Personally, I don't like the image, nor do I like any AI-generated "art" thus far. I'm a big camera wonk and a tone chaser, so I appreciate detail and that elusive quality that makes something more than just competent.
Being so low-barrier, there is naturally a flood of images from beginners who are just futzing around. But, I hear a common refrain that sounds to me like “DeviantART.com has millions of sketches from bored 13 year olds. Therefore I don’t consider pencil to be an artistic medium.”
I’d be interested in your opinions of the works of https://twitter.com/rainisto
I had a scroll through the Twitter profile, and whilst at least unusual in terms of content, I close the app and remember none of it. None of it is bold enough to be memorable compositionally for me. It's competent, sure, it's just unremarkable and lacks humanity. Does that mean it's "bad"? It's just not for me, in the same way I don't care for tuna even though I acknowledge that plenty of people enjoy eating tuna.
So it has gotten to the point where contest judges think AI can (be used as a tool to) make good pictures.
Art is subjective. If you can accept that art is subjective then quantification of the quality and value of art is absurd.
Those who can, do, those who can't—judge photo contests?
All it tells you about is the taste of the judging panel.
As much as AI has trouble with hands and we can assume that it’s AI because we know what to look for, those hands are not outside the realm of human deformities and/or photography tricks. Pair that with the absolute PR nightmare possible in calling a real human fake just because they don’t fit the expected norms and it’s totally reasonable for judges to accept it as a real photo.
If you bring a photography to a "realistic painting" contest does it work ? Or an helicopter to a f1 race ?
It's not the same medium, it doesn't matter if it looks good or if people like it
A contest is a measure of what? The taste of the judges?
Honestly I believe author did include this on purpose, since its very well known shortcoming at this point. He could have done image without fingers displayed and then nobody would have a clue. But clearly judges are oblivious to recent development in some too-old-for-this-shit fashion, so they didnt pick it up and then embarassed themselves.
And truly it is the eyes that capture your attention. The hands (or fingers rather) are something like a vignette.
The white smudges in the center/top, and the yellow glow on the top of the left side seem like artifacts of a manual development process. That's likely something that would interest a photography judge - maybe the judge(s) here were just biased toward experimental analog processing and was therefore blind to the issues we immediately see?
I presume this entry is not a photo at all: https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/win....