in appreciating and protecting the rights of artists to control their own work. I have seen (used) Adobe AI assisted cropping tools in my photos and found them intrusive on my creative control and only marginally beneficial. I know that a lot of work, visual and literary has been "scraped up" and essentially used without consent or attribution for the profit of the "thieves." I do not care for this. At 76, i know that this will oputlive me. While I am sentient, I will rail against it.
Was jurors drunk or blind when they pick the photos? AI graphic where you can clearly see it's not the best what AI can do and that shot with plane perfectly framed... Come one! Even child will know it's fake... I have no words
There is a UA-camr who showcases images, claiming they were captured with a vintage camera when it is apparent they were taken with a modern digital camera. I won't mention names.
I wonder if submitting the raw file along with the finished image would help in these competitions?
As for the wolf jumping over the fence, if the rules say they'd prefer wild wild animal images, that does not mean it's restricted to wild animals. I don't think I would call this cheating. It is a real animal jumping over a fence. If it was restricted to wild animals only I would agree.
AI gens should not be allowed in any comp as they are not photographs.
Submiting a photo that's not manipulated....not likely, as soon as you simply dodge or burn, the photo is tainted.
Cheaters should be blacklisted forever from photography contests.
As to the photo of the wolf..if the rules state that "They Prefer" wild over domesticated then the photographer shouldn't be so harshly judged. Make the rules clear.
Good work by Boris!
In my opinion Sir, I think Photography Judges, a handful of them don't know the dynamics of Photography!
Especially the practical side of it...I wonder how intense are Photographers engaged about their works before a winning verdict can be reached?
Just an opinion good friends!😮
Great stuff!!!! Just one thing, giant anteater arenin South America, not South Africa 😊
The wolf shot is still awesome and no consideration is given for how much work went into it - I don’t believe it should be included in this list or disqualified in the first place.
1. Schedule wolf time for one specific day.
2. Set up gear and flashes.
3. Have the handler scoot that wolf towards the fence that he likes to jump.
4. Press remote control shutter release.
5. Pack up and go home by 10 PM.
Do you know how many nights you would have to wait in the woods with all your smelly self and gear, praying for a very rare animal to come through and jump the fence in focus??????? I'm sorry, but setting up flashes isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.
If it's their photo they can do anything they want as the artist/creator. I'm a 50+ year photographer and 30 year studio owner and I didn't want this but the title seemed unfair.
I don't believe the anteater shot was the same stuff anteater. While they look similar, their patterns are not identical.
The sad fact, people will do anything for fame and money no matter what the scenario 🤔
Um, how would you photograph a live animal and get the stars to show up in the sky in the very same exposure? Are photographers judging the wildlife photo of the year contest?
Why call it AI "Photography," when it's primarily a computer generated image?
The recent advances in AI have further blurred the line, and prompted even more hand wringing and tut tutting. Don't get me wrong. I prefer the actual craft of camera photography over AI generation. But it's a huge gray area and where does it begin and where does it end? AI is another tool on that very broad scale which began with developing techniques, to dodging and burning, to the zone system to finally ultra-sophisticated computers and algorithms that interpret and translate a bunch off zeros and ones into a file format that can be seen by the human eye. Every one of us uses some form of manipulation to improve our images. That is not cheating, it is using available tools. Set the rules for the arena and stick to the rules. If you don't like the rules, go to another arena. That's the only way to keep it creative and keep it fun.
I dont think it is a gray area at all. Photographers spend time, patience, technique, experience and have a lot of disappointment before delivering. Sitting behind a computer screen for an afternoon is BS.
Loved the video, thank you....Don't know what they are going to do with AI as it's here to stay, think we have to learn to live with it, the worst thing is peoples honesty, as all shots taken in raw require edits as we all know....great video Colin Devon UK.
Glad you enjoyed the video Colin. The crazy thing is that I’m sure you’ll be able to create RAW files with AI soon enough.
We have to admit that AI will get better and better and that it will get harder and harder to discover manipulation. I already discovered AI manipulated photos of so called historical black & white pictures.
@@Photography-Explained One way camera companies can keep the "photo" in photography, would be to make their proprietary camera raw files something that can't have content added to them. I don't know how they could do this, but once all photography is AI generated, we won't need cameras. So they better figure it out.
Apart from Aarvarks there are no, South African Anteaters ! The Giant Anteater is from South America.
Why do you think we need those distracting captions? Subtitles would be good for the hearing impaired.
The ant eater is my favorite.
I don't agree with such a strict judgements and calling all of it cheating. Cheating is playing against the rules. If the rules are not precisely describing what techniques can be used, what can or cannot be a subject of a photo then doing something that some people assumed but it was not stated is not cheating. I have nothing against using modern tools to help creating nicer, better images. In competitions it's all about defining criteria what is allowed and what is not. Just like in racing, we have categories, different requirements in F1, WRC, Nascar and so on. Outside competitions I don't see a reason for calling someone a cheater if he removed a branch from a photo or added a plane which was not there. If I want to place a nice photograph on my wall to please my eye, I don't really care if it's all "real" photo. It's a different story if it's supposed to document something, then it is cheating but otherwise? Using a modern camera can also be called cheating. They all have their algorithms for image processing, white balance, color grading etc. It's also ok to be a purist, to go after more traditional photography skill set and to have competitions in those categories. I admire athletes that compete in olympics, runners, cyclists etc. but it's not cheating if I drive my car to go to work while I could walk or cycle. It just gives me better results to drive.
Ich glaube schon lange keinem Fotografen mehr, den ich nicht persönlich sehr gut kenne oder ich bei der Bilderstellung nicht dabei war.
Allzu viele lügen, dass sich die Balken biegen. Es ist keine Schande, seine Bilder zu bearbeiten aber dann sollte man es auch erklären.
A good excuse to go back to film. At least you have a physical negative to validate your print or scan.
So you do with digital, it’s called the camera raw file, it is generated in camera and contains serial number data etc.
If competitions required that the raw file (not a software generated raw) be submitted alongside the final edit they would be more able to determine if a phot was eligible to participate.
@@grahamstretch6863 This makes too much sense.
Photographs are always a lie. Not a problem. The representation of the photo IS always a problem
Just some constructive criticism, you have a tendency to start loud and higher pitched when you begin a sentence, but as you finish your point and get to the end, your tone and volume goes way down, making it hard to hear what the last couple of words were. "WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A PHOTOGRAPHER TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE, THIS TIME IN THE REALM OF wil..f...ftgh ..."
Appreciate the quality content here, just something to look out for I future videos 👍
Don,t we all cheat anyway digital manipulation and ai , you manipulate your images sharpening colour correction ect so what is the difference cheating is cheating if you manipulate your image . if you shoot film and develop that is a different thing that is why Ansel adams is held in such high regards.
if you need to win to be... then you're against it before your art ergo competition does not ever produce art, it produces works. Works; layer upon layer upon layer is print work, ergo enterable. A true art piece is beyond competition, entered art becomes work. personally I hate work competition.
Of course these are just the ones that were discovered.
This is why diigital photo sucks
Ask Sir David Attenborough if he uses wild animals and everything is natural and in the wild. I don’t think so.
A good shot is a good shot.
We mix genuine images with AI like all the time. If the customer is happy, I am happy. That is commercial photography.
Contests are different but honestly… I don’t have time to participate and frankly don’t give a f*ck.
Videos like these are pathetic.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
But you had time to watch the video and make a boring comment. Well, frankly, we don't give a fuc# what you think either. Yawn.