Yes, like Google does it. If they sell it, the other party has a copy to keep and use. If they rent access charged per query they have an income stream.
I am currently considering buying a Leapmotor B05 here in Australia. My main concern is the cars are distributed here by Stellantis (which have a 20% stake in Leapmotor). Huge international conglomerate, but I have no confidence in their warranty support or parts supply.
I wouldn’t have the same concerns over buying a BYD or an MG Chinese electric car.
I have to suspect that there are so many because there has been a propaganda campaign against progress, I suspect as a branch of the fossil fuel PR to say that climate change is not real, what we are doing now is fine and we shouldn’t change anything.
Yeah we don't really have a green party in the US. I've heard that used as a bit of a derogatory way to refer to environmentalists, or maybe one could say environmental activists.
I still have misgivings that it is AI generated or modified, but assume that the judges have done their due diligence. I’m a little saddened that I now have to question things such as this.
Presumably he used software for this rather than doing it in a darkroom?
FWIW I’m an astrophotographer, and I don’t really view 30 hours of stacked exposures as “a photo I took”, rather as the outcome of a lengthy signals processing chain.
I suppose the question is where the line is drawn. Ten years ago, I doubt “I made this picture in photoshop” would have qualified as photography. Now that we have AI, the window has moved.
I think it matters to what extend the representation in the image is derived from reality (as opposed to creative decisions made while modifying the image), really. Stacked exposures and photo stacking are largely there to remove the effects of the camera on the image, and better reflect the underlying reality, so I would still call the result a photograph. (color grading and such are often far more driven by creative decisions than the underlying reality and still that doesn't usually disqualify a photograph. In-camera visual effects are also still photographs).
>I don’t really view 30 hours of stacked exposures as “a photo I took”, rather as the outcome of a lengthy signals processing chain
Is there a difference? It's still a photometrically correct capture of the scene, unless you're using narrow-band filters or multispectral compositing you would see the same if you had huge eyes. In the same way a stacked smartphone photo is still a photo unless it's also using AI, and even then AI denoisers are pretty much accepted in photography as long as they don't meaningfully affect the subject (as well as more traditional things like CPLs or extra lighting).
Nothing in Nikon's challenge is natural, it's still a photo as long as it represents something real.
I’m inclined to agree with your initial statement but have difficulty in determining what is the standard for a sincerely held belief. That seems like a very grey area and thus subject to abuse and capriciousness.
Note that U.S. law is less progressive on this than many European nations.
Also, it’s called a sincerely held “religious” belief but it doesn’t need to be religious at all. It does lead to bad news headlines when a certain ethical belief passes the threshold in a court of law that amount to “XYZ is a religion”.
Sedan, sedan, not in us market, not in us market, not in us market… this roadster is going to be made in the US for the US market, which in terms of supercars/hypercars is a huge part of the global market.
reply