We're already at a point in history where a large contingent of people refuse to believe in objective reality, the fact that we have a big-business interest in warping images in ways that can accommodate that false reality is extremely dangerous.
Not only that but the point of disinformation isn't to give people something alternative to believe in but to make it difficult to discern what's real from what isn't by people who would normally make rational decisions. The ease and speed at which machine learning makes that possible effectively exposes the entire world to Putin-esque disinformation campaigns by literally any bad actor.
Images have always been manipulated and it shouldn’t be a problem unless; 1. It’s a Press image, 2. It’s a documentary image, 3. It’s for a court case. Other than that, it’s art and it’s okay for the artists to use the tools he or she has to create their vision. Ansel Adam’s images were manipulated as have been many others. I worked for a few years in a pro photo lab and dodging, burning, cropping, double exposure, filter effects etc. have been present for a long time. The difference now is AI created images, which look real, don’t represent reality, but where the intent of the image is not known. If the purpose is entertainment like some of the videos shown….okay fine. Anyone using AI to create documentary photography of wildlife would be committing fraud.
That has already happened to me, I'm super sceptical of great photos now. I hope there will be a way to mark real photos. AI ruins it for me, I need to know that it's real, I need to know that there's a story there.
@@hhaehre This was an issue before AI though. There was a photographer (I forget his name) who was obviously creating composite images and selling them for huge amounts of money, who refused to admit that they were manipulated in any way. If you looked at them, it was completely obvious, but there will always be people like that. The difference is that he at least had to put in the effort and develop the skills to edit them effectively.
The generative object-removal is pretty good. Doing real-estate photography (ground and drone), I can't always remove every single distractor-object before taking the shots.
@@aliendroneservices6621sure it’s useful and helpful but at what cost? Some doors are better left closed and AI is one of them. Today it’s helpful, tomorrow it takes your job.
@@trinidad111Humans have been using AI for at least 15k years (first in the form of animal domestication). Automation has been used for at least 2M years (first in the form of fire). Technological progress has always improved employment-opportunities.
I also am really bothered by the AI generated wildlife photos I see. I've always loved nature and how I vote, spend my money and time, etc. is directly influenced by that love. However, I've been worried and dismayed by the lack of connection most people seem to have with the natural world. The whole reason I take and share wildlife photos is because I hope to, in some small way, increase people's empathy and appreciation for nature and hopefully influence the decisions they make regarding conservation. I feel like AI generated images foster that lack of connection with nature that worries me so much.
One thing that AI can't take from us is sharing our stories and experiences of how we captured the non-AI pictures and videos: going out, waiting for that perfect moment, and capturing it.
One thing AI can’t replace is the journey of capturing wildlife photography firsthand. Owning a RUclips channel lets you share this adventure, from the thrill of the trip to the final shots. Many creators are bringing viewers along this way, combining the experience and results in each video.
Not just wildlife. Landscape, portraiture, street photography…it’s all being diluted by AI. It saddens me to see the gushing accolades on Facebook by people who obviously don’t know what they’re looking at. I’ve been a photographer for all my long life. My days are numbered and unfortunately that may be mirrored by the art form I love so much.
Most of my Facebook feed is AI now. I keep blocking, but it never stops. Comments are mostly gushing, but many probably by bots. It's a sad situation and I don't see a solution.
Camera development is saturated. People really want android and apps on their cameras? I don't even use the touchscreen, it's supposed to shoot photos, it's not a phone.
I'm not sure AI will ruin wildlife photography. I remember when Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority was going to ruin photography, when Autofocus was going to ruin photography, when (relatively) inexpensive but high quality zoom lenses were going to ruin photography, when 10 frames per second would ruin wildlife photography by enabling spray and pray phots. None of these things ruined photography. Look at the resurgence of vinyl records, film cameras, and music without autotune. Folks, especially younger generations, are yearning for "real". They have grown up with computer generated graphics, digital music, and singers who really can't sing. They want realism. I think, AI will have its place but I don't see it ruining wildlife photography anytime soon.
@@John_1_0 No joke. My point was there have been predictions of the "end of photography" for years now. Predictions of the death of photography have been around for years yet, here we are, still out shooting images with our cameras.
@@JeffandLeslieThis is a bit of a false equivalency. There has never been a situation like this where wholesale images could be generated from pure text prompts and be photorealistic. There has never been a threat to photography like this before on any level. It is tempting to liken it to all the people who were saying Photoshop would destroyed photography but this is a much bigger problem.
Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating images by RECORDING LIGHT, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film. AI is not ruining wildlife photography (or any other photography). Former photographers who are choosing to substitute AI for photography are cheapening themselves and their products. If your images are no longer created by RECORDING LIGHT, you have left the art of photography and have entered the realm of computer-generated imagery.
That is true, but the the public and the image-ordering businesses wouldn't care much, under which label an image or its creator falls under? The internet / the businesses will like (perfectioned) AI more than traditional photography results, because AI tends to be more attention-grabbing, more emotional, more unusual, more unique, and cheaper. That's why AI is likely to ruin at least all stock photography (which includes wildlife).
