Will AI undermine your desire to do photography or change it?

[AlanKlein]

There are other topics on how manipulation is occurring with more frequency.  But I'd like to examine how people feel it effects their own photography.  Is anyone seeing that AI for example, creating photos without leaving your armchair, is undermining the desire to do photography with a camera?  If someone can get landscape "photos" that are better from their armchair than you could ever get waking up before sunrise, what would you do?  Switch to street photography, portraiture, or quit?  Or buy an armchair?

How is technology effecting your desire to do this hobby?  What changes do you see making?

[Sanford]

If any photo looks too good to be true, I dismiss it as fake.

[David_Cavan]

No, the thought of a landslide of perfectly composed and lit AI photos has not caused me to worry at this point. There have always been photographers much more skilled and experienced than me, and that didn't stop me doing things. I take photographs for me, and if others are interested then that's great, if not, as long as I like them that's sufficient.

[samstevens]

Why would what technology can do undermine my own passions? I use a camera because I like how taking photos feels and what it enables me to express, not so I can compare myself to or compete with others or some software. It’s so often more about the journey than the finish line. 

[Sanford]

I'm told I need to walk five miles a day, the camera is the catalyst that gets me out there.

[robert_bowring]

I shoot film.

[hjoseph7]

I doubt it. Part of the attraction to photography is the ability to record events in our lives. As a matter of fact, that is the main reason why people buy cameras in the first pace. How many people have heard say something  like, "I'm going to buy a new camera so I can create abstract pieces of Art" ? Maybe an Artist or Painter might say that, but the average person wants to capture something that is real, so that they can go back to it in the future. These days cameras and software come with a variety of edits and features that are meant to distort reality, but most people never use them, or even know that they there.     

[samstevens]

13 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

How many people have heard say something  like, "I'm going to buy a new camera so I can create abstract pieces of Art" ?

I’ve not heard it put that way (buying a camera specifically to use for abstracts) though I imagine it’s been done. But I have heard people say, and I’ve done so myself, that they were going to use a camera that way. 

14 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

the average person

I usually think of those on PN, where the question was asked, as not average camera users but as something a little different from that. I would likely be wrong to think that in all cases. 

17 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

These days cameras and software come with a variety of edits and features that are meant to distort reality. 

There are days when I find reality itself so distorted that I wish I had a camera or some software that could straighten it out! Anyway, speaking as a photographer, reality has its (important) place but can also be overrated! 😊

[hjoseph7]

12 hours ago, samstevens said:

I’ve not heard it put that way (buying a camera specifically to use for abstracts) though I imagine it’s been done. But I have heard people say, and I’ve done so myself, that they were going to use a camera that way. 

I usually think of those on PN, where the question was asked, as not average camera users but as something a little different from that. I would likely be wrong to think that in all cases. 

There are days when I find reality itself so distorted that I wish I had a camera or some software that could straighten it out! Anyway, speaking as a photographer, reality has its (important) place but can also be overrated! 😊

Sam i would love to debate with you but don't have the time right now...

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Desire? No.  Change it? Unknown. The best chess players in the world are computers, yet chess has been growing in popularity. It has changed how top level players prepare, it has also seemed to promote some different t variants of the game like Fischer-random and various forms of speed chess. I imagine AI  will affect procesasing of photos, but a lot of photography today is personal  vernacular recording of friends, family and events. 

[John Farrell]

I currently have a monochrome film in a Contaflex 1 - I'd be interested to see what AI could do with that...

[Jochen_S]

Dunno, assuming I want to get previsualized image files out, I still have to feed the AI somehow and might have to shoot for that purpose? 

Nothing new. There was John Heartfield, who needed photographic contributions to his work. We also must have had painters crutching on photography kind of forever? A bit later the "photoSHOPtographer" ("I'll fix that in post") emerged and now we 'll get AI feeders. 

Nothing ever changes. If you don't want to dodge and burn, get your lighting right. You could still use coal to draw on the walls of your cave, you can shoot plates or that modern film thing as you could shoot digital. Just more tools at your hand. 

