It's a tough question. Personally, I think that the AI label ought to be confined to imagery created by AI. When it starts as a photo and AI tools are used upon it in a way directed by the photographer, then I think edited or retouched photo is a more appropriate label. That's more in line with the way that it has been defined in the past.
I won't push the argument that AI isn't photography. Light is light; the "idea" or "replication" of light is not light. AI is not photography IMO, but it is digital art. As you say, the image is what it's all about. So call it a cucumber for all I care. But that's my take. Over time, water will find its own level and this debate/discussion will peter out.
But I am surprised ... actually shocked ... that the image you posted - AI or not -- won the award! The judges clearly did not examine the images in the frame very closely.
In these early AI "photo" attempts, the one give-away that sets AI apart from camera-photography is the hands. AI has trouble with hands, their proportion, details and spacing in particular. Look at the right hand on the woman's shoulder. It looks like a damn claw. The space between her pinkie and ring fingers is reptilian! (Ok, maybe she has a deformity.) And zoom in on her left cheek, just behind the main subjects neck. WTF? A blackened eye and deformed cheek bone / skin. The blackened eye looks like poor masking. The shadow beneath her right eye is realistic, soft curves, properly spaced. But her left eye shadow is craggly, jagged. (Ok, maybe another deformity, exaggerated by "memory.") But come on! Any judge should have looked at that left eye and noticed its gross inperfections!
Ok...the "idea" of this photo is a winner. "Fake memories" with the distressed processing, sepia tones, light leak...but it doesn't take much use of the naked eye to see that something is amiss.
AI will get better over time, but for now, clues exist that close viewers can catch.
I'm a firm believer that photography and AI images have almost nothing in common, except the ability of photorealism. So of course there's an overlap. there's probably some sorts of commercial photography where AI generated images are going to be cheaper and easier to produce, but for photography as lovers of photography know it, absolutely nothing has changed.
We should call it CGI, computer generated illustrations
It's a tough question. Personally, I think that the AI label ought to be confined to imagery created by AI. When it starts as a photo and AI tools are used upon it in a way directed by the photographer, then I think edited or retouched photo is a more appropriate label. That's more in line with the way that it has been defined in the past.
I won't push the argument that AI isn't photography. Light is light; the "idea" or "replication" of light is not light. AI is not photography IMO, but it is digital art. As you say, the image is what it's all about. So call it a cucumber for all I care. But that's my take. Over time, water will find its own level and this debate/discussion will peter out.
But I am surprised ... actually shocked ... that the image you posted - AI or not -- won the award! The judges clearly did not examine the images in the frame very closely.
In these early AI "photo" attempts, the one give-away that sets AI apart from camera-photography is the hands. AI has trouble with hands, their proportion, details and spacing in particular. Look at the right hand on the woman's shoulder. It looks like a damn claw. The space between her pinkie and ring fingers is reptilian! (Ok, maybe she has a deformity.) And zoom in on her left cheek, just behind the main subjects neck. WTF? A blackened eye and deformed cheek bone / skin. The blackened eye looks like poor masking. The shadow beneath her right eye is realistic, soft curves, properly spaced. But her left eye shadow is craggly, jagged. (Ok, maybe another deformity, exaggerated by "memory.") But come on! Any judge should have looked at that left eye and noticed its gross inperfections!
Ok...the "idea" of this photo is a winner. "Fake memories" with the distressed processing, sepia tones, light leak...but it doesn't take much use of the naked eye to see that something is amiss.
AI will get better over time, but for now, clues exist that close viewers can catch.
I'm a firm believer that photography and AI images have almost nothing in common, except the ability of photorealism. So of course there's an overlap. there's probably some sorts of commercial photography where AI generated images are going to be cheaper and easier to produce, but for photography as lovers of photography know it, absolutely nothing has changed.