>you no longer need thousands of dollars worth of expensive photography gear, a computer workstation and an adobe suite subscription to create professional quality photos
>all you need is your smartphone and AI
It's truly over, isn't it?

>>4419876 (OP)
Reality has value.

AI will be inoperable in good time anyways. America+europe has been collapsing for a while and pretty soon they won’t be able to run this shit, and china will cut off all communications for the upcoming war.

You? Worrying about AI stealing your instagram likes and pot money gig
Me? Worried about running my camera off AAs

>>4419876 (OP)
I want to call bullshit on that being an AI recreation, the fact it can recognise those as being garlic cloves and a glass of red liquid, and how there aren't any obvious errors. Also how there are subtle similarities like the way the gravy is slightly dripping off the mash (or whatever it is), the lump of meat supporting the bone from underneath, the stray bit of green stuff at the bottom, yet there are large differences like the texture of the wood and placement of the fork.

However I could be wrong, I haven't kept up with AI image generation and I know it's been advancing quickly so if it is real then I'm really impressed. But, even if it is this won't always be viable. For a start it required an input image to be created and would be much harder to achieve that specific result with a written prompt. Secondly it hasn't just processed a photo, it has recreated it and having photos of actual things exist and how they are has value in many situations.

>>4419882
LOOK AT THE FUCKING FORK HOLY SHIT ALL THE SMART PEOPLE IN THE WORLD HAVE KILLED THEMSELVES I SWEAR TO YOUR RETARDED ALLAH!!

>>4419881
>Reality has value.
What? You think those edited photographs of Big Macs and Whoppers are an accurate reflection of reality? lmao

Wait til this guy finds out about shooting jpg lmao

>>4419882
>I want to call bullshit on that being an AI recreation, the fact it can recognise those as being garlic cloves and a glass of red liquid, and how there aren't any obvious errors.
Have you been living under a rock the past 2 years?

>>4419885
>omg the colors are different?
Wait until you find out about film

Still real info untouched by generative Ai

>turns garlic cloves into whole bulbs
>turns table scratches into weird seams that suddenly end
>that fucking fork
No, still not convinced.

>>4419888
This is exactly why I think film will make an even bigger comeback. As more and more AI shit fills our screens people are going to search for something real, that they can hold in their hands and know was not made by the algorithm.

FYI almost every AI thread on this website is started by (and patrolled by) bots.

The only people ai filters is reality scanners

>>4419897
Too bad film is shit so it’ll be c2pa on normal cameras instead

>>4419899
Because reality scanners aren't actually photographers. What they bring to the table was originally a 'perfect' reproduction of what is. But as everyone has gotten phones, their niche has decreased and been devalued into providing higher quality photocopies by being willing to spend the time to learn how to use a camera and the money to get high end gear. But when reality can then generate images with reasonable detail, high quality approximations of reality. They no longer even have that crutch. Reality scanners have reduced themselves to camera operators, not artists and thus are extremely worried by AI.

>>4419882
I just tried it on a random phone pic and it works as this OP image says.

>>4419881
Lmao the cope is unreal

>>4419881
I'm a film shooter and even I find people like you completely retarded

the most worrying should be them putting this shit in iphones and running out of women to model for you

>>4419899
True
AI offers a lot of creative opportunities to push ones photography forward

AI requires source images to use to edit photos. Where are you going to get those source images from if you don't have photographers? You have to remember that Ai is mathematical. It can only work by predicting what you want to see and combining it with images that it thinks you are referring to.

>>4419882
As mentioned, your knowledge is out of date. The things you said are all routine at this point.
This is image to image, so it diffuses from the base image. That's why there are similarities.

>>4419897
I'm going to start taking film photographs of print outs of AI generated images.

only photos recorded on film are real
read up on semiotics and indexicality

>>4419876 (OP)
And just like it transformed those garlic cloves it will plant evidence of the alleged Moon landing on the face of the Moon. AI will be built in on mirrorless cameras and fake reality in real time through the viewfinder.
>>4419900
C2PA is a meme and can only certify to some point whatever happened before it was ran wasn't modified after that. And even then it has vulnerabilities.

>>4419899
>reality scanners
Every day morons make up new buzzwords huh

>>4419943
Oh its the ‘I’m a real artist so AI doesnt threaten me’ nophoto

Consider:
If AI never achieves photorealism its just automated CGI. CGI has existed for a long time remained unwanted in photography. It ranges from dishonest for no good reason to cheesy and tasteless scifi/fantasy/cartoony content.
If AI achieves photorealism people will be framed for crimes they did not commit.

What value is there in replacing a shitty farm with a CGI forest and a corgi with a shiba inu and adding 3 extra moons, a UFO, and a steampunk train station if the endpoint of this joke technology is pure evil
You need to understand
This either plateaus at obvious CGI or becomes pure fucking evil

Captcha: artsy

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width476Image Height191

>>4419952
>there’s an rtx5090 in my camera!
Why bother when right wing idiots like you are even more willing to believe blatant lies than bidenkamala fans
>you didnt see that, it was secret government stuff. keep it secret so we can keep israel safe.
>Yes master.
You ready fell for
>moon landing is fake comrade, russia never made it so is not possible. there is killer radiation. was all jewish filmmaker.
Better than AI see?

>>4419952
C2PAs current weakness is that its closed source, and a closed system. AKA a ministry of truth.

Theres 100mp impossible to fake film photos of the moons surface and LRO evidence of the landings btw

>>4419961
he's a schizo and thinks the government has been digitally printing fake film photos since the 70s or something, there's no reasoning with people like that

>>4419876 (OP)
Glad that i do a very specific kind of photography that both pays, and isn't in direct competition with with a 15 yr old with an iPhone, or a coomer with a drone.

>>4419957
>CGI has existed for a long time remained unwanted in photography
ever since the clone stamp fren...
it's been a part of the workflow
and Adobe only want to force more slop

>>4419961
>>4419961
>Theres 100mp impossible to fake film photos of the moons surface
You can fake them if your studio is good enough, sadly it wasn't enough to hide the light fallout in the horizon.
Moon landings as we know them didn't happen, sorry buddy
>LRO evidence of the landings btw
Wrong.

>>4419965
The clone stamp/heal tool falls below the CGI line (new content). It COULD go above it with a lot of skill.

AI is more like digital painting. For now.
Protip: save your raws. AI cant generate anything with the general accuracy/DR of m43 or better.

>>4419966
stale chicom propaganda

>>4419966
Based
>>4419963
I don't think government fakery started in the 70s, Stalin was already doing it. Only fools believe photographs to be vessels of truth.

>>4419972
>Stalinist Russia was the same as Nixon's America
Erasing people from later prints (and often in pretty noticeable ways if you've ever bothered to look at them in comparison to the originals) is very different than wholesale faking photographs of things which have never been photographed before. Let alone the soviets looking to embarrass America or now the Chinese who have their own lunar ambitions. And of course the opsec of hundreds of thousands of people who built rockets, monitored telemetry, developed photographs the astronauts took, amateur astronomers who have sighted remnants of Saturn V stages still influenced by Earth's gravity, the LRO and it's photos, the laser reflector experiments, etc.
I know it's a very powerful feeling that you have, thinking that you know better than decades of well established historical fact, but living in delusion while thinking you've managed to see beyond the shadows on the cave wall just provokes pity from every outside observer

>>4419948
I'm just surprised it can tell that a blurry mess of white pixels is supposed to be garlic cloves and that the red blob was liquid in a glass (the stem and base aren't visible). Does it use the context that it is a photo of food, and what types of foods go together (because they could also look a lot like those Japanese bao balls)?

I also don't get how it can pick up on the subtleties that I mentioned yet go completely different with the fork placement. It must be able to see the tines and know it's a fork and have an idea of it's positioning in the bowl but behind the food, yet it decided to place it behind on the cloth.

>>4420038
>Does it use the context that it is a photo of food
It does take the other pixels in the image in to account, but answering whether it understands the context is more complicated.
The model doesn't have internal checks like "is this a photo of food" or "what kind of cuisine is this" so instead of thinking in terms of "understanding" it's more accurate to think in terms of combined influences.
If you gave it a cropped image of just the blurry garlic, it would be less likely to produce garlic, because the shape of the item in the center of the image is one influence, but it does take influence from the garlic itself too, so it might still get it.
>pick up on the subtleties
>must be able to see
>know it's a fork
>have an idea
>yet it decided
All the individual pixels (or, sometimes they are grouped up in to blocks) influence all of the other ones at the same time, but not in a strict categorical or traditionally algorithmic way. That's why it doesn't "know" where to put the fork, because it doesn't "know" anything in that rigid way that we're thinking, and the strengths assigned to each possible influence during its training weren't right to turn that input in to the pixels that appear to us as a correctly placed fork. I don't say this to devalue the output, just to explain how it works.
Models are matrices of numbers that perform linear algebra on vectors of input (the input image + sometimes some text), and give vectors of output (the produced image). The maths that it performs is a function, and that function is an estimation of a map on to meaning. The function here is input image + description -> output image, and the model's job is to be the "->".
I'm talking in a somewhat wishy-washy sort of way, because this is a layman discussion, and fair enough that it is so on a photography forum, but if you would like some sign posts to how the nuts and bolts of it work, let me know.

>>4420078
I get what you're saying, but it seems paradoxical for it to not be precise with the fork placement but then get other stuff nearly spot on like the strand of green at the bottom and the slight drip of gravy, the meat supporting the bone. If I squint and look at both images I can see the resemblance in those parts, I get rid of the context of what is in the photo and the collective blur looks very similar, but that fork still stands out so much. Like if it wasn't for that it would be very difficult to tell the two unfocussed images apart. Even the wooden surface which clearly looks quite different in each image, if I just squint then they look nearly the same other than the difference in brightness.

>>4420082
Basically how it works is there's one AI that draws the picture and a second AI that looks at that drawing and the original picture and tells it where it fucked up. To start with the first AI makes something that only very distantly resembles the original image and then edits it a little bit at a time until the second AI decides it's good enough.
So it figures out pretty quick that there's a fork and a bowl and some chicken and so on but if it gets something wrong early on, like the fork in the wrong place or the number of garlic or whatever they get "locked in" because in order to change them it would mess up other parts of the image and the second AI would bitch at it for messing up parts of the image that already looked good. "local maximum" is the term for it, where it can't see how to fix it because in order to fix it, first it has to break it.

>>4420078
Hey, I actually work for OpenAI and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Stick to just watching your tech YouTube videos, chump.

>>4420131
Me too. Now what?

>>4420131
Hey! I also work at Open AI. Ya'll folx wanna get together and go to the gender affirming yoga class on campus during lunch?

>>4420131
Why explain diffusion to him when he doesn't understand how AI works in a more fundamental way first? There's no point in telling him "one AI does this, then another does this" because it's the "does" part of this statement that he has confusions about. "AI makes this" is similarly not helpful. He is/was thinking of AI in an anthropomorphic way, which isn't accurate.
You don't even answer his question about the fork, you just move it somewhere else. Why does it make a mistake about the fork in the early stages but not about the garlic and the drink?
If it's true that you work at OpenAI (and my dad works for Nintendo, that joke is mocking appeal to authority on an anonymous image board) then you probably don't speak to laymen much, so you make mistakes in communication like this.

>>4420374
I'm not the fellow pretending to work at openai and I certainly couldn't tell you how diffusion works but
>Why does it make a mistake about the fork in the early stages but not about the garlic and the drink?
What are you talking about? It hallucinated a stem (and a spout?) on the glass, deleted a garlic and rotated the big one, and there's that weird part where the plate in the background merges with the bowl but it's blurry enough you almost don't notice. It fucked these things up because it lacks things like object permanence and spacial awareness and is only generating something that looks vaguely like the input image and fits into the template of the training set.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.36Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 16:16:42Color Space InformationsRGB

>>4420432
I think the difference is it somehow manages to recognise those out of focus blobs as a glass of red liquid and cloves of garlic on a small plate and then created those, making them more obvious. But it didn't interpret "an ornate golden fork placed in the bowl behind the food", it just stopped at "ornate golden fork in the background". It was precise about the other things but almost the bare minimum when it came to the fork.

>>4420463
I don't see why you're so hung up on the fork being on the table vs in the bowl. Those are both places forks can be, there will have been many images of both in the training set. If you had run the same gen with a different seed maybe it would have put the fork in the bowl and changed the potatoes to rice instead. It's not supposed to generate the exact image you put in, if you want that you would use the image you already had. It mushes your image with all the millions of other images it was trained on to make something in between your image and other similar images it was trained on. Probably the fork being partially obscured by whatever that green stuff is made it more difficult to render it like in the source image.

>>4420471
>I don't see why you're so hung up on the fork being on the table vs in the bowl. Those are both places forks can be
Because it is imprecise, where as it nailed stuff like the green strand at the bottom, the gravy, the meat under the bone. The OP presumably didn't run tens of different times, it sounds like just the one, so that's some unbelievable luck that it got some things incredibly close and then was way off the mark with the fork.
>Probably the fork being partially obscured by whatever that green stuff is made it more difficult to render it like in the source image.
So if it couldn't tell that that the fork was in the bowl behind the food then how the hell did it manage to figure out the garlic cloves and glass of liquid? It's a contradiction. You can't say "oh, it didn't get the fork exactly as it was because it's not replicating the image exactly, it's making it's own version" and then say it got other things exact because that's how the original looked.

>>4420475
>it nailed stuff like the green strand at the bottom
It moved the green strand under the chicken, much in the same way it moved the fork behind the bowl.
>So if it couldn't tell that that the fork was in the bowl behind the food then how the hell did it manage to figure out the garlic cloves and glass of liquid?
What do you mean by "figure out"? It doesn't know what a fork or a glass or garlic is, or know what a fork being inside or outside a bowl is. It does not know what chicken tastes like or what forks are for because it's a computer program. It genned the wrong kind of glass, the wrong number of what we are assuming is garlic (though it looks a bit more like dumplings to me) and the handle of a piece of gold silverware in roughly the same positions (and by that I mean 2d coordinates, as it does not have a any concept of 3d space) as the input image.

>>4420432
Yeah, it did change all of them. To talk about the thread's topic more general I would agree that it is making too many changes to be considered an alternative to editing.
The things with the garlic and drink being "right" but the fork being "wrong" (I use quotes because if we agree it is more of a reimagining rather than a normal edit it's harder to say what is correct) is what I'm trying to drive at when I say that AI doesn't have precise, categorical thoughts like we do. It uses something called VAE to map from pixel input into a latent which can be considered a sort of "meaning space", and then makes edits there, before moving back to pixels. So garlic gets considered as the concept "garlic" (sort of, it's fuzzier than that, there is "garlicness" associated with the part of the image that has garlic in it) but doesn't necessarily retain the exact pixel depiction of the garlic that fed that.
>object permanence
There isn't a temporal element here, so that isn't relevant. Other models like SAM2 do have object permanence though so that isn't a hard limit for AI. Try the demo with something that disappear then reappears later, and it will be able to highlight it as the same object.
>spacial awareness
I can't speak on the internals of OAI's image generation in detail, beyond that they probably quite closely follow SD's techniques, however SD models are trained with depth maps baked in to the training, and even before depth maps started being used SD models could be shown to have an understanding of depth.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06836
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02145

>>4420486
>SD models are trained with depth maps baked in to the training
Ah that's interesting, I did not know that. I haven't really kept up with this stuff since deepdream as I've found looking at slop for too long makes me physically nauseous, and it's all slop.

>>4420485
>It moved the green strand under the chicken, much in the same way it moved the fork behind the bowl.
That is much more minor. If you separate the chicken from the rest then the green strand going over it could easily be mistaken for the herbs that are on it. Squint your eyes and that area of both images looks almost identical. However the fork is drastically different, even ignoring that it's no longer in the bowl the position of the handle is significantly off. It's either trying to recreate it precisely or give an approximation, not mix and match between the two.
>What do you mean by "figure out"? It doesn't know what a fork or a glass or garlic is
As I said, it figured out that the blurry white blob was garlic cloves, and that the blurry red blob was a glass of liquid. It didn't just recreate indistinct coloured blurry blobs, it made it more obvious what those objects were.
> the wrong number of what we are assuming is garlic (though it looks a bit more like dumplings to me)
They are garlic, the top right clove isn't a full one. We can tell that 1 and 4 are distinct but the AI saw them as one, that's an easy mistake and understandable mistake. The positioning of the fork isn't.

>>4419876 (OP)
Good. The death of the digital camera industry cant come soon enough. Any innovation and advances in tech stopped last decade. Just like film, dedicated digital cameras will soon become a thing of the past.

>>4423415
>no one needs photos
>just ask the ministry of truth (AI) what things look like
>this is what progress looks like
lemme guess you dream of artificial wombs eliminating women and families and neural programming making free communication and uncontrolled education a thing of the past too

>>4423418
Meds

>>4419876 (OP)
Thankfully

Thank god I enjoy photography for the process and not simply the end result
Feel sorry for all the reality scanners, but doesn't affect any actual photographers

>>4423524
>i don't care about photos only people seeing me take photos. im so enlightened. you people who take photos and care what they look like? le bad. soulless. turning dials and playing with a camera for fun is the way.
Watching the way normies short circuit when faced with AI is funny. They want to realize AI is literally satan so badly, but they're not allowed to. They can't say "industrial society has gone too far. we must destroy the tech industry with extreme violence before we end up going to jail for AI generated crimes". their "incel and schizo" detector would set itself off and shut them down.

>>4423542
>i don't care about photos only people seeing me take photos. im so enlightened. you people who take photos and care what they look like? le bad. soulless. turning dials and playing with a camera for fun is the way.
nta, but holy cope you need meds now!

>>4423549
Photorealistic generative AI is bad. It is objectively bad. Why are you unable to admit this? Any cope you can put forward is pathetic.

Photorealistic generative AI is a net drain on society. It is purely destructive and parasitic. The way it disrupts the natural order is 0% beneficial. It can ONLY cause harm. To date its largest contributions have been freakish fake child porn and fake nudes of celebrities. Next on the menu is people being arrested for fake crimes.

There is no reason to allow this technology to exist.
There is no reason to accommodate this technology.
There is no reason to support the development and operation of this technology.

Anyone who does is doing so in order to gain an absolute monopoly on truth.

>>4423551
Normies will wake up to yarvin's plans any day now I'm sure
https://time.com/7269166/dark-enlightenment-history-essay/

Or no wait rather than realize that AI is literally evil and exists to strip the truth itself away from "unapproved actors" and better enslave people, they'd rather say
>Thank god I enjoy photography for the process and not simply the end result
>Feel sorry for all the reality scanners, but doesn't affect any actual photographers
yes, rather than admit that AI IS FUCKING EVIL, the 99 IQ NPC would rather claim he is an actual photographer because he doesn't care about photos, just pressing buttons and turning dials on a consumerist toy

Fucking unreal

>>4423542
I like AI and shoot more photos here than most
The process doesn't mean getting seen by others, it means the actual process of using a camera to capture a picture and possibly the editing after
I don't play videogames so I can look at a scoreboard at the end, I play them because they are fun while playing
Too many people don't have fun with photography

>>4423596
>i like a genuinely evil invention and thats cool because i still enjoy taking pictures
this cope is pathetic because it makes zero sense, it's actual npc babble

I'd like to see more phones mutate into point and shoot cameras that produce raw output unmolested by AI. Except with a built-in editor and a browser for shitposting.

>>4423669
AI makes my job easier. Why is it evil? It's a tool, you can use tools in a bad way or good way.

>>4423669
>Technology is evil
brainlet NPC hands typed this

Original photo

Photo colour graded by chatGPT

>>4424216
That's an entirely different image.It was not color graded, it was replaced by a simulacrum.

>>4424155
>AI makes me job easier
>solid explosives makes me job easier
>combusting fossil fuels makes me job easier
>nuclear fission makes me job easier
And now look, you live in a decaying wasteland where the state has an aboslute monopoly on truth and will soon AI generate imaginary people and events on screen. Possibly even you, committing a crime you did not commit, with fabricated evidence you did not leave. They only need to slip shrooms into your drink once and then it's done.
>that wouldn't happen to me!
But it would happen to anyone who opposed a government such as the US, Russia, China, Israel, or the EU.

When does productivity matter more than long term prosperity

What good is AI replacing clerks when it also replaces truth and freedom

The only ones profiting are above you and they are going to use this technology to harm you

>>4424287
The only prompt was to colour grade

>>4424305
>using electricity is bad
Nice virtue signaling and paranoia, you should stop using the internet hypocrite

>>4424306
Yeah, ChatGPT cannot color grade, its "edits" are always image recreations.

>>4424314
Electricity does not even begin to compare with what AI is going to do.
>Fire that you can send to other places with metal pipes
Oh big deal
>A device that creates entire new realities and lets the state pass them off as truth
>And also invalidates every photograph taken by people outside of the ministry of truth
>Was invented solely to replace, not augment, human labor, and become self maintaining and developing to avoid the "new technology can create more jobs" problem
The silicon valley elite will not fare well during the american communist revolution.

>>4424306
The computer did more than that, the hand is different, the logo is different, the background foliage is different, the angle of the face is different (and it added a weird flesh flap from her nose to her mouth). It's a totally different image that bears only passing resemblance to the original.

And the colors look like shit to boot, you could just open the original image and boost the contrast+slide the yellow up for the same result.

>>4424316
The issue is you only see the harms from AI, and completely ignore the upsides
Life isn't black and white, and living like it is will only lead you to frustration
It's fine to acknowledge the genuine harm and downsides, just be honest with acknowledging all the pros too (but you never will, you know everything and you have the correct position of course)

>>4424320
Name one single pro of LLMs and/or diffusion based image models.

>>4424322
>AI makes me job easier

Why are you still using precious electricity? Why aren't you spreading the good message to your local community in person?

>>4424317
I do enjoy the thought that the AI can't not do perfect things
In the original there are small impurities in the fabric, maybe some wear and tear
The AI doesn't "like" that?

>>4424323
If LLMs make your job easier you're either working a job about to be replaced by a chatbot or you're just grossly incompetent, and in either case the only positive is for your employer who will fire your ass because the electric bill is cheaper than your salary. This, to me, does not belong in the pro column.

>>4424326
Yeah looking at it the bee suit seems to have been changed into some kind of weird 70s polyester suit lol

>>4424331
>using better tools means you are incompetent
The problem is you see AI as the a nuclear level weapon of propaganda to be used and abused by the enemies, and the absolute end of imaging and photography and truth and reality and creativity and artistry

I see AI as
>culling much faster thanks to AI grouping of similar images
>edit much faster thanks to better tools like generative fill which can act like clone stamp and patch tool on steroids
>better upscaling and noise reduction options for final outputs
>much quicker subject selection and masking
>better color matching for maintaining a consistent look across different images
>generate my own thematic "inspo" images for real sessions

If you want to be a luddite, go ahead, the world will keep on moving while you stay stuck in the 2010's

>>4424340
>I will trust a blind computer algorithm with no intentionality or understanding over my own eyes, my own brain, my own skill, and my own knowledge, my own thoughts
I hope the future is as bright as your algorithm has told you it will be I guess. I'd rather make my own choices about how to edit a photo or what images might be interesting together. And to be clear, I see diffusion as a great boon to photography - people who want digital stock images can make whatever fake shit they want for their blogs while actual photographs (i.e. ones taken on film or plates by a real human with an intent behind them) will increase in value as factual or artistic captures of a moment in time.

>>4424348
Yes, I would trust a computer to look at 1000s of images and group them together by likeness for me to then go through them all anyways
Yes, I would trust a computer to generate a few thematic mockups in a couple minutes instead of mean wading through Pinterest
I was already trusting it when using the patch tool or healing tool, not sure why adding "AI" makes it any different all of the sudden
I'm not trusting it over myself, I'm using as a tool to enact my will, to an even greater extend and more reliably than I could before
>I'd rather make my own choices about how to edit a photo
So do I, and that's what I use AI for. So cool to hear you made your own RAW developer from scratch to edit with!
>might be interesting together
You think AI grouping for culling purposes means it puts images together based on how interesting? If your comprehension is that bad, does explain your view of AI

Why are you typing instead of writing me a reply by hand and sending it in the mail? Do you blindly trust the computer will send it and I will read it? Why are you relying on the font design choices of others, instead of utilizing your own handwriting? Why are you such a hypocrite?

I hope you have some growth in perspective as you get a bit older

>>4424340
>culling much faster thanks to AI grouping of similar images
From the outset these are all small and meaningless things

To get these things, you must give up truth and freedom. Is it worth it?
>OMG when I shoot 120fps on my snoy i can just have AI pick the right moment for me!
AI development needs to be hard-halted RIGHT FUCKING NOW. You need to understand this is a genuine threat to human freedom. Go scream luddite at the top of your lungs, scream that all progress is good, call me a fucking nazi if you want, maybe it will help me feel better when you're living under the iron boot of a real life ministry of truth not even four years after AI becomes fully photorealistic and not only are all photographs assumed fake until proven otherwise, the state and the state-"affiliated" media will have a complete monopoly on what is real.

You will NEVER see a political opponent overturn evil again after that day. They will have AI CP of their own kids on their phone, and there will be footage of them doing something horrible that never actually happened, and then that's it. Russia: entire developed world edition.

>>4424348
>film will increase in value
But not. You EDCing in a bronica bro?

Now that 8k projectors exist and will only get cheaper and better, anyone can fake a 35mm negative just by projecting their desired AI generated photograph through the camera lens. It only takes 6k to match the sampling rate of film, 8k is above it especially when you have a shitty film camera lens to further blur the image.

>>4424340
documentarychads stay winning

>>4424354
>The Industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the Human race

>>4424354
Whats not small and meaningless is the amount of money big tech and government is saving by increasing the productivity of the people they havent fired ye
There are clear winners and losers
And "new tech creates new jobs" has been seen as a problem to solve rather than a desired social good…

>>4424354
>From the outset these are all small and meaningless things
They really aren't if you do lots of photography. Happy to provide sources, but I've seen surveys that put culling 7-15%, and editing be 40-60% of the total time spent. With the rest being marketing, administration, communication, prep, etc, while actually shooting is often near the bottom in time spent. Improving your workflow for what you spend 50-75% of your time doing is not small and meaningless. If you work faster and put out better quality work, you can take on more and higher paying work. It all adds up.

It's already too late, and you're ignorant if you don't think so. You can keep screaming into a vacuum, or you can figure out how to leverage it for your own needs and goals. I'm guessing you'll stick to just complaining online, instead of anything that actually takes effort. Eventually you'll age out of your early 20's and stop seeing the world in such black and white.

The irony of complaining about AI "fakes" while continuing to use and support this very site. Add it to the pile of hypocrisy.

>>4424340
>ai will let me
>shoot at random and let someone else check focus and framing
>shoot without paying attention to whats in the photo and let someone else edit it out
>pretend i can pixel peep better
>fix my shitty photos slightly faster
>stop wasting my precious brain power on creativity
and in return the rest of us get to serve under big tech’s foot and emperor musks AI generated Truth(tm)
the funniest thing is since digital cameras came out artistically and historically significant photographs have been in short supply and you think making everything easier and faker will surely turn it around

no you lack the raw talent so AI window dressing will only make your boring snapshits superficially competent

[User appeared in AI generated CSAM and went to jail for this post]

>>4424367
>commercial photographers be like: MY HECKIN SNAPSHIT BUSINESSES PROFIT MARGINS BRO. GET WITH THE TIMES. PROGRESS! PROFIT MARGINS!
>AI be like: Yes, master Trump. Here is the photo of your political enemy buying drugs from a pedophile you asked for. Would you like proof the US is winning against the houthis next? I have time between auto-denying health insurance claims and faking your taxes.

>>4424369
There's no virtue in always playing the role of oppressed victim
If it were that important and useful, you would be leveraging it for the resistance
It's not the system that keeps you powerless, it's just a convenient excuse to stay lazy

>>4424367
>its too late
Stupid faggot. AI doesnt have enough compute to replace reality yet. Halt the fabs and AI stalls.

I am sorry you are an incompetent digislug snapshitter who shoots 50fps on your 50mp snoy and needs AI to select, crop, compose, and correct your snapshits but you’ve only ever said that most professional photographers are worthless fucking leeches taking a constant diarrhea shit on the face of art which we already knew. If AI being taken out will reveal what you are actually capable of and crash your heckin profits then GOOD.

>>4424371
>political propaganda is the single most important issue in my life, and you should be doing everything in your power to deny any new technologies that enable it further
>why yes, i do enjoy posting on 4chan

>>4424373
>ad hom
>ad hom
>ad hom
Good points, sure are doing a lot to gather support for your cause

>>4424373
>AI doesnt have enough compute to replace reality yet
Do you think that is a requirement for it to be effective?
That must mean you think it has been entirely ineffective so far, correct?
I don't think AI propaganda has been completely ineffective so far, so I guess that's where we disagree

>>4424375
>>4424374
>>4424372
Look at all your non-words, non-ideas

AI is a threat to freedom and the greatest aid to tyranny the world has ever seen and all you care about is how it will help talentless snapshitters who couldnt get it right on film to save their lives run a photography business. That’s it. That’s all you are.

You already lost.

>>4424376
>AI is already a little bad so lets cheer and clap as it gets even worse. I could be a better commercial photographer with much less skill after all.
>how can you think otherwise if you havent lit anything on fire yet huh?
That’s all you are

>>4424377
>Look at all your non-words
They are words, so wrong there.
>non-ideas
Virtue and it's relationship to victimhood is not an idea?
Pointing out your own inaction on using new technologies is not an idea?
Pointing out your more lazy than powerless is not an idea?
Saying ad homs aren't good for support is not an idea?
Pointing out the hypocrisy of crying about political propaganda while actively using a website often engaged in propaganda is not an idea?
Is this an AI reply to my comments just failing comprehension?

You're right AI is a threat to freedom, but so are a million other things. AI can also be leveraged to support freedom, but you are unwilling to even consider that idea.

>>4424378
>complain online about propaganda on a website that puts out propaganda
That’s all you are

If all your after is the superiority feeling, you can just ask. You are a better person than I am, in every way, you are amazing, and also a great photographer, and are absolutely right and correct in how you view the world
I am wrong and big dumb evil idiot that will bring about the end, boo me

>>4424379
>AI is NOT different, its le new cotton gin
No, it’s different. It’s already different and you’re a smarmy fuck who would suck off elon musk if they were told it was productivity enhancing technological progress.

>but in theory 4chan has AI posts on it, HYPOCRITE!
The idiocy of a response like this highlights how wrong we both know you are.
>You havent killed anyone, LAZY!
How DESPERATE you are to claim the upper hand in a losing battle
A bit flustered and confused since you’re realizing that the AI you simp for could, and likely already has, falsified elections and is just getting started?

As you accuse me
>ur a hypocrite because i think theres AI propaganda on 4chan
You agree with me, and yet you can not?
Can you not agree that it is the proletariat versus the bourgeosie? Can you not agree that you support a future where the rich decide what happened overseas? That your future holds politicians no one will ever see in the flesh and imaginary crimes to go with real arrests?

Just admit AI is bad and not worth any benefit.

AI should only be opposed, never supported. Nothing it gives you is worth it. It is not the new cotton gin or CNC machine or 3d printer. It is a computer program that is designed to fully replace people. It can take photos of things that never happened. It can develop and maintain itself. It can develop and maintain its own hardware.

It is different from a fucking power tool. It’s going to be the worst tool of oppression you will never see.
L

>>4424386
uhm excuse me politicians already tell lies that can be proven false so a future where they tell lies that cant be proven false because they can just call any evidence russiamerican AI fakes is ok with me chud

>>4424386
>No, it’s different.
Explain how it's different for me please.

I'm confused, is your issue with AI or propaganda? I thought you were upset with AI because it was a tool to enact propaganda. Do you not care about propaganda at all if it's not made by AI? Do you think there is no politically effective propaganda on 4chan?

Do you think taking action only implies harming someone? Is there no other actions you think you could take beyond complaining online, but short of murder, to be politically engaged?

I can understand where you are coming from, it is a very common sentiment and worldview of younger generations, that will shift over time.
There is a lot of chaos in the world, an AI is a convenient boogeyman to place a lot of the frustrations you have with everything around. It might give you a sense of control from the uncontrollable and sense community with other like-minded people. You're all in this together!
In reality, AI is just a proxy for where the real frustrations, just a distraction to keep you focused on hate and waste resources and energy and effort that could be better spend actually addressing real issues. It's just your generations version of same frustration and anger felt towards '08s wall street and 2020 governments.

Very close minded, and ironically quite privileged of you to view AI as bad and worth no benefit.

There bad things about the world, screaming about AI online isn't going to change anything. It might make you feel good, but it's therapy more than anything.

>>4424386
People already don't care about truth or lies. Fake photos have been around for decades and decades, and politicians lie all the time. The Whitehouse only needed mspaint to spread it's propaganda.

>>4424402
>doesnt refute any points
>is just a "and yet you participate in society" meme given life
Big techs simps arent called bugmen for nothing

This post is so stupid an AI probably wrote it. A real human would know OWS was systematically dismantled by the US government. They even admitted it later. It wasn’t a passing fad. It was a crushed rebellion, crushed by people with experience in crushing and manufacturing over 50 rebellions in other countries.

This bot is just saying to grow up and stop doubting your benefactors. Thats it. Communist violence can not come soon enough!
9999 teslas burned I am trash man

>>4424418
>doesn't answer any questions
I don't like big tech, you propaganda simp

OWS was just the venting of millions of disaffected young adults following the financial crisis, same as BLM riots venting for race relations in the post-Obama era. But if everything is a conspiracy, everything is a conspiracy. That's something you'll grow out of later too. It's just a loop of the young and marginalized rebelling against their perceived oppressor.
OWS was the first major protest I started shooting, but unfortunately no longer have any photos from that era, would've loved to share (that's being more politically engaged btw), I watched it fizzle out first hand mate.

>This bot is just saying to grow up and stop doubting your benefactors.
I literally advocated for using the tools of the oppressor against them. You're the one saying, "Do Nothing!"
>Communist violence can not come soon enough!
Just make sure you never, ever, ever use AI or anything AI related at all

>>4424423
>OWS was a venting
that warranted the cointelpro treatment and was planning on killing CEOs, but ok

if you use the so called tools you are the alpha tester for the "demon". you can not win if you use AI. cords will be cut, fabs will be damaged, hopefully.

>>4424425
>oppress me more daddy

>>4424425
Can we see some protest photos you've taken?

>>4424428
This isnt reddit

>>4424454
So you dont go to protests? Or dont take photos? Or dont take photos at protests?
What do you do IRL to be politically engaged?

>>4419876 (OP)
>turned the garlic into dumplings and upped the contrast

>>4424340
>luddite
shill detected. update your playbook

>>4419899
>reality scanners
...what?

>>4424593
its what the village idiot calls you if your camera is better than theirs since "stembug" and "hylic" were drawn as dull knives

they'll find a good insult eventually lol

>>4424593
It's people that focus 100% on the technical side, so much so they often ignore the creative side
The sharpest lens on the high res / DR body with the best shooting technique and natural processing
Often times the high technical capability is enough compensate for the complete lack of artistry
It's like people that care more about overclocking their PC to hit some benchmark, instead of actually playing a game
Some even are literal document or art scanners, architecture, and landscape and macro all get close too

>>4424610
Your life must be really sad if you need to turn "cares about image quality" into a perjorative. No matter what you say to this, I will always assume, and fully believe, that you are lashing out because you got bullied for overspending on a shitty camera, given the tendency of the consumer electronics market to sell objectively bad things for objectively large amounts of money.

The philosophical problems here are self evident. Photography is not painting. It can never add in itself. It can never reveal in itself. It can only take away, filter, select, pick and choose. To add in photography is a transgression against the nature of the activity. It spits in the face of the wallowing accountant, product of calculators and labcoats, that is photography and calls it art. In the initial stages of creation you must slave yourself to an asian consumer product. The more your camera takes away for you, the more you are enslaved by a soulless japanese box. And yet - I say this as you are considering saying "but that gives you more room to add" - those who are the most enslaved curiously add the least. They purchase a blurry lens, take a bunch of blurry photos, and like aliens attempting to mimic human culture, call this "creative photography". Is it art to hold a kaleidoscope up all of the time?

It is the superior camera which takes away the least that allows an artist to decide what should be excluded and what they will add in its place. Hence the greatest artists in the history of photography have gravitated towards the greatest quality with VERY purposeful exclusions (such as all color)

And there is that other issue, that buying a shitty camera necessitates that even purely documentary photos are limited to looking like shit. I would not be happy if the last photo taken of a relative were rendered with fujifilm or micro four thirds quality.

>>4419886
>Wait til this guy finds out about shooting jpg lmao

holy shit underrated

>>4424620
originally this worship of basic equipment was a college student thing, as students are taught on basic equipment, but since hipsters worship college students (purporting to learn is an unachievable height?) it's been frustrating misplaced

>>4424620
i would pay good money for a camera that did something cool like not seeing the color red

but the way cameras usually work is fuji charges you $25000 for a camera that turns fine details into weird computer generated worm artifacts

>>4424610
>architecture, and landscape and macro all get close too

>portrait, not a singular animal: >:( SOULLESS
>portrait, singular animal: <:O OMG LE SOUL
congratulations on being an exceptionally shallow thinker. you would not survive a drunken debate about art in a st. petersburg tavern.

>>4419876 (OP)
As if photography was a growing economy...
People are delusional. It's not about AI being "better," it's about AI being cheaper, faster, and not being snarky. Look at IG, YouTube, Reddit. All AI slop bot farms these days. Hard to ignore.

Photography will still be here as a hobby, don't worry.

Good luck trying to get paid off of it.

>>4424642
>look at "content creation" "social" media platforms
these sites exist to make you look at ads and literally nothing else. even the comments are ads. pull your head out and hose it off. capitalism failed. there is no art there. you are the product.

I think the technique in the OP makes a bad image, but I can definitely see ways AI could do photo editing for us.
We've all seen the OP image now, and we've accepted the frame for how editing would work is img->img, but there's no reason you couldn't instead give an AI the img as an input, and have it output slider values for each of the different adjustments you might make.
You'd train that with your dataset being your unedited images, and the slider values you used to created the edited images, and it would give you slider values for new images that match your style.
This could only really work for changes that affect the whole image, not spot changes, but I would still find this incredibly time saving as a first pass.

>>4424839
imagine being so braindead you need AI to move sliders for you

how tragic for humanity to go from making technology that saves real labor and produces real benefit to producing technology for making pictures look funny without needing a modicum of taste or normal adult cognitive ability

coincidentally the latter technology can only exist if the technology to contradict, invalidate, and replace real photojournalism and real social media users also exists so it's a net harm. as always, filling a hobby with non-autists (who else would want AI to fix their snapshits?) permanently kills it.

>>4424841
If it's a braindead and easy task, why wouldn't you want a computer to do it for you?
Simple tasks are the ones that we should look to automate away so we can focus on more interesting ones.
If your work can really be displaced by someone doing something simple, then your work is not that valuable.

>>4424842
>coincidentally the latter technology can only exist if the technology to contradict, invalidate, and replace real photojournalism and real social media users also exists so it's a net harm
trade offer:
you receive: saving 2 minutes on an optional, and arguably worthless activity that can be entirely avoided by not using a sony or a panasonic
the globalist elite receives: total control over journalism and public discourse

>>4424843
>the globalist elite receives: total control over journalism and public discourse
How? You can run models locally. A simple model like this could run on your computer, and it wouldn't be hard to train one yourself, nor would it be too costly for someone to release one open source.
Do you think AI = ChatGPT et. al? It's a common misconception, and it does limit your ability to see how this technology could be useful for you without giving someone else control over your work.
If you mean that in terms of AI development overall increasing, the technology your alluding to in your quote is either going to or not going to exist regardless of whether you make your editing process simpler.
>saving 2 minutes
Per image? Pretty useful when you have a lot of images.

>>4424620
Can we see some photos of yours? You seem like an expert of both the technical and creative

>>4424851
>a nophoto asking for photos
Many such cases, sad!

>>4424852
nobody asked me for a photo, what kind did you want?

>>4424866
>>4424852
i also didn't proclaim to be the expert, what good is expertise if you can't share your results?

>>4424867
Expert? Who said they were an expert?

Any idiot can point out the logical flaws in the views of retards like >>4424610
Only a genuine idiot could meme themselves into writing this post >>4424610
It's middle school tier drivel, AND a logical fallacy (false dichotomy), so it only takes basic logic to trump it.

Don't be stupid and you won't have to cry next time, nophoto.

>>4424868
You HAVE to be a bad photographer if you think my baby sensor camera is bad ;_;

>>4419876 (OP)
That's not a photo though, it's an AI recreation of the photo. The details are completely different. However, the composition and color are superior and the photographer should try to emulate that to his best.

>>4419876 (OP)
>not even the same photo
>suggests turning a RAW into a developed photo is just a generic process you don't want to have any input in
this is clearly a ragebait thread, reported

>>4424868
An imbalance of two things is not a false dichotomy.
Photo aside, you really don't know anyone that focuses so much on one thing that it becomes a detriment to something else?
Pointing out an imbalance doesn't I mean I think both sides are at odds with each other in any way. Most people benefit from being well rounded than fixation.

>>4426045
>focuses so much on one thing that it becomes a detriment to something else?
this only happens to normies because they have to fit everything in around bar hopping and parties. artists benefit from periods of hyperfixation. no great painter can say he never spent a day refining his brushes. that's why most artistically successful creative photographers are turbo gearfags gradually moving up to 8x10 film, and most financially successful commercial photographers are still using a 5dII.

>>4426046
Sounds like middle school tier drivel

>>4426045
Clearly it is.
>You like this too much, or you can do this, pick one!
>You can't be creative AND care about image quality.
That's false. And it's a dichotomy. It's so false, it's been false since before you were born.

It's also a hyperbole (you inform yourself such from disparate 4chan posts, probably written on phones by people sitting on the toilet?) and a self-fellating strawman, which anyone could turn back on you
>oh you nerd, you know a big word, you cant make art, i dont know what a photogrammetry does so i make art *snaps asian hot dog stand with heavy vignette*

>>4426048
Sounds like you just got savagely BTFO.

Your argument was bullshit from the start
"The only people ai filters is reality scanners(1)"
(1)People who arent and cant be creative because they know about the technical side of photography

You know, to a complete fucking idiot, you can't possibly have read war and peace if you're jacked, because a complete fucking idiot has no room in their life or their head for anything and has to pick one. That's what you sound like, when you say creative people couldn't possibly dislike an existential threat to the value of human creativity and liberty itself.
And then express your praise for it in terms of... productivity, client satisfaction, and dollars, the last things on any creative persons mind for sure.

don't really care. I Take photos for my own personal joy and hardly share them with others.
If anything it adds to my own personal pride that their is this abomination I wont submit to.

>>4426053
>Your argument was bullshit from the start
Not that anon, so wasn't my argument, I just gave a definition because someone asked.
>>4426050
It's not a dichotomy because I acknowledge it's possible to do both well and that it's not either or. You absolutely can be creative and care about image quality.
Many people just let one substitute for lack of the other, and your failure to acknowledge that doesn't negate it's existence. You said something about strawman?
Why do you think Ansel Adams focused on one genre so heavily? Why didn't he do a better job at capturing people portraits and sport shots too? Why did he strive for excellence in all his capacity?

>>4426099
>Many people just let one substitute for lack of the other, and your failure to acknowledge that doesn't negate it's existence. You said something about strawman?
these people basically don't exist, and it echoes the cope and seethe of an old /p/ shitposter with gnostic themes and his immitators (muh hylics)

every time i find some gearfag deep analysis blog online they are an above average photographer, at least. i think this obession is innate to photography, and instead of replacing the photography part, it replaces something else like watching tv or having friends. even that camera conspiracies guy has improved artistically (he's always going to suck, but he's also starting to lose genuine interest in analyzing and selecting ideal gear so w/e). the ones that suck are all reviewers who only give objective measurements and either don't express any preference, or have a "journey" aspect to their gearfaggotry. dedicated reviewers always publish the worst fucking photographs. below /p/ tier. i'm talking about the ken rockwell types, oversaturated or not. even their attempts at serious photography fall flat.

>>4426102
*or don't have a "journey"
the journey of gear is part of the journey of improvement, because photography is inexorably tied to gear, and it is impossible to imitate some equipment with some other equipment, both in the actual look of the image and the essence of the experience of making the image. when this is genuine it's probably not strictly upwards, and crosses film/digital divides usually a few times.

watch out for the type that strictly goes upwards and is basically just constantly maximizing the mtf chart, signal/noise ratio, megapixel number, video bit depth, resolution, 4k crop factor, etc. that's a journey but it's pre-programmed they're a fuckin' NPC.

it's easy to get them mixed up because 99.9% of the time they all end up disliking micro four thirds

>>4426102
I see these people on board all the time, good technical no creativity or good creativity no technique
Could you share some of your photos that show both great technique and creativity, so we can all learn from you?
>>4426103
Sounds like you're describing a reality scanner

>>4426183
most people with experience will hate micro four thirds eventually, that's all

>I see these people on board all the time, good technical no creativity or good creativity no technique
that used to happen but fuji general has been dead lately, so?

>>4419876 (OP)
looks like shit desu

>>4419876 (OP)
>literally made a different image

>>4419876 (OP)
kinda strips all the reality out of the image. Makes it cartoony in a weird way. Like how the garlics are all perfectly oriented and shaped

>>4419876 (OP)
literally everything about the right picture is worse except the contrast/saturation
Kanye West was right about black folks, NHH

>>4426648
>>literally made a different image
Almost like thats what photo editing is

>>4428613
That's literally not what it is

>>4428614

>>4428624
non sequitur

>>4428624
this isn't photo editing it's photography
you think they make the food look like that in photoshop?
it's literally a science to create fake food for ads, it takes thousands of hours of study and creating each piece requires hundreds of hours of labor from many people

>>4428628
This. Tard posted a pic about prop making

>>4428628
>it's literally a science to create fake food for ads, it takes thousands of hours of study and creating each piece requires hundreds of hours of labor from many people
And it will all be replaced by AI. Sad.

>>4419876 (OP)
>increased saturation and contrast
wowee!

>Editing is so hard i need AI to do it for me waaaaah
Just set these as your defaults in capture one. click auto rotate and auto levels, turn every sharpening parameter down by half, set grain to default to 50, and wala. Good photos.

If you need more your photo just sucks and you should reshoot

>>4428644
>And it will all be replaced by AI. Sad.
In like a decade, yeah.

>>4428844
in like a decade datacenters will be on fire and you'll be singing this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs
AI, unlike most technologies, does not create new jobs to replace the ones it filled. The primary goal is to make AI that can train and maintain itself.

>>4419881
>and china will cut off all communications for the upcoming war.
shut the fuck up, happening fag retard

>>4419881
>le collapse
>WW3
You have to imagine such out there shit just to cope with change.

Reminds me how everyone stopped painting and drawing once photography was commonplace

>>4430148
I think that might be more the fault of the mainstream adoption of the internet.
Pre 2000s
>I've got a few hours to spare and my friends/family are occupied
>Huh, I could fuck arouind with these paintbrushes/piano/sewing needles etc. since there's nothing better to do
Post 2000s
>I've got a few microseconds to spare and I don't have friends
>*opens tiktok/instagram/reddit*

>>4430139
>ww3 will never happen. current world leaders are very mentally stable, reasonable, and mature people who are looking out for the native persons of their nations and NOT multinational corporations.

>>4430150
Yeah no one does any painting or drawing at all in 2025

>>4430190
yeah i walked past a bunch of middle aged women drinking wine and aimlessly waving paintbrushes around today, it was weird.

>>4430148
>>4430150
>>4430190
90% of drawing is done to make furry OC or furry porn
photography in the future will be used SOLELY to take photographs of fur suits

>>4430286
fursuits were only a proxy for what the people have always really wanted

in the future cameras will be used for nothing but disturbingly suggestive dog photos

>>4430291
>>4430286
actually in the near future furries will be the majority of scientists
all research on genetic engineering will, instead of going towards gay shit like curing cancer or reversing ageing, go towards turning people into living furries
cameras will be used only to take pictures of genetically engineered furry sex slaves

>>4430292
All furries are zoophiles. I’m just being realistic.

>>4419949
This is the way.

>>4430286
>>4430291
>>4430292
>>4430309

>>4420038
>I'm just surprised it can tell that a blurry mess of white pixels is supposed to be garlic cloves
You can tell easily so there's no reason why a software couldn't tell as well. That's just how it is nowadays. It's clearly garlic-coloured, garlic shaped in a garlic-containing context, it takes all of that into account.
>>4420432
It turned a messy heap of garlic into a plate of 3 neatly arranged bulbs in pleasing size ratios, I would say that's the intended purpose rather than a failure.

>>4419876 (OP)
Tell me when AI will be able to produce a coherent body of work. Until then let visually illiterate retards have fun with it.

If you were skilled photographer you could have taken rightmost photo right away. Ai is for hobbyists.

>>4419876 (OP)
you can't "screenshot a raw" what is this brownoid talking about?
This is him just feeding his raw into adobe software, processing it, then "enhancing" it with AI slop