@@tubularificationed I think AI is going to ruin a lot of, but not all of, stock photography. Sure, I agree most of the typical stock photos taken up till now which are set up with models will probably soon become redundant - business people in meetings, elderly couples holding hands on a beach and so on - but these images have always been 'fake' anyway and used more as illustrations rather than claiming to be genuinely real situations. With wildlife photography, while I can see a lot of image-ordering businesses being quite happy to use a perfect generic AI generated image of, say, a pride of lions in the African savannah for their purposes, I expect something like a travel brochure for a company running luxury safaris to a specific location are still going to want to use authentic pictures that show real photos of lions taken in that actual location. Similarly, I suspect a travel or business magazine wanting a photo of the New York skyline on the cover will still usually want to use a real photo of the actual skyline. I remember some people were a little worried about how 'people can now just create artificially whatever they like ' when Photoshop very first came out but it didn't mean that stock photography disappeared and I am not sure it will with AI either. I think there will always be a demand for photography that is not artificially created, except maybe in the more 'illustrative' end of the stock photography market. AI may well be the best thing since sliced bread for some image creators and social media users but I don't imagine the sports section of a newspaper or magazine would ever be likely to use an AI generated image of Usain Bolt winning the 100m final at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. No matter how sophisticated AI imaging may become in the future, I still have hope that it will never be able to invent reality.🙂
Thanks Tony! I am not an expert wildlife guru but in my 69 years of existence I have never known in the entire aviary world of a bird carrying its young on its back while in flight or any other scenario. The only carry that comes close is the penguin nesting its eggs on its feet.
@@mikebartow9415 sorry what do you mean, are you replying to the first reply. With the Grebes, the young climb up onto the back of the parent bird, often three of them. They sit under the feathers until the other parent arrives with a small fish and then they come out to be fed. They are being carried on the back of the parent, who is swimming around. This seems to keep the young safe from larger fish, such as pike, which eat ducklings, that don’t have this advantage.
I think AI will only make photography even more valuable, it will inspire photographers to create images that are not a work of another human yet have a brilliance to them, drawing used to serve more than art at a certain point in time, so does photography today, but the future will take away the lucrative aspect of it, it will still be something people brag about and the photographers of the future will have no effort convincing others that they are artists.
the problem isn't being an artist if someone uses photographic AI to create art that's great, as long as they call themselves a digital artist but that is not what is happening. They are creating these inane impossible scenes of nature and not labeling them as art but allowing people to believe it is a photo they took in that location when they are sitting in their mama's basement and have never even been there let alone photographed anything in their life. Just be HONEST about what you are as an artist and be proud of that work and that label.
Content matters no matter how it's created. Tom & Jerry, Shawn the sheep, Stuart Little, Jungle Book etc showed animals that were made with human imagination and were totally unreal, yet people love to see them for entertainment purposes. Social media is just for entertainment and there should be no problem if creators with Generative AI produce better more entertaining wildlife content. Upload your real wildlife photos/videos to reputed, well known and certified channels like Discovery, National Geographic etc if you can shortlist yourself out of their quality parameters to get more legit views or stay posting on your Instagram, website or RUclips channel and hope someday people start liking and trusting your stuff. Competition is really high these days so it will be tough to get ahead for sure.
Amazon is developing AI drones that will air deliver your package. Similarly, I can imagine a future with thousands of AI drones flying around taking millions of wildlife and landscape photos per day. Feeding all those photos into an AI system that can generate any photo desired... But as a hobby, AI will never take away from the wildlife photo experience people enjoy when taking those images themselves.
I see this as the next logical step in image-generation. Ever since digital photography became a mass phenomenon, many pictures started to look much better (contrasty for instance) than real life because people were starting to edit. You yourself are a fan of that, aren't you - but that was a craft and took a lot of expertise and effort. Then came computational photography for the masses and started stacking multiple images, something that was done in astronomy for ages and none of the astro images you can find look anything like the real thing, all are false colored! However, I do expect a counter-trend to appear soon: Verification of unaltered images and video via strong encryption IMHO will make an appearance. However, this will mean that photographers would also have to give up pimping their images via strong editing. Maybe some sort of certification service (a service provider that looks for strong feature-altering and then approves a color/lighting edit) will appear. That being said, I expect photography as an art to retreat into a niche hobby.
There is some backlash to AI generated photos. A lot of photographers do not like them. Portion of the public know it is fake. I think there is still demand for real photos. Many photo group sites actually ban AI photos on their groups. Ones that allow it, make users identify them as fake.
It would have been nice if the sony announcement was going to be a new medium format camera and lens but it seems we are just at the point that Sony thinks a slight improvement in the A1 will be enough for them for now. Would be nice if there was a couple cameras coming out that were stacked sensor and affordable like what Nikon has done. I do hope that if any system decides to put an android type operating system on their cameras it starts at the low end for people who are used to phones and mostly for video. It would take quite a few generations before something like that would be usable for photographers who need to change settings while looking through the viewfinder. Your worries about AI and nature photography are on the mark in my opinion, it might just be the catalyst to push me off of social media entirely as every shot that I see that is AI makes me cringe for many of the reasons you suggested.
5:49 I would have actually selected the picture on teh right to look at. The subject is in focus and the photo is higher quality. Perhaps the one on the left got compressed in the video?
My dream cam from Sony: -35-40mp bsi stacked sensor in 24x65 / 16x42 - no video - evf and screen from A9III - body with ergonomics close to Panasonic G9 ....
My take is a little different, Tony. AI was inevitable. The underlying problem is that our brains love a good story much more than we love an only true story. We pay billions for religion, for entertainment, for false politics. Allegiance to truth is a much more rare commodity. I loved waking up this morning with you giving us something to really think about.
it's less and less interesting and fun to share pictures. If I take a picture I love, now I print it on my Canon photo printer and enjoy it in my office.