Most of my personal photography has been stumbling around, seeing, framing, click; with random results I liked. I don't have portable Internet to ring comrade AI: "Paint me how this would look on a good day" So I 'll click away as usual. 

Among less lucky or gifted portrait photographers: Why should I not ask the AI to blend information frm a sharp frame into an unsharp one, that nailed pose &/ expression, assuming my goal was to provide a good image of that subject?

[za33photo]

All good and well , everyone to his/her own , provided that the intention to mislead and deceive is not present (well?) 😉😁.

 

 

[cloud2013]

Well, there's AI and there's AI. Here's the original and the variation provided by DALL-E Open AI. 

[mikemorrellNL]

On 2/15/2023 at 10:08 PM, AlanKlein said:

There are other topics on how manipulation is occurring with more frequency.  But I'd like to examine how people feel it effects their own photography.  Is anyone seeing that AI for example, creating photos without leaving your armchair, is undermining the desire to do photography with a camera?  If someone can get landscape "photos" that are better from their armchair than you could ever get waking up before sunrise, what would you do?  Switch to street photography, portraiture, or quit?  Or buy an armchair?

How is technology effecting your desire to do this hobby?  What changes do you see making?

Good question, Alan!

Personally (with a background in IT), I'm interested in the evolution of AI and how it may affect society. In practice, I have very little to do with AI and very little motivation to apply it. So I'm basically an 'AI observer'.

For some years, I think 'photography' has become just one of the many basic forms of 'image creation'. At least, in some genres of photography. For example, 'video stills' became photos. Manipulation of out-of-camera images has been with us since pretty much the start of photography. Digital manipulation became easier than analogue (film) manipulation and eventually (via Photoshop) available to all. These days, the extent to which 'out-of-camera images' can be manipulated in post-processing is endless.

IMHO Photography has also become just one skill in the repertoire of 'visual artists' who use multimedia to express their (partly) visual art.

So on to Internet, art photography and AI. Visual artists sometimes employ (physical) 'found photos' to express their artistic vision and 'found photos' on internet too. Art photography is a much-debated term but it IMHO generally implies that an artist uses photography (with other media and with PP) in their artistic expression.

So onto AI. Some artists decide to generate images directly without any input from photography, preferring AI-generated images. In a completely other genre, commercial organisations (like Ikea) have for some years 'generated' product images + backgrounds. 

Unlike people of our age, kids and students nowadays are taught to be 'digitally aware'. In other words, whenever they see a post, video or photo they are taught to:

- question the reliability of the source

- search for confirming sources

- etc.

In other words, kids are taught not to immediately believe what they see and read. So these days, no video, photo or text has any 'truth' unless you can verify this.

 

 

 

 

[samstevens]

20 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Unlike people of our age, kids and students nowadays are taught to be 'digitally aware'. In other words, whenever they see a post, video or photo they are taught to:

- question the reliability of the source

- search for confirming sources

- etc.

In other words, kids are taught not to immediately believe what they see and read. So these days, no video, photo or text has any 'truth' unless you can verify this.

While I wasn’t taught as a kid to be “digitally aware”, by Junior High School (1968) and my first term paper on the dangers of cigarette smoke, I was taught about confirmation of and use of alternative sources, how to detect bias, and how to double-check claims. I hope this is nothing new for most of our age. Struggles at the card catalog and knowledge of the Dewey Decimal system have been replaced by easier and more convenient, though sometimes less-than-reliable, Internet sources. But I think a good education has always produced people with a healthy enough skepticism to make sure to confirm various things in life they might be told or shown as fact. 

[mikemorrellNL]

18 hours ago, samstevens said:

... I think a good education has always produced people with a healthy enough skepticism to make sure to confirm various things in life they might be told or shown as fact. 

Very true, Sam! But I also believe 'attitude' and 'motivation' play a part too.

