>>>>>>>>>>> UPDATE 19.4.23 

LET’S CLEAN UP THE MESSY TERMINOLOGY

As I stated before, “AI is not photography” – but what is it?

Peruvian photographer @christianvincesfoto came up with a great solution last weekend on facebook and we found out it has also popped up as a hashtag before: It is PROMPTOGRAPHY! What I love about this is:

A) It is a new term using a word that relates directly to the production of the image: #Prompting.
Some people suggested #syntography. But being born in the 70ties I have to many associations to the synthetic clothes I had to wear and the synthipop of the 80ties. 🙂 Yes, synthesis is the way the images are created but I am missing the role text plays in AI image genetation. And as a term synth… is too old. It is latin term. We need something that is contemporary, straight forward and can’t be misunderstood.

B) It encompasses that #promptographs can also look like drawings, paintings, 3d models..etc.

👉 So stop using misleading terms and Hastags like #aiphoto #aiphotoworks #aiphotography #aiphoto. Think twice. Think deeper. You can do it.

Call it PROMPTOGRAPHY or at least AI-generated image.

Thanks to Christian, and the whole photo world for entering the debate and turning my small facebook and insta posts to a world wide discussion!
⚡️YOU ROCK! 💫

>>>>>>>>>>> UPDATE 18.4.23 

RESPONSE TO THE PRESS-RELEASE OF SWPA

This morning I had a long phone call with Mark Sellman from The Times, going through all the email conversations I had with worldphoto.org/CREO to get a clear chronolgy of the events. Here is my short version, below you can find the detailed chronology.

SHORT CHRONOLOGY

Dear SWPA / CREO,

that you now want to give the impression that you wanted a dialogue but i don’t is nonsense. Only after I suggested for the third time that a public discussion is necessary did you offer me a Q&A on your blog to be published before the award ceremony – which I happily said yes to.

I waited 22 days in vain for these questions.

Also, pretending that they you knew the picture was AI is wrong. I told one of your assistants in lenght, but then after the press release your PR executive contacted me, being suprised about all the inquiries regarding my image and asking for more info.

I think you have a communication problem in your team. And also a communication problem with the photo community.

Many of my questions in email communication over the last months have never been answered by SWPA.

Press enquiries about whether my image is AI have not been answered, instead they have been dismissed with a generic quote.

Enquiries from concerned photographers have never been answered. Enquiries from the non-English press about my rejection of the award were not answered.

It was only when the international photo community took up the issue on social media and discussed it so intensively that the Times and BBC inquired, that CREO stopped being silent.

They had so many options to use this for good. They used none of them. Instead they refused to answer my questions, the questions of the press, the questions of concerned photographers. So stop saying “we were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic” – it is wrong.

DETAILED CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

December 2022: I applied with no additional info about the way of production, as SWPA allowed to use “any device”.

13 January 2023 | Announcement of the shortlist: CREO told me I was shortlisted and asked for Hi-Res file, date, history of publication which I provided.

22 February | CREO asked for the title of the work. I responded with “Boris Eldagsen, “PSEUDOMNESIA | The Electrician”, 2022”

If you follow this info, you can find out by yourself about the nature of the work. Even the title could give you a hint as it means “fake memory”.

UP TO THIS PONT THERE WAS NO INFORMATION PROVIDED THAT IT WAS AI-GENERATED. As the regulations allowed “any device” I just sent the image.

March 2 | CREO told me that I have won.

March 3 |I replied stating openly: “The links you requested earlier this year (webpage and Instagram, exhibition history) clearly show that after two decades of photography, my artistic focus has shifted more and more to exploring creative possibilities of AI generators […] Since I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings here, it is important for me to explain in this email the background of the image you have chosen in as much detail as possible. […] In Germany, I am active as […] AI expert in the “Deutscher Fotorat” to discuss the chances and risks of AI image generators. Perhaps Sony would be interested in taking up the topic for a panel discussion in this context.”

