AI in Photography: where do you draw the line?

[iamdlewis]

David, your opinon as to what constitutes acceptable editing in this photograph is fair enough, it is your photograph after all, but I think we will all draw the line between what is acceptable photographic editing and what is creating digital art, at different points. To me, all the proposed edits are acceptable in creating an interpretative photographic landscape, they are not creating what I and others would call 'digital art'. If the sky was changed to show a stary night sky with the Milky Way, that would be digital art, not photography. Alternatively, if your aim in taking the photograph was to create a factual photographic record of this place at this time, then none of the edits would be acceptable.

So if I were to combine a photo of the night sky over the city and a photo of the city on the same evening that would be digital art but removing permanent structures is "interpretative photographic landscape" not art? To me saying that something is "interpretative" means that you are modifying to an ideal or imagined setting regardless of the reality of the situation which would make it art.

 

[evacguy]

So if I were to combine a photo of the night sky over the city and a photo of the city on the same evening that would be digital art but removing permanent structures is "interpretative photographic landscape" not art? To me saying that something is "interpretative" means that you are modifying to an ideal or imagined setting regardless of the reality of the situation which would make it art.

If you combined a photo of the night sky over a city, with a photo of the same city on the same night, I think I'd call that acceptable editing. If I combined a night sky from one location with a completely different location taken at a different time, I'd call that digital art.