{"id":45070,"date":"2024-09-24T15:48:25","date_gmt":"2024-09-24T19:48:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=45070"},"modified":"2024-10-04T15:21:52","modified_gmt":"2024-10-04T19:21:52","slug":"what-is-a-photo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2024\/09\/24\/what-is-a-photo\/","title":{"rendered":"What Is a Photo?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nilay Patel<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s also notable what isn’t<\/em> present on the iPhone this year: there’s no generative AI wackiness at all. There’s no video boost or face-swapping, no adding yourself to group photos, no drawing to add stuff with AI like on the Pixel or Galaxy phones — really, none of it. I asked Apple’s VP of camera software engineering Jon McCormack about Google’s view that the Pixel camera now captures “memories” instead of photos, and he told me that Apple has a strong point of view about what a photograph is — that it’s something that actually happened. It was a long and thoughtful answer, so I’m just going to print the whole thing[…]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> has quoted the relevant section, and it’s getting rave<\/a> reviews<\/a>. Maybe I’m just too dumb to see the profundity, but I don’t think there’s any there there. These are pleasant sounding words along the lines of “music is in our DNA,” but what is the connection to what the Camera app actually does? Reports are that the photos by default look more processed than before. And Apple, like Samsung and Google, has been including features for years that make the photos not what actually happened.<\/p>\n\n

Federico Viticci<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“Something that really, actually happened” is a great baseline compared to Samsung’s nihilistic definition (nothing is real<\/a>) and Google’s relativistic one (everyone has their own memories<\/a>). […] But I have to wonder how malleable that definition will retroactively become to make room for Clean Up<\/a> and future generative features of Apple Intelligence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

What McCormack said is that a photo is a “celebration<\/em> of something that really, actually happened,” not that the image<\/em> in the photo actually happened.<\/p>\n\n

Google lets you celebrate a moment where two people were actually standing next to each other by creating such an image from two separate captures where they were standing alone. Apple lets you take a photo of multiple people and objects and remove some of them. What is the distinction here that amounts to a strong point of view? It just seems like a difference in degree. Arguably, the Google example is more<\/em> truthful in that it’s helping you recreate an actual moment, whereas the Apple one is letting you tune it up to be more what you remembered or wished for than the reality.<\/p>\n\n

If we were talking about this last year, people would say that there’s a big philosophical difference because—although they both combine multiple exposures, add fake bokeh, and use AI to adjust colors and focus, etc.—Android phones let you remove<\/a> objects and iPhones don’t. But now Apple is adding that, too. If there’s a bright line distinction, I think that was it. Apple crossed it, and I don’t think they’ll stop there. This is fine. It’s a popular feature, and I know people who were considering switching to Android because of it.<\/p>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

In my testing of Clean Up on an image on the latest iOS 18.1 beta build, Apple adds EXIF tags<\/a> to the image to mark it as being edited with generative A.I.<\/a> tools. EXIF tags can be erased, though, and I do not see any other indicators.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n