I am 100% in on real photography for wildlife!!! No fake ai image can truly compete with the real thing. They are like a cartoon version of animals and while this kind of thing might have a place in some settings, they absolutely cannot take the place of a real photo taken on location.
I hope it's a medium format body, but most likely it'll be a mirrorless body with a stacked sensor. Side note, I made my mother in law pick up one of those all in one RX cameras a few years ago and it was shockingly good. Had I stayed on the amateur side of the coin I could see myself shooting the snot out of puppies and kids while on vacation with one of those.
Fake videos and photos are too absurd and have no real deal. I am surprise to see there are a million like on that fake material. Tony, you nail it perfectly on AI topics.
I own the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and have tested (in store) the Tamron 150-600mm G2. I will start off by saying I have (and currently use) a number of Tamron lenses and they have helped me produce some incredible images. However the Tamron 150-600mm I tested at my local camera shop was not super sharp wide open (especially at 600mm). I've seen reviews and comments from numerous sources that confirm my findings, although I've found almost as many saying that they get tack sharp images wide open at all focal lengths. This leads me to believe there may be a quality control issue, and you may or may not get a good one. My Nikon 200-500mm is very sharp wide open, although stopping it down even as little as a 1/3 stop will sharpen the lens slightly with peak sharpness happening at around f/7.1. Additionally the VR on this lens is the best I've ever used. I can consistently shoot images hand held at 500mm as slow as 1/60 of a sec. and get most shots tack sharp. I've even been able to get sharp shots down to 1/15 of a sec. The only real downside to the Nikon is the incredibly long throw of the zoom ring to go from 200mm to 500mm, and the weight of roughly just over 5 lbs. which I believe is the heaviest of the various super telephoto consumer grade zooms. Those two issues aside, as long as I'm shooting on DSLR's (which will be for a very long time) I will never part with this lens.
@lancelotvt wow so much to read. So if im correct the nikon is better and for me it cheaper used then the tamron. Again im really thankful for so much information. :)
We definitely DO NOT need android in our cameras! What we need is a reliable connection between our cameras and phones with an api that allows 3rd party apps to connect. That way we can do everything with apps on our phones, without adding expensive duplicated tech into our already tech heavy cameras.
Tony just inflated the bubble. There's a parallel to deep sky capture; people still dedicate their lives to astrophotography, even though NASA's photos are infinitely better.
The algorithm shifted years ago with reels, trendy music, and whatever other attempts to evoke an emotional response via the comment section. But yes, AI is going to ruin the future for photo and video production industry.
From the caption I thought that the new Sony AII and dystopian AI were somehow connected! I just do street, architecture & urban photography, and make photos for my own pleasure, not for instagram “likes”.
On AI, I've noticed almost my entire feed in Pintrest is AI. A lot of the cars are AI, most of the hair, makeup and model photos are AI. I use it as an inspo finder, but it's concerning the pictures that are being shared are so dominated by AI.
Hi Tony, I'm getting a bit tired of all the frames per seconde and so. Why doesn't anyone make a surprising camera, for example with a square sensor? That would be the most logical choice in an image circle, woudn't it? And make it a black and white square sensor! Put it in a nice small body in a stylish color and a flipping up screen. So I can shoot it from my hip. I would buy that. Would you?
I'm actually surprised Apple at this point doesn't have its own Apple Camera with iOS, Apple lenses and many things that would obviously include "ecosystem". They could include their "computational photography", especially things that helps for night shots or HDR. I know they want iPhone to be the best tool, but that didn't limit them to have iPad and MacBook already sometimes doing the same thing. I'm pretty sure many would go just for convenience.
It looks like Sony has had enough sense to put Gen 4 card slots into the A1 II. I wish they would just abandon the Type A cards, but Gen 4 is so much faster.
It is disheartening to post a photograph I love and have 8 likes. Then knowing, all I have to do is generate an AI image to go viral…. A line I will not cross. What is also odd to see are all the photographers embracing AI. I’m not talking about using AI to “finish”” our images. That is different as they are our images and we were actually there. Thanks for sharing!
AI on social media is an inevitability that none of us can stop. What needs to be done is to abandon social media for photography and go to subscription websites that strictly monitor and remove content (and its users) that post AI images as real. Maybe something like a Flickr with teeth. Unfortunately that appears to be the future.
Quite relevant and mature thoughts on AI trends...while AI can challenge the photos and videos in public space, it can never rob us of the experience and joy of being there in the wild and witness scenes first hand...and thus remind us that the art of photography is all about recalling such moments and share it with others and this is something that AI just cannot do!
This is an opportunity for a platform that doesn't reward "likes" and doesn't accept AI generated or altered images. That is, a "non-social media", more like a community site that provides a few images with links to a personal/business site like the one of yours you promoted here.
A camera with 725 mm (2000 mm equivalent) f/6.5 lens would have 112 mm front element. It would be huge, twice what the current one has. 1000 mm equivalent at f/5.6 could still be possible.
I'm sick of AI and hope it burns in hell, but you have to have one partially functioning brain cell to think owls fly around carrying multiple babies on their backs.
ai has already changed journalism and portraiture now wildlife. While there is a place for ai I hope people will get tired of unrealistic images of the world and appreciate a true photograph. Fortunately I only make photos for my own edification. There are millions of other photographers like me so true photography will remain popular, sadly maybe not profitable.
I don't get why anyone would want an android based camera, you're basically begging for an expensive camera to be made obsolete after a couple of years.
AI is junk. I wish that there were a requirement that any AI generated images be clearly labelled as such. Drives me nuts to see images of wildlife in unnatural settings with no blemishes or imperfections. Part of what makes wildlife photography so challenging is working to incorporate the natural flaws into our images.
As much as you kids want cheap cameras, "multiple expensive gears" means to me the Global Shutter FX9 Mkii, maybe a new Venice, some wireless transmission things for live video production. Maybe they'll show off some new CFA 4.0 cards, they could introduce production monitors, theres an entire new market for 3D/XR video production. Sony also hasn't made 3D lenses like Canon nor have they released any more Cine Zooms like the 16-35mm T3.1 so they could fill out that range too. I think the only for sure is the A1 ii and that GM zoom. Sony isn't going to release anything consumer or prosumer for the holiday season. All that stuff was released earlier.
Good points with AI images Tony, but even wildlife images don't really capture what you see in-person, and that is why AI will never win in the long run. There will always be a group of people who know about the AI stuff, but they want real life. They won't want AI Yellowstone, but to actually go to Yellowstone. They don't want iPhone Pro Max Ultra 1648391k image of the Milky Way, they want to go to an international dark sky and be in awe of the universe above them. That's why AI won't win in the long run. Reality ALWAYS wins.
AI is the exact same reason why those paintings of Van Gogh and Da Vinci have no values. We don't know if those were drawn from the real objects or from imagination. 😁
Who wants a large touch screen on their camera replacing buttons? I for sure don't! hah. We need that content authenticity thing fast, on all our cameras. That's the only way we can mark photos "real", and maybe Google can filter only real images.
The AI scare sounds the same as when art painters saw photography coming, and when the movie industry saw TV coming, etc. It's life, it is change. Without change there wouldn't be any progress. Stop complaining.
It is too bad that those who have developed and continue to develop AI haven't even appeared to pause to consider the wisdom of their efforts. The internet is a stellar warning of how dangerous new technology can be, even when it also can be very useful. There is tons of useful information available online, but consider how many people are either too ignorant, too gullible, or just plain too lazy to vett the information they are consuming. That's going to be increasingly alarming as AI use increases, both in terms of videos and photos, and in the control of real unformation vs. propaganda and conspiracy theories. As that meme featuring Abe Lincoln points out, "You can't believe everything you read on the internet."
AI generated pictures and videos are nothing but cartoons of the 21st century. What would one call someone who cannot see the difference between cartoons and reality?
People thought that y2k would be the end of the world. People around the world went all chicken little. AI has become the new y2k. People like myself will always enjoy real-world photography. As well as enjoy the creativity that AI creates and provides. 😎✌️
I'm in shock that in this save the planet time people are not able to tell what is fake from real nature photos. That young people are so impressed with whatever is fake. unfortunately filmmakers and many photographers have cleared the way for this not being faithful to what is real. looking at many photographs nowadays red leaves are much too red. Poor people wear colourful clothes that are not worn out, etc etc.
So true about AI and wildlife. People should be in nature and not like and share fake ia images. That is so sad. We have so many things to learn about nature and wildlife. I didn’t know you have Instagram account. You have a new follower 😉
We're already at a point in history where a large contingent of people refuse to believe in objective reality, the fact that we have a big-business interest in warping images in ways that can accommodate that false reality is extremely dangerous.
Not only that but the point of disinformation isn't to give people something alternative to believe in but to make it difficult to discern what's real from what isn't by people who would normally make rational decisions. The ease and speed at which machine learning makes that possible effectively exposes the entire world to Putin-esque disinformation campaigns by literally any bad actor.
Worship of money is leading our society into the toilet. What's good for society doesn't matter to those who have given themselves over to gold fever.
We`re entering Matrix 1.0... the one that failed miserably.
That has always been the case throughout history. We currently know more about objective reality than at any point in history.
Images have always been manipulated and it shouldn’t be a problem unless; 1. It’s a Press image, 2. It’s a documentary image, 3. It’s for a court case. Other than that, it’s art and it’s okay for the artists to use the tools he or she has to create their vision. Ansel Adam’s images were manipulated as have been many others. I worked for a few years in a pro photo lab and dodging, burning, cropping, double exposure, filter effects etc. have been present for a long time. The difference now is AI created images, which look real, don’t represent reality, but where the intent of the image is not known. If the purpose is entertainment like some of the videos shown….okay fine. Anyone using AI to create documentary photography of wildlife would be committing fraud.
The AI apocalypse won't be "Terminator" it will be "Idiocracy".
wow, thats accurate haha
We already see it from movies, TV, the internet, the news media, and now AI, giving people a totally false vue of reality.
That is very well said!
exactly!
More like it will be an idiotic terminator.
Another effect of AI wildlife pictures is that people will start to doubt whether really amazing true photos are real or if they're AI.
That has already happened to me, I'm super sceptical of great photos now. I hope there will be a way to mark real photos. AI ruins it for me, I need to know that it's real, I need to know that there's a story there.
@@hhaehre This was an issue before AI though. There was a photographer (I forget his name) who was obviously creating composite images and selling them for huge amounts of money, who refused to admit that they were manipulated in any way. If you looked at them, it was completely obvious, but there will always be people like that. The difference is that he at least had to put in the effort and develop the skills to edit them effectively.
Yep. Tony mentioned that at the end of the video and I absolutely agree with both of you.
i hate AI generative junk. Denoise and object removal are ok, though.
The generative object-removal is pretty good. Doing real-estate photography (ground and drone), I can't always remove every single distractor-object before taking the shots.
@@aliendroneservices6621sure it’s useful and helpful but at what cost? Some doors are better left closed and AI is one of them.
Today it’s helpful, tomorrow it takes your job.
I hate anything AI
@@trinidad111Humans have been using AI for at least 15k years (first in the form of animal domestication). Automation has been used for at least 2M years (first in the form of fire). Technological progress has always improved employment-opportunities.
@@aliendroneservices6621that’s not AI
I also am really bothered by the AI generated wildlife photos I see. I've always loved nature and how I vote, spend my money and time, etc. is directly influenced by that love. However, I've been worried and dismayed by the lack of connection most people seem to have with the natural world. The whole reason I take and share wildlife photos is because I hope to, in some small way, increase people's empathy and appreciation for nature and hopefully influence the decisions they make regarding conservation. I feel like AI generated images foster that lack of connection with nature that worries me so much.
One thing that AI can't take from us is sharing our stories and experiences of how we captured the non-AI pictures and videos: going out, waiting for that perfect moment, and capturing it.
AI is not killing wildlife photography but it is killing what little intelligence many folks have to start with.
Amen to that!
One thing AI can’t replace is the journey of capturing wildlife photography firsthand. Owning a RUclips channel lets you share this adventure, from the thrill of the trip to the final shots. Many creators are bringing viewers along this way, combining the experience and results in each video.
Not just wildlife. Landscape, portraiture, street photography…it’s all being diluted by AI. It saddens me to see the gushing accolades on Facebook by people who obviously don’t know what they’re looking at. I’ve been a photographer for all my long life. My days are numbered and unfortunately that may be mirrored by the art form I love so much.
Just get you back a film camera, there is no AI.
Most of my Facebook feed is AI now. I keep blocking, but it never stops. Comments are mostly gushing, but many probably by bots. It's a sad situation and I don't see a solution.
mine too
Same.
the solution is extremely clear - get off social media or at least get off fb, and go live your life in the real world 😇
You don't see the solution? That's what's sad. (Hint: off switch.)
I love all the lonely men telling the AI girl how beautiful she is and asking for her number.
I don’t mind AI for subject detection, trajectory prediction, pose detection etc but not image manipulation
Camera development is saturated. People really want android and apps on their cameras? I don't even use the touchscreen, it's supposed to shoot photos, it's not a phone.
And why would I post a photo on social media without running it through AI and processing first?
Social media only cares about engagement not honesty. There is not solution until that business model is legally changed.
I'm not sure AI will ruin wildlife photography. I remember when Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority was going to ruin photography, when Autofocus was going to ruin photography, when (relatively) inexpensive but high quality zoom lenses were going to ruin photography, when 10 frames per second would ruin wildlife photography by enabling spray and pray phots. None of these things ruined photography. Look at the resurgence of vinyl records, film cameras, and music without autotune. Folks, especially younger generations, are yearning for "real". They have grown up with computer generated graphics, digital music, and singers who really can't sing. They want realism. I think, AI will have its place but I don't see it ruining wildlife photography anytime soon.
You know there is a difference between a camera upgrade and the use of computers to generate images without the use of a camera at all.
@@John_1_0 No joke. My point was there have been predictions of the "end of photography" for years now. Predictions of the death of photography have been around for years yet, here we are, still out shooting images with our cameras.
@@JeffandLeslieThis is a bit of a false equivalency. There has never been a situation like this where wholesale images could be generated from pure text prompts and be photorealistic. There has never been a threat to photography like this before on any level. It is tempting to liken it to all the people who were saying Photoshop would destroyed photography but this is a much bigger problem.
Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating images by RECORDING LIGHT, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.
AI is not ruining wildlife photography (or any other photography). Former photographers who are choosing to substitute AI for photography are cheapening themselves and their products. If your images are no longer created by RECORDING LIGHT, you have left the art of photography and have entered the realm of computer-generated imagery.
That is true, but the the public and the image-ordering businesses wouldn't care much, under which label an image or its creator falls under? The internet / the businesses will like (perfectioned) AI more than traditional photography results, because AI tends to be more attention-grabbing, more emotional, more unusual, more unique, and cheaper.
That's why AI is likely to ruin at least all stock photography (which includes wildlife).
@@tubularificationed I can't really control any of that. I can only know the difference and continue to be a photographer.
@@tubularificationed I think AI is going to ruin a lot of, but not all of, stock photography. Sure, I agree most of the typical stock photos taken up till now which are set up with models will probably soon become redundant - business people in meetings, elderly couples holding hands on a beach and so on - but these images have always been 'fake' anyway and used more as illustrations rather than claiming to be genuinely real situations.
With wildlife photography, while I can see a lot of image-ordering businesses being quite happy to use a perfect generic AI generated image of, say, a pride of lions in the African savannah for their purposes, I expect something like a travel brochure for a company running luxury safaris to a specific location are still going to want to use authentic pictures that show real photos of lions taken in that actual location. Similarly, I suspect a travel or business magazine wanting a photo of the New York skyline on the cover will still usually want to use a real photo of the actual skyline.
