6 ms·

I agree with your view. An algorithm is manipulating the image and similar if a person used photoshop for manipulating an image. The process being more automate

by sysbin 7y ago

I agree with your view. An algorithm is manipulating the image and similar if a person used photoshop for manipulating an image. The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because both situations are altering the pixels for an altered outcome.

lm28469 7y ago
> The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because It does matter because it's infinitely quicker to do it that way. It's like saying a modern calculator and an abacus are the same because they let you add/sub/&c numbers
- pushpop 7y ago
  I’m not saying I agree with the GPs point but I do think you’re also missing their point. To use your example, it would matter if the question was asking people to do mental arithmetic. The issue isn’t whether a machine or human is making the edits though. It’s really a question of what is the actual accurate image. Unfortunately that’s probably more of a philosophical rather than technical one. For example differing camera lenses will add their own distortions of “truth”. We also have different perceptions of colour from person to person. So how do you define “accurate”? In my personal opinion what really matters is whether the subject is fair. By that I mean: are the filters changing the context or altering the perceived facts of the image? Or are the filters just an artistic choice. This filter definitely falls into the latter since the subject is still very obviously under water albeit presented with greater clarity. You’re not changing the context of the image but rather the presentation. So it’s hard to argue that as being “photoshopped” (in the context that term is typically used).
  - luxuryballs 7y ago
    Exactly. The reason behind the configuration of the pixel changing filter is the only thing that is different. But it doesn’t stop there, the concept that an aesthetic choice is more or less real than a “just like it would be in dry land” choice is also flawed because those creatures would most definitely not look that way on dry land.

by sysbin 7y ago

lm28469 7y ago

> The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because It does matter because it's infinitely quicker to do it that way. It's like saying a modern calculator and an abacus are the same because they let you add/sub/&c numbers

pushpop 7y ago
I’m not saying I agree with the GPs point but I do think you’re also missing their point. To use your example, it would matter if the question was asking people to do mental arithmetic. The issue isn’t whether a machine or human is making the edits though. It’s really a question of what is the actual accurate image. Unfortunately that’s probably more of a philosophical rather than technical one. For example differing camera lenses will add their own distortions of “truth”. We also have different perceptions of colour from person to person. So how do you define “accurate”? In my personal opinion what really matters is whether the subject is fair. By that I mean: are the filters changing the context or altering the perceived facts of the image? Or are the filters just an artistic choice. This filter definitely falls into the latter since the subject is still very obviously under water albeit presented with greater clarity. You’re not changing the context of the image but rather the presentation. So it’s hard to argue that as being “photoshopped” (in the context that term is typically used).
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  Exactly. The reason behind the configuration of the pixel changing filter is the only thing that is different. But it doesn’t stop there, the concept that an aesthetic choice is more or less real than a “just like it would be in dry land” choice is also flawed because those creatures would most definitely not look that way on dry land.