OT but the content of many newspapers and news magazines (and now their on-line presence) is seen as 'skewed' towards a political (left/right leaning) or social (often educational) segment of the population. In the US, the same is probably true for radio & TV channels. So it seems that many people choose media that 'echo' their ideological beliefs. Or at least don't contradict them. The algorithm-driven 'social media bubbles' have been well-documented.  I've always tried to deliberately read and watch media that - on the face of it - conflict with my personal ideological and political beliefs and preferences. Just to get a 'balanced view' from different perspectives. I hope that many others do too. But I admit that staying within your 'echo chamber'  and 'social bubble' is easier and more comfortable.

FWIW, I think that the same kind of principle applies to image creators too. There are photographers that believe that 'true photography' has certain well-defined boundaries. Others embrace - to a certain extent - the 'enhancements' that post-processing offers. And others embrace the belief that 'anything goes' (including AI) in creating an image.

This principle applies IMHO to certain 'photographic genres' too. Not so prevalent at PN but more prevalent at other photo sites such as 500 px where photos are 'rated' by members. There, for example, it's clearer that a certain style of 'Landscape photos' consistently scores highly. I have no idea, but my guess is that 500 px members see these as examples to aspire to and to emulate. So this is in itself a photographic 'bubble'. The same applies to many 'street photographers' that believe that B/W photos somehow identify themselves as 'street photographers' (whatever the content). At PN, we have many 'bubbles' mostly (IMHO) based on equipment. So a photo taken with camera brand/type x is often to be found in a different category to a photo taken with camera brand/type y.

To summarize, I totally agree that education helps a lot. I also think that 'breaking out of conventions' requires a certain attitude and motivation, This is why I value true artists. They learn from the past and are able to create something new,

 

[samstevens]

31 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

This is why I value true artists. They learn from the past and are able to create something new,

+1 They do. I agree.

Which brings a question to mind: Are there true and not-true (false?) artists? I’d suggests there are just artists and that some people referred to as “artists” aren’t. Seems artist is sometimes used more to confer status than to refer to creativity and expression. That being said, I’m not the kind of god to make that decision for others, just for myself. 

49 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

the 'enhancements' that post-processing offers

I use and see post processing not as an enhancement to the moment but as part of the process. I can usually tell a photo that uses post processing as an enhancement because the post processing sticks out like a sore thumb rather than being integrated and integral. Likewise, I’ve seen photos that lack post processing, like an unfinished canvas. There are plenty of fine photos that come straight out of the camera. There are also plenty of photos straight out of the camera that have unrealized potential. As I transitioned from thinking of post processing as either a corrective or an enhancement, it became more organic and more fruitful for me.

[AlanKlein]

2 hours ago, samstevens said:

+1 They do. I agree.

Which brings a question to mind: Are there true and not-true (false?) artists? I’d suggests there are just artists and that some people referred to as “artists” aren’t. Seems artist is sometimes used more to confer status than to refer to creativity and expression. That being said, I’m not the kind of god to make that decision for others, just for myself. 

I use and see post processing not as an enhancement to the moment but as part of the process. I can usually tell a photo that uses post processing as an enhancement because the post processing sticks out like a sore thumb rather than being integrated and integral. Likewise, I’ve seen photos that lack post processing, like an unfinished canvas. There are plenty of fine photos that come straight out of the camera. There are also plenty of photos straight out of the camera that have unrealized potential. As I transitioned from thinking of post processing as either a corrective or an enhancement, it became more organic and more fruitful for me.

If Ai is doing the post processing for you, how does it encourage creativity?

[AlanKlein]

4 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Very true, Sam! But I also believe 'attitude' and 'motivation' play a part too.

OT but the content of many newspapers and news magazines (and now their on-line presence) is seen as 'skewed' towards a political (left/right leaning) or social (often educational) segment of the population. In the US, the same is probably true for radio & TV channels. So it seems that many people choose media that 'echo' their ideological beliefs. Or at least don't contradict them. The algorithm-driven 'social media bubbles' have been well-documented.  I've always tried to deliberately read and watch media that - on the face of it - conflict with my personal ideological and political beliefs and preferences. Just to get a 'balanced view' from different perspectives. I hope that many others do too. But I admit that staying within your 'echo chamber'  and 'social bubble' is easier and more comfortable.

