Is it photography?

[tony67]

So I have recently been playing with AI photo generation.
Every year we try and get a good picture of the dog in a Christmas hat, its not so easy.
This year I took 100 pictures of the dog, created a model and set the scene.
I was very impressed with the results, I've only just started so I have more to learn.

The thing is after sending it to the wife she said its not photography. It's not really a photo, but still much of the same work went into it.
It just did not actually happen.

I know there is a lot of argument around this in general, but is it photography?
Photography is art so I think it actually is, but I see the wife's point.
Maybe it is something new IDK.

EDIT: Also there is a lot of adjusting to get the correct results. It took several days (or more) to get a decent result with a person and then there is still a lot of fine tuning to get it perfect. You also need to be able to creatively write to get the photo you want.

Thoughts?

 

[KVH]

 

[KVH]

OK, shooting from the hip. Let's say it was 25 years ago. You'd most likely be shooting film. Your best possible outcome would be if you were a darkroom prodigy. Heck, let's say you know how to focus an enlarger and the difference between D-76, Dektol, and ID-11.

You spend the time to create an exposure. Your only option is to develop and print. Well, unless maybe your the reincarnation of Ansel Adams. Truly, that is photography.

Compare that process to what you just went through. You are guiding a machine to recreate what you think is artistically pleasing. But it's NOT your eye, not you manipulating lighting or other conditions, not you clicking the shutter. It is digital imagery arranging bits in a specific order that tries to imitate/replicate a photograph. I would say it is a machine trying to capture an artistic endeavor but it is not the act itself.