Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Where do you draw the line between heavy editing and fully AI-generated? Some edits have little in common with the source, so at which point is the source not relevant anymore? What if you feed an original photo through some AI-enhanced tool like Topaz?


What if you use in-camera fx like lenses, filters, lighting etc? How puritanical is what we consider photography?

Is it like the puritans of guitar rejecting digital then later embracing profilers and modellers?


And what about those cheaters who set up lights, or put makeup on models?


You probably already know about Dogme 95, but for anybody who doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95

I can imagine more ideas of purity like this emerging as a consequence.


I had seen Dogme ages ago, thanks for reminding me. Agree we may see more like it, but probably with about the same cultural relevance : mostly a footnote.


Amazing.

This reads like a Nuzlocke Challenge for cinematography.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: