I'M A FRAUD... How Pro Photographers Fake a PERFECT Photo
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ธ.ค. 2023
- 🌖 SAVE 10% ON SQUARESPACE ▷ www.squarespace.com/lizziepeirce
🌗 SIGN UP FOR FREE PRESET & TEMPLATE BUNDLE ▷ www.lizziepeirce.com/newsletter
🌘 THE BREAKDOWN BOOK ▷ store.dftba.com/products/the-...
▵ SUBSCRIBE ▵
/ lizziepeirce
▵ GEAR I USE ▵
www.lizziepeirce.com/my-gear
▵ SHOP ▵
www.lizziepeirce.com/shop
▵ LET'S BE FRIENDS ▵
INSTA ▷ / lizziepeirce
TWITTER ▷ / lizziepeirce
TIKTOK ▷ / lizziepeirce
MY WEBSITE ▷ www.lizziepeirce.com
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES ▷ its.lizziepeirce@gmail.com - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![PRO CAR PHOTOGRAPHERS Always Shoot This... [FT. CHRIS HAU]](/img/n.gif)
This tool seriously changed the game for me and for you beginner editors out there it will too!
I don't want to come across as a gatekeeper but I would never edit a photo to this extent. In my mind, this is now digital art. I assure you that serious photographers typically want to get everything in camera that they can. I know I have spent plenty of time sitting around waiting on light or other conditions to happen. Each to their own though.
Imagine living in Andalucia Spain seeing the final photo and noticing that Lizzie thought your house wasn’t cool enough
Imagine living in the boring Andalucia and Lizzie made something more interesting. Digital art is amazing is it not? No? go back to analog, grandpa...
@@JumpcutARTs amazing? no its not. This is neither digital art or photography at this point, art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" nothing in that sentence is represented here not even skill beyond the original photograph and even then a drone has done the hard work. What was done here is manipulation to the point that if this image was sold to a tourist board its now a lie and they legally couldn't use it, thats how bad this is. Has nothing to do with being an analog purist. she's not removing a twig or distractions she's actually altering the landscape topography. But if you think this art all the power to ya sister.
Yes, it is art whether you like it or not. Art is the representation of an idea. The technique or process you use to get there has little to do with the outcome. I suppose you may not be familiar with image theory or representation, hence confusing what is art with manipulation. In fact, photography has been manipulated since its invention. You have two options: either you read Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' or you pursue arts studies at any university. Maybe in 4 years you be able to understand why AI Art is an extension of your body like a digital brush is to digital art. All the best with your readings! @@gaza4543
@@gaza4543as someone who would normally agree with your side of the isle. Your comment is filled with outlandish exaggeration.
People forget that it actually takes skill to edit or to bring concepts to any visual conception whatsoever. Lol to disagree, is to essentially say that most professional interior designers or architects are not actually gifted or skilled because they largely rely on AI in order to create spaces before “they create spaces” in reality. If photoshop was so easy, everyone would be professional editors.
Now, with all that out of the way I believe that it takes an incredible amount of skill as a photographer to capture breathtaking captures without AI, and this should always be heralded and safeguarded as the standard! But to say editing doesn’t take skill is actually a joke! Many hobbyist that do use AI dream of being far better at it than they are. And it sometimes takes more time than photography itself! Just saying, let’s be honest and not lie about what it actually takes to create the visuals that they do. It only betrays ignorance, since becoming editor is a whole discipline unto itself.
@@isaias9516nobody said editing is bad or wrong or even easy. But this is not editing, AI did all the work and wasn’t even something actually intended from the beginning, just generate random stuff until finding something that you like. Sorrry, not photography that is for sure. Maybe digital art, and even then there’s a digital artist out there insulted by this cause they created the image from zero using and editing different elements and not generating it with AI.
As a Getty Images contributor and accredited press photographer, we have been banned outright from using ANY AI tools.
Best to master the tools properly, so you don't become reliant on them. As they say, get it right in the camera and finess it in post.
Good for Getty. AI changes photographs to digital images. Not the same thing at all and very little skill required.
I’m a press photographer as well and it’s forbidden to alter reality.
I think that's great and required, especially in the press. Unfortunately AI will make it very difficult to know what's real. @@Reportageandart
I understand editing light, size & clean up, but if you're replacing 40% of the pic, like adding a new sky, that's not photography. There's a reason why photography competitions dont allow edit pics 😅
Photo turned into Digital ART.. a photo is a moment in time.. not a fake one!
I'm not a fan of the perfect photo. A cleaned up, sanitized, manipulated photo is fine for commercial work, but for me the flaws or imperfections and the image the photographer sees are the character elements of the art.
You can only "perfect" a photo a certain amount before it becomes digital art rather than a photo. I'm not a fan of using AI to change large sections of a photo with random generated fills. Removing a few small distracting elements is one thing. Replacing 25% or more of a photo with generative fill is another. At that point you might as well use any photo as a seed then start experimenting with AI to see what sort of digital art you can produce.
people need to stop say digital art, this isnt digital art.
WHY?
Someone sees your Ai altered photo and asks "oh where was this shot, its so beautiful i love the symmetry" you tell them it actually was a really nice photo of a real place but that you spaffed Ai all over it to make it "perfect"....then that person kills themselves at how you have made the world and life hollow.... So yeah... something to think about.
Happy New Year
If you create art images I don’t see a problem with PS, nobody would discuss “manipulation” with a painter. It is a different thing if you say that your work is documentary. Too me the purpose is important.
Thank-you. Gen Fill is also good for removing harsh shadows.
This is very interesting. I've never used AI tools at this level, but I definitely do dodging and burning, masking, snaky curves and recoloring etc., often to where it looks more like a painting than a photo - and I often wonder about where the line is, between photography and digital art. I feel like calling it photography may offend some photographers but calling it digital art will offend some digital artists - the ones who build images from nothing.
Where is the line? Idk.
I would call this as a "photo based on real events" 😀
At what point do you become an editor instead of a photographer?
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. I think a photographer documents reality. I think you start to move into artist when you start manipulating 😊
Yes.. This is not a photo anymore .. Then why to go to Spain at all, you can just make a perfect image
Are you still an artist if you let AI do all the work for you? I use AI mainly to remove distracting elements like lamp posts, lens flare or grass from the image. And I’d rather don’t use it at all. But if you let half your image tear up by AI, who is then the artist? You or the AI?
@@KijkEenVogel I don’t have photoshop. I just take the photos with my 20yr old D70. I call it good. I suppose AI would be another tool in your toolbox. They splatter paint on a canvas and call it art, well then my nephew must be a great artist 🤣 they were selling stupid nfts art. Who am I to put a limit on what art is
manipulation is not art.
@@adventurearyck64 its a tool with no purpose you cant actually legally use it beyond being a hobiest. There is a warning on the tool within photoshop stating it cant be used for commercial purposes. Why cant your nephew work be called art! he's using his imagination and current skill level to create it. There is no Skill what so ever here no imagination (she was presented with options to select)
Try getting away with that if you shoot for something like National Geographic.
18 years ago i was a Yellow Page advertising sales rep. I remember calling on a wedding photographer who was complaining about digital cameras screwing up his industry. He called the photographers "Digital Cowboys" stating that they would never be successful and that the quality was sub par. Fast forward to present time and this man is out of business and obsolete.
My point is, from a business perspective AI, Photoshop, and all things digital are revolutionary. No doubt there is value to knowing your craft however if you are in it for financial purposes you best embrace technology. An analogy would be an all natural athlete competing with a scientifically enhanced human being roided to the max. How about gas car versus horse and buggy..
Personally i hate not being able to see a true snapshot from the past frozen in time. It bothers me to know that just about any image or video that im viewing could be very far from authentic and accurate. Our children will never be able to go by the old saying "seeing is believing." Unfortunately that saying is obsolete along with authentic imagery.
To each his own. Just remember, you only get one chance to get it right (or do you?).
"Perfection" at all costs. In fairness, you did state up front that these methods are used by the fraudulent.
I personally have no issue at all with people editing pictures and digitally manipulating images in the sense that the exposure, contrast, saturations, colors etc. are changed, as long as there is no claim to an "unedited picture".
In regard to using generative AI however, I am a bit unsure, the end result is often no different to a human painstakingly editing a part of the image in Photoshop, and maybe it would be best if images that are edited either manually or with generative AI should have at tag or something so we know when an image is "real" or "fake", this is nothing against AI or Editing a picture manually, but I think this would be a good idea especially in regard to portraits or pictures of people.
TL;DR
Should we mark photoshopped pictures?
It would be better to just assume everything is edited and spend your energy on other things.
Serious question from a photography student. Is it still your photo if you take parts from generative fill and blend it to your photo? I always thought and think that using AI means using someone’s work too. How does it work with giving credit to the people whose photos where used from AI?
Im a creative director within the graphic design industry designing packaging, we take alot of photos and retouch, so maybe a dribble of of honey on a pancake is looking a little untidy we will remove it, that sort of thing. Your question is not difficult to answer you just need to think about it. We are not allowed to use AI what so ever not even with the description of the product.
lets put it this way AI will fall under the banner of plagiarism Adobe is creating that work not you its that simple. you're only cheating yourself
@@gaza4543 thank you so much for answering my question! I wondered about that a long time.
All together now, composition is key.
photoshop and lightroom have really changed the game in a big way.
😮this started as how to not to be photo fraud to how to commit a photo fraud😅😅😂😂,
Great video Lizzie ! Happy New Year 2024 !
As I’m just getting into photography editing, are you using LR, LRC, PS or something else? I couldn’t follow lol
Meh. Apart from tweaking exposure (shadows, highlights etc) I really do not use any other enhancement. But there again I do not sell my photos or earn money from photography. For us amateurs, some of the “flaws” in the image, as long as the composition is good, makes the photo. AI images are horrible in my opinion. For advertising or some print works I can see the attraction, but photography in itself is the pleasure of capture rather than creating the image in software. Sorry not a fan of this.
Wasn’t Boxing Day last week?
I’m going to start saying that I’ve watched your videos for almost 4 years and always loved and admired you and your work. That said, I’m behind you on the first photo (although it’s a little too far for my taste) but letting AI completely make half of your photo since like waaayyyyy too much, I know you want the perfect photo, like we all do, but this isn’t even a photo anymore, is more digital art than anything else. To each their own, if you love AI tools cool, but that’s not even photography anymore at that point. At least to me, who knows where or when they gonna draw the line. But as of now, you wouldn’t even qualify for a big photography contest with an image like that.
Sorry, when you are actually changing topography it is too much for me. The point of taking the photo, for me, is to capture the actual topography. I can crop things out of the photo. I can change/shift the colors. But the physical features that exist in a given landscape, if I choose to include them by not cropping them out, must remain as they are in reality, with subtle differences from white balance, presets, etc, and.cropping allowed. I guess it could be argued that changing the colors is also changing the features, but one person's blue is not another person or camera system's blue, and black & white really then wld be changing things. I think color shifts are okay. Color shifts and creative cropping, that is where I draw my line. But some do not agree with even cropping. So, to each his own, but for me, changing the topography this much wld negate the purpose of the photo. In addition, if you are taking these photos for clients, I think it should be disclosed how much and which edits were made. Beautiful photos before any edits and overall I love your channel. Disagree on this.
Yet, I have done things such as removing a lamppost or taking out bits of trash/litter that were in a shot taken on a city street, for example. So, I suppose, in fairness I am not a total purist regarding this topic. I suppose it is a question of degree or perhaps it is a spectrum. For a non-commissioned image, I would not remove several houses, keep nearby houses in their unchanged photographic position, and replace the neighboring houses with forest. Nor remove what appears to be maybe a bridge or something in the distance and replace it with more rolling hills. I have/will take out a distracting lamppost or unsightly litter/wrappers in the street. I will soften client wrinkles, but not entirely remove the wrinkles. I will soften acne scars and completely remove pimples and whiteheads. I will not change the shape of a client's nose. Etc. If you were to present your first photo to a client who had, for example, commissioned you to take a drone shot of his neighborhood, but wanted the emphasis to be on his particular area and have superfluous houses removed, maybe I would do what you did in this video. But before making final edits, I would show the client the before and after to be sure he wanted this. If the client was happy, okay, then it's fine (only for the purposes of that particular client). But I wld not take a drone shot of a neighborhood sans specific client, edit it to this degree, and then offer it for sale as an image of that spot from that perspective in Andalucia. Because it is no longer an image of that spot from that perspective in Andalucia. But then again, removing a lamppost from view from a certain perspective on a city street is also altering my photographic representation of that spot from that perspective on that city street. So I am forced to feel, in truth, that its a matter of degree, and this video is simply further along the spectrum than I am willing to go. Its an interesting issue for thought.
"How TH-cam Influencer Fauxtographers Take a Perfect Photo" Come on, Lizzie, you're better than this.
It's one thing to digitally manipulate a photograph. It's another thing to pretend that you didn't. That's the big lie going on today.
That’s been going on since the beginning of photography
Not quite the same and certainly not to the extent it is today.@@michaelkoppenhoefer5910
Stop throwing generative AI down our throats.
the fraud keeps laughing. haha savage. happy new year lizzie!
thats kinda crazy
I "generate fill" over my "generated fills" too! 😂 I like to use it to enhance what's already there and expand the photo so that the key elements don't get cropped out in my instagram grid previews lol
are you talking about esther ? she from toronto
As someone just doing photography as a hobby rn, I love Lightroom for its simplicity. But I’ve never taken the time to truly learn PS. Generative fill is a good way for me to dip my toes into it
I look at it this way. When a model uses make up that is like using lightroom and OK for me. Photoshop is more like Botox and stuff, not so real anymore. If you use AI (other than little things like denonise) it is plastic surgery and I hate it 😉.
This really is a game changed! Certified Fraud Club member!
I am definitely a fan of Loghtroom & not so much Photoshop. I think that using ai for touch up work and to boost certain aspects of your work is fine. I started following you on Instagram. I thought I was already following you, but I am now. Anyway I love your work and feel like you’re giving a realistic view of what you’re doing.
This is exactly how I have been using it to remove things! Best tool ever.
I work in a mine. Those "little" trucks weigh 200+ tons and could easily drive through your house.
Speak for yourself. Some of us still look & work to perfect our craft. Not with PS..
Bro, its all good! No need to be rude or at least sound rude. She was just sharing her own style! It’s art brother! It’s subjective! I’m sure your photos are amazing and I’m sure you work very hard to make sure you don’t need to use photoshop! But it’s all good to use the tools that we are given! That’s what arts for! It’s for making your ideas become reality!
Nothing against you man, I’m just saying, she’s sharing her art and I love that! Everyone deserve respect!
Great video Lizzie!
Facts! I don’t even have a good enough laptop for photoshop lol. I have transfer all my photos to my phone and edit everything on it. I have an iPhone 11 by the way
You can die on that hill, and that’s fine, but you should realize that virtually none of the photographers who are making serious money are doing it all in camera. Commerical photographers composite, edit, and tweak their photos to all hell. Companies don’t care if the photo is perfect out of camera art, they care if it sells to customers.
Once again, be a purist by all means, but realize that if you’re selling photography as a service, your client probably doesn’t care about the purity of the shot like you do.
Photoshop and editing is a skill and craft in itself though
The question is this: Do you really want to be remembered as someone who made video like this?
With all the skills,connections and experience you have? Really, generative fill? C’mon.
Tell us why you’re not motivated, why photo and not video or editing, we’re is your strength by the way. And why not telling a story instead of showing us something we all have and use, but it is not what make a drone or camera owner, photographer.
My intention with this comment is to give feedback, not to hate or disturb.
Happy New Year, and I wish you all the best!
Sorry - not for me, I'm afraid. Disappointed to see a photographer with as many subscribers as you editing images this much.
Isn't there a limit to the number of generative fill requests?
Back in the very early days of Instagram, I didn't realize how much people were manipulating photos, and I gave up because I thought I wasn't good enough. Not that I didn't know about Photoshop, I only used it for minor blemishes (and Liquify to make myself thinner, lolz), but I never thought to majorly overhaul an image, or drastically change the colors from what came out of the camera, which are basic filters now on software apps. Now that I've stepped back into photography as a hobby, I actually don't like the post-processing work as you mentioned -- it's time-consuming, and life has changed to the point where it's not the priority. I guess it would be different if it were my career.
Your images are fantastic, and as long as you aren't manipulating photos to create an outright lie (ex. political figures, celebrities, etc.) then I think the general public has a general understanding about photo editing and stylistic choices to make an image/art. The examples you gave were great -- changing to clean things up to make an image better.
I’ll be honest I do not know how to use Photoshop and I consider myself. However, if you know how to use those tools to perfect, your work or make it look better that’s awesome. Great video can’t wait for the next.
Too far into art for me!
To be honest, Ansel Adams, thought to be one of the greatest photographers of all time, manipulated most of his images, thru filters, dodging and burning. He printed the final product to represent how the image appeared to him when fired the shutter.
The Ansel Adams comparison is getting old and is just used to justify AI manipulation. It is by far not the same thing. Just think about it.
@@sigurdrille9693 i think the point of the argument is Adams used every single tool at his disposal to create memorable and marketable images. So if he were around today, at what level of manipulation would he stop. Unknown.
Dodging and burning is just lightening and darkening parts of the image, it isn't recreating what wasn't there.
So your an ARTIST, an artist that takes photo’s, right? No, a photographer, you’re a photographer that adds art, yes? No! You’re a Composite Artist!
Ummmm, Nah, lets just go with Image maker!
Yes, you are a talented Image Maker!
No, I DON’T KNOW!
You’re definitely TALENTED!
❤😮
I saw a post recently along the lines of changing my entire perspective on photography if you look at yourself as an artist or creator first and photography is just the medium. Unless you are in a photojournalism type of situation, editing to create the art you want isn't a 'fraud'. Ansel Adams has entire book volumes of markups of his darkroom editing on his images and the final results on most rarely looked like the original plates.
We all need to collectively agree to not gatekeep the art due to editing, no matter how much and appreciate the art for art's sake.
Imaginative, not fraudulent. Carry on. 👍🥂
You’re really hurting some feelings with this one lol.
Photographers have been manipulating their photos forever.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.........
As a photographer of 55+ years... I don't care what you and/or anyone else do......
Just be honest,,,,, and Tell the Viewer what it is...... Absent of facts or the omission of information is still a 'lie.' and 'deception to the viewer........ In some instances, changes and/or manipulation (digital art) can easily be seen, in others, it can not... and to me, deception in the arts is the same as 'NON-Art'...... If the US. Copyright Office will not accept it... then It is 'NOT a genuine piece of personal creation or as they say, human creativity...
If you can NOT copyright a 'creative work'..... then it is "NOT" creative. It is manipulation.... YES, you can sell it, but a "FAKE" is always going to be 'cheaper'.....
Be honest with yourself and with your audience.....
Lizzie, many of the famous photographs especially in B&W were manipulated to some degree. War photo's that were a composite of a number of negatives, Ansel Adams dodged and burned. So in reality the use of software to modify an image is an extension of the dark room techniques of the past.
The Ansel Adams comparison is getting old and is just used to justify AI manipulation. It is by far not the same thing. Just think about it.
There are other photographers, whose names escape me at the moment, who made composite images.@@sigurdrille9693
Black & white film photography;
Is cropping, dodging, & burning, in a darkroom cheating?
Tell that to Ansel Adams
The Ansel Adams comparison is getting old and is just used to justify AI manipulation. It is by far not the same thing. Just think about it.
Adapted or Die! If I do a portrait shoot for a customer, I want to produce the best I can to meet their expectations. AI modifications will impact the different fields in different ways. Would I as a news outlet want a photo journalist using AI to make an "actual" shot look worse/better than wants really happening, no. Photography manipulations has been going on since the film days (developer tricks) for the "art" of photography. Each photographer will need to decide for themselves what's "best" for their "vision"....my two cents
If it’s in the tool box use it. Photographers love to act like they all work for NG or the AP and cant manipulate their images. When I’m reality they refused to move foreword with the medium over the past 30 years.
It’s not about moving forward. Everybody edits their photos. There’s nobody out there taking a photo and not doing some touch up in Lightroom before publishing it somewhere. Just the fact that if you’re a photographer you have and use Lightroom is a statement that photography has advance with the times. Heck, there’s industries where going in kinda hard with photoshop is a must (product , big portraits for brands and magazines) But taking a photo and just having 50% of it be AI generated is not photography anymore, is just digital art, at least call it what it is.