Freaks me out that access to something close to a raw image might be fleeting with processing being done at the chip-level, and as others have said, that the beauty standards imposed by AI might...
Freaks me out that access to something close to a raw image might be fleeting with processing being done at the chip-level, and as others have said, that the beauty standards imposed by AI might make matters worse for body-image and self-worth assessment. On the other hand, getting a more beautiful image with less effort is still a nifty trick no matter how you skin it; devalues the skill behind tastefully taking and editing a photo, though. I wish the goal was simply more detail and faithfulness and left the editing up to the shooter, in that case.
debated putting this in ~hobbies, but the verge has it filed under tech and a decent part of it goes into to technological specification of why 'fauxtography' is increasingly the norm, so here...
debated putting this in ~hobbies, but the verge has it filed under tech and a decent part of it goes into to technological specification of why 'fauxtography' is increasingly the norm, so here might be a slightly better fit. anyways
this is an interesting little article, and it raises some interesting--and ultimately, subjective--questions about whether or not the things that make 'fauxtography' a thing are inherently bad things or things we should strive to avoid. is there an inherent value in unedited photography, for example? does all the behind-the-scenes instantaneous editing done by a lot of phones now make the photographs they're editing better or worse? etc.
I think that what's exasperating the situation is the rise of instagram models and the accessibility of photo editing tools/filters. Unrealistic beauty standards are getting promoted because the...
I think that what's exasperating the situation is the rise of instagram models and the accessibility of photo editing tools/filters. Unrealistic beauty standards are getting promoted because the influx of user-generated content demands common aesthetic values to filter out boring, non-edited images that don't spark as much of a psychological response. Basically, because of the proliferation of smartphones, image editing has become normalized, which the article points out in that the smartphone cameras themselves are performing edits by nature of the hardware design.
The article also romanticizes people as 'conductors' when composing a shot. However, back in the era of film, a photographer had a limited number of shots to capture a scene permanently on film, creating a small 'slice of life' time capsule. Any photo manipulation required skilled artistry and knowledge at a near-occult level that makes the photo a reflection of the photographer as well, further linking the photo to a specific period of time.
Instagram gained initial popularity with 'fauxtography' through its filters, and with the advent of deepfakes, photo manipulation is reaching new highs. I wonder if film will eventually fade in its use, being seen as an antiquated medium like the daguerreotypes that came before it, or if it will instead be one of the only few authentic ways to capture the humanity of a scene.
As it happens, I was talking with my hair stylist yesterday about social media marketing in her profession. As a craftsperson, she was angry about the use of faked shots in Instagram accounts for...
As it happens, I was talking with my hair stylist yesterday about social media marketing in her profession. As a craftsperson, she was angry about the use of faked shots in Instagram accounts for hair product "brand ambassadors" - editing out bad bleach jobs or poor cuts; adding gloss; and so on.
At the same time, my brother, who's a professional photographer with decades of experience, is now driving for Instacart to make ends meet.
I think there's going to be a drastic backlash against the most egregiously false image modifications, in the same way there was a backlash against excessive use of Autotune in pop music.
And yet not all of the modifications and processing technologies are intrinsically bad. Film or camera photosensors don't capture dynamic range and color differentiation to match the human eye, and our own neurological image processing. It's not necessarily bad to tweak what the camera records into something closer to natural qualia. I find the enhanced capabilities of my phone camera useful for work - it can stitch together a panorama in seconds, and see in the dark better than I can (handy if you have to pick up equipment model numbers in the unlit back of a network rack without flash washout).
Freaks me out that access to something close to a raw image might be fleeting with processing being done at the chip-level, and as others have said, that the beauty standards imposed by AI might make matters worse for body-image and self-worth assessment. On the other hand, getting a more beautiful image with less effort is still a nifty trick no matter how you skin it; devalues the skill behind tastefully taking and editing a photo, though. I wish the goal was simply more detail and faithfulness and left the editing up to the shooter, in that case.
debated putting this in ~hobbies, but the verge has it filed under tech and a decent part of it goes into to technological specification of why 'fauxtography' is increasingly the norm, so here might be a slightly better fit. anyways
this is an interesting little article, and it raises some interesting--and ultimately, subjective--questions about whether or not the things that make 'fauxtography' a thing are inherently bad things or things we should strive to avoid. is there an inherent value in unedited photography, for example? does all the behind-the-scenes instantaneous editing done by a lot of phones now make the photographs they're editing better or worse? etc.
I think that what's exasperating the situation is the rise of instagram models and the accessibility of photo editing tools/filters. Unrealistic beauty standards are getting promoted because the influx of user-generated content demands common aesthetic values to filter out boring, non-edited images that don't spark as much of a psychological response. Basically, because of the proliferation of smartphones, image editing has become normalized, which the article points out in that the smartphone cameras themselves are performing edits by nature of the hardware design.
The article also romanticizes people as 'conductors' when composing a shot. However, back in the era of film, a photographer had a limited number of shots to capture a scene permanently on film, creating a small 'slice of life' time capsule. Any photo manipulation required skilled artistry and knowledge at a near-occult level that makes the photo a reflection of the photographer as well, further linking the photo to a specific period of time.
Instagram gained initial popularity with 'fauxtography' through its filters, and with the advent of deepfakes, photo manipulation is reaching new highs. I wonder if film will eventually fade in its use, being seen as an antiquated medium like the daguerreotypes that came before it, or if it will instead be one of the only few authentic ways to capture the humanity of a scene.
As it happens, I was talking with my hair stylist yesterday about social media marketing in her profession. As a craftsperson, she was angry about the use of faked shots in Instagram accounts for hair product "brand ambassadors" - editing out bad bleach jobs or poor cuts; adding gloss; and so on.
At the same time, my brother, who's a professional photographer with decades of experience, is now driving for Instacart to make ends meet.
I think there's going to be a drastic backlash against the most egregiously false image modifications, in the same way there was a backlash against excessive use of Autotune in pop music.
And yet not all of the modifications and processing technologies are intrinsically bad. Film or camera photosensors don't capture dynamic range and color differentiation to match the human eye, and our own neurological image processing. It's not necessarily bad to tweak what the camera records into something closer to natural qualia. I find the enhanced capabilities of my phone camera useful for work - it can stitch together a panorama in seconds, and see in the dark better than I can (handy if you have to pick up equipment model numbers in the unlit back of a network rack without flash washout).
Honestly it might belong more in ~humanities because it's asking a philosophical question.