FWIW, I think that the same kind of principle applies to image creators too. There are photographers that believe that 'true photography' has certain well-defined boundaries. Others embrace - to a certain extent - the 'enhancements' that post-processing offers. And others embrace the belief that 'anything goes' (including AI) in creating an image.

This principle applies IMHO to certain 'photographic genres' too. Not so prevalent at PN but more prevalent at other photo sites such as 500 px where photos are 'rated' by members. There, for example, it's clearer that a certain style of 'Landscape photos' consistently scores highly. I have no idea, but my guess is that 500 px members see these as examples to aspire to and to emulate. So this is in itself a photographic 'bubble'. The same applies to many 'street photographers' that believe that B/W photos somehow identify themselves as 'street photographers' (whatever the content). At PN, we have many 'bubbles' mostly (IMHO) based on equipment. So a photo taken with camera brand/type x is often to be found in a different category to a photo taken with camera brand/type y.

To summarize, I totally agree that education helps a lot. I also think that 'breaking out of conventions' requires a certain attitude and motivation, This is why I value true artists. They learn from the past and are able to create something new,

 

Same question. 

If Ai is doing the post processing for you, how does it encourage creativity?

 

[samstevens]

20 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

If Ai is doing the post processing for you, how does it encourage creativity?

It's not, so your question is a non sequitur which someone who uses it would have to answer. I imagine we'd get some insightful and open-minded answers from those who've worked with AI. I can certainly see the possibilities.

In a similar vein, I imagine there are painters who would ask photographers why they consider what they do creative compared to painting. Many photographers would simply walk away from that question rolling their eyes.

[Stieglitz had to fight long and hard to get photography recognized as an art worthy enough to be displayed in museums. It's worth reading about his efforts and various arguments presented to and then answered by him. Every generation has its naysayers and resisters to methods of making art. Eventually, art wins out.]

Edited March 9, 2023 by samstevens

[mikemorrellNL]

I don't think AI  either encourages or discourages creativity. It's worth distinguishing between creativity in ' photography' and creativity in the wider field of 'visual arts'. 

I've never used AI (nor do I intend to) but - like @samstevens - I can see the the possibilities in 'visual arts'. AI is still a relatively new (emerging) technology. Many of the current image-based AI tools focus on generating 'new' images - in a known style - based on from text input, having 'learned' from a vast database of current images. Some AI tools take uploaded user images as input too. I have no idea what other user parameters might influence AI-generated  image output. I assume that - like traditional post-processing - using an AI tool is an iterative process. Tweaking the 'inputs' to generate different 'outputs'. Scanning through some the short descriptions and examples, the current AI tools seem just fun to use.  How they might eventually be used by creative visual artists, I have no idea.

At my local ' contemporary visual arts' exhibition (still called a Photo Festival), some 'visual artists' have for years applied technology in different ways to express and communicate (in part) their 'artistic vision or message'. For example, by synthesizing multiple photos, applying CGI, etc. Alongside more traditional photographers. So I see AI as being just one more tool that creative visual artists can use. 

 

18 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

Same question. 

If Ai is doing the post processing for you, how does it encourage creativity?

 

 

[machts gut]

For my photography it probably won' effect me. I tend more and more to return to b&w film photography, but there are interessting approaches in useing AI in photography.

https://lenscratch.com/2021/10/south-korea-week-byun-soonchoel-eternal-family/

[hjoseph7]

Photoshop 2023 now features AI ! It's used to make backdrops for portraits and works quite well. You type in a couple of phrases such as cloudy sky, foggy moon, etc and up comes several backdrops with that theme that you can choose from You can also add all kinds of texture to the backdrop. Well, I cant really complain about that... 

[samstevens]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:17 AM, machts gut said:

https://lenscratch.com/2021/10/south-korea-week-byun-soonchoel-eternal-family/

I think using AI in an integral and meaningful way like this can add some depth to photography. It's interesting to see it incorporated into a project like this. Very  different usage, I think, from it being a means of generating easy decor.

Thanks for the link, machts gut.