As someone who lives in a relatively rural area with similar geography to much of the mountains and forests in these pictures I have noticed previously how professional pictures of these areas have a similar feeling of over saturating the emotion.
It's interesting to see algorithms catching up to being able to replicate this. However when you mention these kind of abilities to photographers, they get defensive, almost like you are threatening their identity by saying a computer can do it.
> they get defensive, almost like you are threatening their identity by saying a computer can do it.
It's a fairly common reaction from most people. Hayao Miyazaki, director of Spirited Away, got very upset after being shown a demo of AI doing animation:
I feel like that misses a lot of the context of the video. It was animating mutilated bodies in a prototype for a horror game. It's no wonder it was upsetting.
I admit I didn't read the linked article, but I did watch the video and speak Japanese pretty fluently.
His reaction of disgust isn't to the general idea of computer-generated animation, but to the specific animation he's being shown, which features a corpse thrashing around on the ground, and specifically in relation to having a severely disabled friend.
It's entirely possible he's not a fan of computer-generated animation in general, but that clip doesn't indicate much one way or another.
He doesn't seem like he feels threatened in his identity, if anything that blank, off-guard stare of the others seems that way. He basically asks them wtf is wrong with them, and they just don't know. They "didn't mean anything by it".
As a hobby photographer, it's always a challenge to strike a balance between getting the real feel of a place and overdoing it. A faithful read from the camera sensor may accurately measure the light levels, but it does not accurately share the feeling of being there.
Subjectively speaking, the world always seems more saturated through my eyes. Objectively speaking, the eye has something like 20 stops of dynamic range while paper has 9 at best...
The over-saturated emotion comes, perhaps, because photographers are generally making art, not a scientific record. The approaches are extremely different. Art, in the commercial/social sense, needs to compete with all of the other art in the world; a lot of that art is impactful.
On the other hand, imaged thoughtfully and without enhancement, the mundane can be truly beautiful.
It's in any field where algorithms are catching up to humans. I feel like it's more of a testament to how humans are able to accomplish complex tasks, rather than an insult.
It's interesting to see algorithms catching up to being able to replicate this. However when you mention these kind of abilities to photographers, they get defensive, almost like you are threatening their identity by saying a computer can do it.