Years and years ago I did some testing on ads on IG. Just kept scrolling and scrolling to see how bad and how pointless the ads got. Wanted to see how deep the turtles go. It was fascinating to see how many photographers are wasting their money on the platform to buy ads, and how bad the ads were.

Also made me allergic to Topaz because they were clearly paying people to spruik their software instead of buying their own ads! The entire eco system in a cess pit.

@ewen

That's funny about Topaz. I saw their ads and references to them all over Instagram and Facebook for a long time and didn't even bother to look because basically everything advertised on those platforms is shit, in the same category as "this one weird trick.

Then I met an actual very accomplished photographer in person who mentioned the apps in a conversation we were having about editing. He swears by them and that was enough to get me to try them out. But now they've gone over to the dark side so 🤷‍♂️

But, in general, the ads are so bad and the algorithm is so bad that I can't imagine ever spending money to advertise something there. Total waste even if you don't mind supporting a sociopathic billionaire.

I have a life long aversion to products that are spending money to advertise. There's a part of my brain that figures they're wasting my money if I buy the goods!

You're totally right though, they devalue the brand with the whole "one weird trick" category of promotion. To be honest, every photographer I've ever met who loves their products, I do NOT love their photos. It's all a bit Kenny Bania.

I can see the value in their technology for rescuing video projects. But not for stills, and definitely not for anything near editorial or documentary photography. Maybe I'm a snob, or maybe I actually like photography instead of just getting a computer to pretend for me.

@ewen

Eh, you're being a snob. 😉

The photo I'm about to post from last night (after being out along the border until midnight) would look like crap without specialized denoising that goes way beyond what Lightroom (etc.) can do. The only other option is for me to upgrade to a camera with a better low-light sensor, which I can't really afford at the moment. Whether the camera's sensor makes the image less noisy in-camera or an external app does it after the fact doesn't change that it's still a picture I worked really hard to get, which is where the value lies.

It's Topaz' new version with all the genAI crap (and subscription model) that I want no part of.

I've been thinking a lot about where I draw the line on genAI and it mostly comes down to the effort, skill, creativity and maybe risk that went into producing an image. It's like with LLMs: if someone can't be bothered to write it/shoot it, why should I be bothered to read it/look at it?

@ewen

Yeah, the question of how much post-production editing is allowable in documentary photography is a big question and there are so many variables. Transparency is the most important foundation, IMO.

Luckily, most of what I'm doing right now, while documentary in character, allows me some creative leeway, since it's as much artistic interpretation as strict recording of fact. (E.g. the pics I'm about to post if I'd quit replying to people 😆 )

I'm not that concerned with where the line is. And totally not my place to say what is or isn't "allowed".

I think about "what direction am I headed in?"

Am I doing photography, or a glorified version of prompting? Am I digging into the creative potential of a RAW file, or just assembling a piece of digital art? What do I want to do with my time and effort?

So I stay off the train that leads to hyper optimised imagery. I want to take a journey into reality, with all its imperfections. I don't like questions like "how do I fix this image" because it implies that is what editing is all about. And that's not a world I inhabit.

@ewen @Jennifer

Well, to be fair, it's hard to have much of a community if most people are elsewhere and you don't get much engagement. I feel that a lot here, especially since my offline life is quite isolated most of the time. I don't really need clicks and likes, but when I ask for some technical or other advice or feedback, it would be nice to get more engagement than I often do.

I think most of us stay here because of a wider range of considerations so, speaking for myself, it's worth less engagement to know I'm helping build the type of online social network that I'd like to be part of, while *not* contributing to the kind of online platforms that have proven themselves to be terrible for... *waves hands around*... everything. Bluesky should be considered to be temporarily low on the enshittification spiral until it proves itself otherwise, so I'm not really interested adding free labor for its owners.

Connecting with community here can be tricky.

Could be the tone of a post sometimes. Folks have been very cautious about anything that sniffs of "influencer" culture, or "expert" arrogance. I also noticed engagement for me changes radically with my time zone... I don't see lots of people for weeks and then realise I'm not scrolling down far enough to at them because they went to bed five hours before I got online.

Give it time. Genuine people will find you.

@Jennifer

For whatever reason this formula is wasted on my brain. I just find it all very irritating.

Was a time being ND felt like a burden. Now it feels like freedom.

@Jennifer @Mikal