I remember some people were a little worried about how 'people can now just create artificially whatever they like ' when Photoshop very first came out but it didn't mean that stock photography disappeared and I am not sure it will with AI either. I think there will always be a demand for photography that is not artificially created, except maybe in the more 'illustrative' end of the stock photography market. AI may well be the best thing since sliced bread for some image creators and social media users but I don't imagine the sports section of a newspaper or magazine would ever be likely to use an AI generated image of Usain Bolt winning the 100m final at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. No matter how sophisticated AI imaging may become in the future, I still have hope that it will never be able to invent reality.🙂
Thanks Tony!
I am not an expert wildlife guru but in my 69 years of existence I have never known in the entire aviary world of a bird carrying its young on its back while in flight or any other scenario. The only carry that comes close is the penguin nesting its eggs on its feet.
you clearly then haven't heard of the South African "Brick-bird" that can carry up to 3Lbs of mud-bricks on it's back for its nests
In the UK Great Crested Grebes carry their young on their back, but only whilst swimming around, of course not when flying.
@ that is an amazing fear but that is different than carrying its young.
@@mikebartow9415 sorry what do you mean, are you replying to the first reply. With the Grebes, the young climb up onto the back of the parent bird, often three of them. They sit under the feathers until the other parent arrives with a small fish and then they come out to be fed. They are being carried on the back of the parent, who is swimming around. This seems to keep the young safe from larger fish, such as pike, which eat ducklings, that don’t have this advantage.
True but storks can fly with newborn humans😂
I think AI will only make photography even more valuable, it will inspire photographers to create images that are not a work of another human yet have a brilliance to them, drawing used to serve more than art at a certain point in time, so does photography today, but the future will take away the lucrative aspect of it, it will still be something people brag about and the photographers of the future will have no effort convincing others that they are artists.
the problem isn't being an artist if someone uses photographic AI to create art that's great, as long as they call themselves a digital artist but that is not what is happening. They are creating these inane impossible scenes of nature and not labeling them as art but allowing people to believe it is a photo they took in that location when they are sitting in their mama's basement and have never even been there let alone photographed anything in their life. Just be HONEST about what you are as an artist and be proud of that work and that label.
Content matters no matter how it's created. Tom & Jerry, Shawn the sheep, Stuart Little, Jungle Book etc showed animals that were made with human imagination and were totally unreal, yet people love to see them for entertainment purposes. Social media is just for entertainment and there should be no problem if creators with Generative AI produce better more entertaining wildlife content.
Upload your real wildlife photos/videos to reputed, well known and certified channels like Discovery, National Geographic etc if you can shortlist yourself out of their quality parameters to get more legit views or stay posting on your Instagram, website or RUclips channel and hope someday people start liking and trusting your stuff.
Competition is really high these days so it will be tough to get ahead for sure.
Amazon is developing AI drones that will air deliver your package. Similarly, I can imagine a future with thousands of AI drones flying around taking millions of wildlife and landscape photos per day. Feeding all those photos into an AI system that can generate any photo desired... But as a hobby, AI will never take away from the wildlife photo experience people enjoy when taking those images themselves.
Thats a terrible dystopian future I don't think anyone wants.
They’ve been talking about this for years and nothing to show for it
I’d rather have real pictures of what I actually saw thru the viewfinder! I never edit or enhance my photos!! And never will
I saw a ad for a guy in Etsy selling prints of “ oil paintings “ that were created by ai
Next level shit. The 'guy' is an AI bot too.
@@datacoderXthe bot was generated by another bot. Like tax shelters rolling up into a management LLC.
I may not agree with a lot of opinions/takes but I love that you credit our sources.
I see this as the next logical step in image-generation.
Ever since digital photography became a mass phenomenon, many pictures started to look much better (contrasty for instance) than real life because people were starting to edit. You yourself are a fan of that, aren't you - but that was a craft and took a lot of expertise and effort.
Then came computational photography for the masses and started stacking multiple images, something that was done in astronomy for ages and none of the astro images you can find look anything like the real thing, all are false colored!
However, I do expect a counter-trend to appear soon: Verification of unaltered images and video via strong encryption IMHO will make an appearance. However, this will mean that photographers would also have to give up pimping their images via strong editing. Maybe some sort of certification service (a service provider that looks for strong feature-altering and then approves a color/lighting edit) will appear. That being said, I expect photography as an art to retreat into a niche hobby.
Don't think I'd ever sell any images on my website, I'm competing with billions of other websites.
There is some backlash to AI generated photos. A lot of photographers do not like them. Portion of the public know it is fake. I think there is still demand for real photos. Many photo group sites actually ban AI photos on their groups. Ones that allow it, make users identify them as fake.
I'm waiting for the A1 mii and the FX3 mii. So I hope it's at least one of them?
FX4?
It would have been nice if the sony announcement was going to be a new medium format camera and lens but it seems we are just at the point that Sony thinks a slight improvement in the A1 will be enough for them for now. Would be nice if there was a couple cameras coming out that were stacked sensor and affordable like what Nikon has done. I do hope that if any system decides to put an android type operating system on their cameras it starts at the low end for people who are used to phones and mostly for video. It would take quite a few generations before something like that would be usable for photographers who need to change settings while looking through the viewfinder.
Your worries about AI and nature photography are on the mark in my opinion, it might just be the catalyst to push me off of social media entirely as every shot that I see that is AI makes me cringe for many of the reasons you suggested.
