Isaac Reynolds, the Pixel Camera PM mentioned, said this regarding the Pixel's "magic eraser" and other ML photo manipulations: And that phrase stayed with me because of how viscerally it...
Isaac Reynolds, the Pixel Camera PM mentioned, said this regarding the Pixel's "magic eraser" and other ML photo manipulations:
When you define a memory as that there is a fallibility to it: You could have a true and perfect representation of a moment that felt completely fake and completely wrong. What some of these edits do is help you create the moment that is the way you remember it, that's authentic to your memory and to the greater context, but maybe isn't authentic to a particular millisecond.
And that phrase stayed with me because of how viscerally it disgusted me that one of the most powerful companies on the planet was explicitly endorsing these fabrications of "memories", as if the purpose of a photograph is not to ground and remind our fallible minds but instead to reinforce distortions and delusions. On my Pixel, I can't capture the "actual" RAW from my camera even on a custom ROM/app because the image is oversharpened before being sent to the OS.
I wrote a blog post after I first saw commercials for the pixel 8 in late 2023. It's full of random thoughts about the future implications of such tools and it lacks deep insight into how these...
I wrote a blog post after I first saw commercials for the pixel 8 in late 2023. It's full of random thoughts about the future implications of such tools and it lacks deep insight into how these features actually work but it feels sharing in a thread like this. I hope it's not considered egregious self promotion, I never share this kind of stuff and tbh I'm kind of scared to so please be gentle.
I worked for a photographer who got into controversy because they were discovered to be photoshopping their work a number of years back. I watched the fallout from that, and now everyone has the same tools at their fingertips. People complained about this figurehead of photography manipulating imagery, creating a false world, but what happens even everyone does it?
I want to know more about that photographer controversy. Every photographer I’ve known has edited their pics in Photoshop for things like color correction, cropping, blemish touch-up, and so on....
I want to know more about that photographer controversy. Every photographer I’ve known has edited their pics in Photoshop for things like color correction, cropping, blemish touch-up, and so on. Their clients expect that, it’s considered professional.
I assume you’re talking about larger-scale modifications than those examples. But there’s a spectrum of how much exactly might be considered too much. There’s no such thing as a perfectly “true to life” photo. Even the best, most realistic, completely unedited photos are just approximations of reality. I guess my point is, photography has never been the stalwart chronicle of truth that some are claiming.
If you poke around the projects section on my site I'm sure you'll find his name. I didn't leave the studio amicably and I know they have Google alerts setup, last thing I need is them suing me...
If you poke around the projects section on my site I'm sure you'll find his name. I didn't leave the studio amicably and I know they have Google alerts setup, last thing I need is them suing me for slander/libel. I can also DM you.
I will say that the spectrum of his work varies, he's done journalistic type work that has more integrity (Photoshop wise) than the commercial work, for instance. Although much of the "journalistic" work still lives on that spectrum, for example he might've removed a distracting pole coming out from someone's head in an otherwise really good picture. The issue I have, was that the line between the commerical work he's done and the documentarian work he's done wasn't clear when posting, portraying these fantastical scenes as true. I had other issues with him and his work but they aren't relevant in this discussion.
It's a fine line, and a discussion that has been around since the dawn of photography, and will persist through it's future.
Trust proves things, which is why cryptography is more important than ever.
Isaac Reynolds, the Pixel Camera PM mentioned, said this regarding the Pixel's "magic eraser" and other ML photo manipulations:
And that phrase stayed with me because of how viscerally it disgusted me that one of the most powerful companies on the planet was explicitly endorsing these fabrications of "memories", as if the purpose of a photograph is not to ground and remind our fallible minds but instead to reinforce distortions and delusions. On my Pixel, I can't capture the "actual" RAW from my camera even on a custom ROM/app because the image is oversharpened before being sent to the OS.
I wrote a blog post after I first saw commercials for the pixel 8 in late 2023. It's full of random thoughts about the future implications of such tools and it lacks deep insight into how these features actually work but it feels sharing in a thread like this. I hope it's not considered egregious self promotion, I never share this kind of stuff and tbh I'm kind of scared to so please be gentle.
You can check it out here if you want.
I worked for a photographer who got into controversy because they were discovered to be photoshopping their work a number of years back. I watched the fallout from that, and now everyone has the same tools at their fingertips. People complained about this figurehead of photography manipulating imagery, creating a false world, but what happens even everyone does it?
I want to know more about that photographer controversy. Every photographer I’ve known has edited their pics in Photoshop for things like color correction, cropping, blemish touch-up, and so on. Their clients expect that, it’s considered professional.
I assume you’re talking about larger-scale modifications than those examples. But there’s a spectrum of how much exactly might be considered too much. There’s no such thing as a perfectly “true to life” photo. Even the best, most realistic, completely unedited photos are just approximations of reality. I guess my point is, photography has never been the stalwart chronicle of truth that some are claiming.
If you poke around the projects section on my site I'm sure you'll find his name. I didn't leave the studio amicably and I know they have Google alerts setup, last thing I need is them suing me for slander/libel. I can also DM you.
I will say that the spectrum of his work varies, he's done journalistic type work that has more integrity (Photoshop wise) than the commercial work, for instance. Although much of the "journalistic" work still lives on that spectrum, for example he might've removed a distracting pole coming out from someone's head in an otherwise really good picture. The issue I have, was that the line between the commerical work he's done and the documentarian work he's done wasn't clear when posting, portraying these fantastical scenes as true. I had other issues with him and his work but they aren't relevant in this discussion.
It's a fine line, and a discussion that has been around since the dawn of photography, and will persist through it's future.
That was a good read (and quite short too, for those who might come after me, pressed for time!).
Thank you! Honestly can't tell you how much those kind words mean.