Bolt hunter : A device to capture lightening

[Thad E Ginathom]

Interesting reply, thanks :)

I do agree with your example about the fully-fully-fully-automatic storm picture taker. What part would the "photographer" have played? Only having the money to buy it.

Yes sure, it is shades of grey, and interesting to talk about. And, with the rise of AI, I feel that we should be having these conversations often.

I sometimes call my camera "my expensive point&shoot." Because, honestly, with auto eye focus, etc etc, I point, it shoots... and almost always gets the picture. And usually produces, should I want to use it, a very nice sooc jpeg.

What's my contribution? Being there; composition; probably above all, getting the moment as often as I can.

But technically, not much else. Perhaps that is one reason why I took up post-processing from raw, even though it is hugely more time consuming. Some might even prefer the ooc jpeg, but my processed pic is mine.

In post-processing (I use darktable) I use an AI tool for drawing masks. Nothing generative: the detail in the pic is still exactly what the camera saw.

Would I use other AI tools? I don't rule it out at all. But I don't see myself ever, eg, replacing a sky. And I am not, personally, at all interested in producing art from a prompt rather than a camera.

Shades of grey: it is actually, in a world where the hardware and software tools available to us change almost every day, it is hard to be black or white. And even if we are, it might different tomorrow!

The question being at what point I would feel that I have lost ownership and what point I would not.

Absolutely key.

[ashutosh1979]

How about special pics like a bullet passing through a balloon, or water-splash pics?

There are some things that are just impossible to cover with human reaction time. Especially mine. As you say, we already use plenty of electronic/mechanical assistance in our photography, and, although it has become super-sophisticated in the last decade or so, it started long before that.

I don't think it can be compared with a download or AI. It will still be record of the actual storm that the photographer was living through, an actual flash that they saw. In the direction in which they were pointing the camera.

If I was a weather photographer, I'd get this in a... ahem, flash!

Like you said ( and I said) we already do use a lot of automated assistance. So it would be funny to call out another level of assistance. But like everything else things are never black or white, it is always somewhere in between.  I am not say this is right or that is, these are just thoughts both points of view.

And things are subjective too. It might make perfect sense for one person but not for another. I would hesitate to either reject or accept any proposition.

The question being at what point I would feel that I have lost ownership and what point I would not.

Just a thought experiment if I had a robotic camera with multiple lenses, motors and AI sensors which could scan weather forecasts and accordingly could go out in a thunder storm, anticipate where the lightening is striking etc, choose the angle, lens, the settings etc take shots, filter for the best shot, AI edit that best one send the finished pic to me, how much ownership I would feel ( not "HAVE" in legal/technical sense but "FEEL") about that photo. I don't know, maybe I will , but I doubt. But again if I BUILT the whole system myself from the all the components, integrated it, wrote the software routines or even fine tuned the AI etc. sure I would feel like I own the photo,I am pretty sure of it, if I bought ready made off the shelf then may be not. So there is always nuance in these discussions.

BTW I do hope nobody took my comment as personal remark towards anybody or my "Judgment" on any technology/technique/brand etc , these are just thoughts that I like to throw around like minded people to see what others feel and what new ideas emerge.

I thought it is one of the purposes of forums like these.

Also downloading and AI generation thing was meant as an illustration to make a point not a direct comparison, but even there ....there is increasing interest in seeing AI generative art as art in its own right and not be looked down upon, and treat AI as just as another tool. I think there was this competition also, purposefully about AI art only. The funny things was the winning entry turned out be a real photo not AI, or at least that is what the winner claimed.

[Krish Chandran]

Most interesting gadget not in what it claims to do but in that it is the exact thing to start the debate about "Is this real photography anymore ?"

Frankly the 1st thought that came to my mind was that only... why bother taking a photo altogether with so much automation, why not download one from the net or better still AI generate one ( it will actually be unique and not stealing someone else's work)

But then I thought what would I say to an old timer who frowns upon my Auto Focus or Auto White Balance or Eye Focus or Aperture / Shutter mode etc.

I still feel not so good about using this gadget in question but I am not certain about calling it cheating .. In my case I guess it will take out the joy of nailing the shot ...

I've seen too many lightening images to be impressed by the image (All of us for that matter), what brings joy is the process.
Again saying this with the sense that many of my tools(mentioned above) are somewhat similar in a sense.

And finally apologies to Krish Chandran for sort of, hijacking his post into something else, I guess his was only an informative post not a contemplative one.

Regards
Ashutosh

The term "Neo-Luddite" comes to mind

[Thad E Ginathom]

How about special pics like a bullet passing through a balloon, or water-splash pics?

There are some things that are just impossible to cover with human reaction time. Especially mine. As you say, we already use plenty of electronic/mechanical assistance in our photography, and, although it has become super-sophisticated in the last decade or so, it started long before that.

I don't think it can be compared with a download or AI. It will still be record of the actual storm that the photographer was living through, an actual flash that they saw. In the direction in which they were pointing the camera.

If I was a weather photographer, I'd get this in a... ahem, flash!

[ashutosh1979]

Most interesting gadget not in what it claims to do but in that it is the exact thing to start the debate about "Is this real photography anymore ?"

Frankly the 1st thought that came to my mind was that only... why bother taking a photo altogether with so much automation, why not download one from the net or better still AI generate one ( it will actually be unique and not stealing someone else's work)

But then I thought what would I say to an old timer who frowns upon my Auto Focus or Auto White Balance or Eye Focus or Aperture / Shutter mode etc.

I still feel not so good about using this gadget in question but I am not certain about calling it cheating .. In my case I guess it will take out the joy of nailing the shot ...

I've seen too many lightening images to be impressed by the image (All of us for that matter), what brings joy is the process.
Again saying this with the sense that many of my tools(mentioned above) are somewhat similar in a sense.

And finally apologies to Krish Chandran for sort of, hijacking his post into something else, I guess his was only an informative post not a contemplative one.

Regards
Ashutosh

[Krish Chandran]

Just something I came across and thought you might find interesting. 

I have never photographed lightening. I guess it needs quite a bit of preparation, plus there must be the inevitable misses due to reactions/timing. This device claims to reduce those misses. 



https://fstoppers.com/originals/reliable-and-easier-way-capture-lightning-bolt-hunter-903807