5:49 I would have actually selected the picture on teh right to look at. The subject is in focus and the photo is higher quality. Perhaps the one on the left got compressed in the video?
My dream cam from Sony:
-35-40mp bsi stacked sensor in 24x65 / 16x42
- no video
- evf and screen from A9III
- body with ergonomics close to Panasonic G9
....
There will come a time when children do not know what animals look like in reality...
Absolutely!! I showed a group of kids a human sized owl generated by AI. The kids actually believed it was for real.
AI is ruining many other things. But Wildlife Photo.... never could expect that.
I don't think it will. Photoshop and CGI have been around forever and people always distinguished it from real photo, here gonna be the same.
My take is a little different, Tony. AI was inevitable. The underlying problem is that our brains love a good story much more than we love an only true story. We pay billions for religion, for entertainment, for false politics. Allegiance to truth is a much more rare commodity. I loved waking up this morning with you giving us something to really think about.
I need help with creating a web site with square space, please do a video step by step. Thanks
I keep seeing that dark dot on your end thinking it is on my screen
it's less and less interesting and fun to share pictures. If I take a picture I love, now I print it on my Canon photo printer and enjoy it in my office.
I am 100% in on real photography for wildlife!!! No fake ai image can truly compete with the real thing. They are like a cartoon version of animals and while this kind of thing might have a place in some settings, they absolutely cannot take the place of a real photo taken on location.
I hope it's a medium format body, but most likely it'll be a mirrorless body with a stacked sensor. Side note, I made my mother in law pick up one of those all in one RX cameras a few years ago and it was shockingly good. Had I stayed on the amateur side of the coin I could see myself shooting the snot out of puppies and kids while on vacation with one of those.
Fake videos and photos are too absurd and have no real deal. I am surprise to see there are a million like on that fake material. Tony, you nail it perfectly on AI topics.
Hi, what is a better product to buy Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or Tamron 150-600mm g2?
I really need your opinion!!!
I own the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and have tested (in store) the Tamron 150-600mm G2. I will start off by saying I have (and currently use) a number of Tamron lenses and they have helped me produce some incredible images. However the Tamron 150-600mm I tested at my local camera shop was not super sharp wide open (especially at 600mm). I've seen reviews and comments from numerous sources that confirm my findings, although I've found almost as many saying that they get tack sharp images wide open at all focal lengths. This leads me to believe there may be a quality control issue, and you may or may not get a good one. My Nikon 200-500mm is very sharp wide open, although stopping it down even as little as a 1/3 stop will sharpen the lens slightly with peak sharpness happening at around f/7.1. Additionally the VR on this lens is the best I've ever used. I can consistently shoot images hand held at 500mm as slow as 1/60 of a sec. and get most shots tack sharp. I've even been able to get sharp shots down to 1/15 of a sec. The only real downside to the Nikon is the incredibly long throw of the zoom ring to go from 200mm to 500mm, and the weight of roughly just over 5 lbs. which I believe is the heaviest of the various super telephoto consumer grade zooms. Those two issues aside, as long as I'm shooting on DSLR's (which will be for a very long time) I will never part with this lens.
@lancelotvt wow so much to read. So if im correct the nikon is better and for me it cheaper used then the tamron. Again im really thankful for so much information. :)
AI has allowed me to better understand my younger self, when a common question was "Are they real or fake?". Life was simpler then.
Glad Canon finally got around to reissuing the standard 70-200/2.8 fix length zoom in RF mount.
What makes the Ai wildlife photos so horrible is that soooooo many people believe it is true
We definitely DO NOT need android in our cameras! What we need is a reliable connection between our cameras and phones with an api that allows 3rd party apps to connect. That way we can do everything with apps on our phones, without adding expensive duplicated tech into our already tech heavy cameras.
GFX100ii is the all-around best camera, hands down, its Arri Alexa + Sony + Nikon, RED and whatever you can think off.
Tony just inflated the bubble. There's a parallel to deep sky capture; people still dedicate their lives to astrophotography, even though NASA's photos are infinitely better.
The algorithm shifted years ago with reels, trendy music, and whatever other attempts to evoke an emotional response via the comment section. But yes, AI is going to ruin the future for photo and video production industry.
From the caption I thought that the new Sony AII and dystopian AI were somehow connected! I just do street, architecture & urban photography, and make photos for my own pleasure, not for instagram “likes”.
On AI, I've noticed almost my entire feed in Pintrest is AI. A lot of the cars are AI, most of the hair, makeup and model photos are AI. I use it as an inspo finder, but it's concerning the pictures that are being shared are so dominated by AI.
Hi Tony, I'm getting a bit tired of all the frames per seconde and so. Why doesn't anyone make a surprising camera, for example with a square sensor? That would be the most logical choice in an image circle, woudn't it? And make it a black and white square sensor! Put it in a nice small body in a stylish color and a flipping up screen. So I can shoot it from my hip. I would buy that. Would you?
there's a simple solution - ban the usage of AI in artwork.
I'm actually surprised Apple at this point doesn't have its own Apple Camera with iOS, Apple lenses and many things that would obviously include "ecosystem".
They could include their "computational photography", especially things that helps for night shots or HDR. I know they want iPhone to be the best tool, but that didn't limit them to have iPad and MacBook already sometimes doing the same thing.
I'm pretty sure many would go just for convenience.
It looks like Sony has had enough sense to put Gen 4 card slots into the A1 II. I wish they would just abandon the Type A cards, but Gen 4 is so much faster.
