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 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.
From the article: “Bielfeldt does not use AI in his images, preferring to rely on traditional techniques.”
Yes. Macro photography always looks a little fake. Plus Nikon Small World doesn't have a good track record in 2026.
I see that it uses stacked images, so that can account for the lack of normal focus cues.
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.
All photos are the result of processing signal over time. The only difference between a 1/1000 photo and a 30h photo is the amount of time.
I think they had a problem with that last year, so I suspect they may be extra vigilant.
Last month https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49934521