March 7 | CREO send a short reply that I could keep the award. My suggestion was not addressed.

March 14 | CREO send out the press release about the selected winners. Immediately a lot of press inquired about the nature of my work. I got an email from the CREO Press executive, stating “We have received a few media queries regarding your image, and the only information we have available about it is ‘From the series Pseudomnesia.’. Would you have any further info on this image that we would be able to share with the media please?”

It was obvious that he was not informed by his team. I send him the first statement that you can still find on my webpage, describing how the work was produced.

9 minutes later I replied “I have been having an email exchange with Karolina Hopanaite about this two weeks ago. Reassuring, that SWPA was aware that the work was produced as an experiment with AI generators, knowing that there will be am outcry amongst the photographers community. Below you will find my statement. As I have been one of the German experts that is most known for discussing the relationship between AI and photography, I also offered to participate in an open discussion of the topic, either online or before the award ceremony, if SWPA is interested in it.”

And sent the statement you find on this webpage below.

My statement was not used, instead the Press executive sent out this email to press that wanted to know if the image is AI or not: 

“Dear […], Many thanks for your inquiry. Please find below a quote from Scott Gray, Founder and CEO of the World Photography Organisation: ‘As a medium photography has always been at the forefront: constantly adapting and evolving, it has a singular ability to transform itself and push boundaries. We are interested in photography as an art form, and within the Sony World Photography Awards we have our Creative categories in the Professional and Open Competitions which welcome photographers to experiment and explore the dynamism of the medium. With technological advancements, a wider audience of creators are engaging with lens-based work and we look forward to seeing how this can expand the reach and impact of photography.’ Kind regards, […]”

In the evening I got a short reply from the CREO Press executive with a smiley and “thank you”. No explanation why they didn’t use my statement. Not responding to my suggestion to discuss the topic. They might have not expected that I have friends in the press who sent me their response.

In the following week photographers contacted me on facebook, stating that they wrote to CREO asking about the nature of my work and also did not get a response.

21 March | Third offer for an open discussion: I pressured CREO in a new email that they need to pick up the conversation and “discuss the problematics, that we are already facing and will face”. I explained again: “I have been having an email exchange with [CREO assistant] about my image two weeks ago. Reassuring, that SWPA was aware that the work was produced as an experiment with AI generators, knowing that there will be an outcry amongst the photographer’s community. And there was and is. I have been getting a lot of messages, you have been getting them. [CREO Press executive] contacted me last Tuesday, asking for more information – and then used a generic reply for the press. Why? To calm things down?”

No reply to this question.

21 March | Reply from the CREO Press executive to my third offer: “We do however have our blog on the worldphoto.org website where we publish Q&As with shortlisted & winning photographers on a regular basis – which we think would be a good platform to start the conversation and for you to discuss your creative process further. If that’s something you’d be interested in, our Managing Editor […] will get back in touch with you with questions by the end of next week, with the aim of having the article published in early April.”

21 March | My reply to CREO: “Thankyou […]! Yes, let’s do that.“

4 April | The CREO editor contacts me: “I’m putting some questions together for us to run a Q&A on our blog. I hope to send these to you over the next few days, we’ve been very busy with the overall announcement for the 13th.”

It never happened. I was waiting 22 days for these questions.

In my opinion, CREO is not interested in the fears and needs of the photo community. Why didn’t they talk to me at the ceremony after I went on stage? I stayed until the end and 30mins longer. Why didn’t they contact me during the last days? They have my contact details. They never responded to my mail I sent 2 hours after the ceremony, sending them my statement and suggesting to donate the spare prize to the Ukrainian photo festival (photo gear) in Odesa, for a good cause?

That CREO is now stating: “Additionally, we were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic and welcomed Boris’ wish for dialogue by preparing questions for a dedicated Q&A with him for our website” is nonsense.

They had so many options to use this for good. They used none of them. Instead they refused to answer my questions, the questions of the press, the questions of concerned photographers. So stop saying “we were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic” – it is wrong.