I think the validation chips in newer cameras (Leica, rumored A1-II) will help combat AI at least for photojournalism. At least I hope so.
There will be a market for that.
And there will be a second market to counterfeit that.
wow, that AI looks so fun! I want to make a picture of a space shuttle carrying a few smaller space shuttles...
It is disheartening to post a photograph I love and have 8 likes. Then knowing, all I have to do is generate an AI image to go viral…. A line I will not cross.
What is also odd to see are all the photographers embracing AI. I’m not talking about using AI to “finish”” our images. That is different as they are our images and we were actually there.
Thanks for sharing!
AI on social media is an inevitability that none of us can stop. What needs to be done is to abandon social media for photography and go to subscription websites that strictly monitor and remove content (and its users) that post AI images as real. Maybe something like a Flickr with teeth. Unfortunately that appears to be the future.
A1M2 and new 600mm f/4 with built in TC
man, there is no hurry to make new 400 f2.8 or 600 mm f4, sooner than 2028.
Great point on AI, what is an action plan on this?
Quite relevant and mature thoughts on AI trends...while AI can challenge the photos and videos in public space, it can never rob us of the experience and joy of being there in the wild and witness scenes first hand...and thus remind us that the art of photography is all about recalling such moments and share it with others and this is something that AI just cannot do!
With so much wildlifre going extinct, AI photography is the only way you'll convince yourself Earth had life on it.
Generative AI versus new C2PA. Would like to see an episode or more about the developing platform of C2PA. thanks for your episodes
This is an opportunity for a platform that doesn't reward "likes" and doesn't accept AI generated or altered images. That is, a "non-social media", more like a community site that provides a few images with links to a personal/business site like the one of yours you promoted here.
A camera with 725 mm (2000 mm equivalent) f/6.5 lens would have 112 mm front element. It would be huge, twice what the current one has. 1000 mm equivalent at f/5.6 could still be possible.
Ha! The only reason he mentioned Android was to make sure you would pick him. Mission accomplished. 🙂
Waiting for A7V to upgrade my A7IV 😂
I heard square space got brought up… will you be giving your thoughts about this in the future?. I think I heard it from a Linus video.
The story of capturing will become more important than the image. Its already is kind of.
Dead internet theory wasn't wrong, just early.
I wish they are filter for AI.
Not just wildlife photography
I'm sick of AI and hope it burns in hell, but you have to have one partially functioning brain cell to think owls fly around carrying multiple babies on their backs.
ai has already changed journalism and portraiture now wildlife. While there is a place for ai I hope people will get tired of unrealistic images of the world and appreciate a true photograph. Fortunately I only make photos for my own edification. There are millions of other photographers like me so true photography will remain popular, sadly maybe not profitable.
I don't get why anyone would want an android based camera, you're basically begging for an expensive camera to be made obsolete after a couple of years.
And if there's one thing that really irritates me, it's an AI-generated wildlife photo with chromatic aberration.
Pre-capture?
What about Pre-Pre-Capture? Maybe that's Sony A 1 III.
AI is junk. I wish that there were a requirement that any AI generated images be clearly labelled as such. Drives me nuts to see images of wildlife in unnatural settings with no blemishes or imperfections. Part of what makes wildlife photography so challenging is working to incorporate the natural flaws into our images.
If Sony made a global Shutter Medium Format camera it'd be legendary.
As much as you kids want cheap cameras, "multiple expensive gears" means to me the Global Shutter FX9 Mkii, maybe a new Venice, some wireless transmission things for live video production. Maybe they'll show off some new CFA 4.0 cards, they could introduce production monitors, theres an entire new market for 3D/XR video production. Sony also hasn't made 3D lenses like Canon nor have they released any more Cine Zooms like the 16-35mm T3.1 so they could fill out that range too. I think the only for sure is the A1 ii and that GM zoom. Sony isn't going to release anything consumer or prosumer for the holiday season. All that stuff was released earlier.
I cannot believe anybody took the snow owl seriously.
We get what we deserve, I guess.
Good points with AI images Tony, but even wildlife images don't really capture what you see in-person, and that is why AI will never win in the long run. There will always be a group of people who know about the AI stuff, but they want real life. They won't want AI Yellowstone, but to actually go to Yellowstone. They don't want iPhone Pro Max Ultra 1648391k image of the Milky Way, they want to go to an international dark sky and be in awe of the universe above them. That's why AI won't win in the long run. Reality ALWAYS wins.
If only they channeled those processing power to better image quality
50MP @ 60fps?
Canon: Any one wants R1? 100% free.
Can I get the "I Shoot RAW" T-Shirt in your Merch Store?
that's jared.
@@datacoderX The Guy with the Big Fro?
@@datacoderX The Guy with the Big Fro?
Why isn't anyone talking about the update to the R7 to give ISO+
Lol!!
Don't blame corporations they just give people what they want. People are the problem
Why don't do a law to forbid AI on social media?
Tbh I didn't like the boring nature photos that most people share. The best are few.
AI is the exact same reason why those paintings of Van Gogh and Da Vinci have no values. We don't know if those were drawn from the real objects or from imagination. 😁
Regarding AI; wrong is the new right, fake is the new real.
Who wants a large touch screen on their camera replacing buttons? I for sure don't! hah.
We need that content authenticity thing fast, on all our cameras. That's the only way we can mark photos "real", and maybe Google can filter only real images.
The AI scare sounds the same as when art painters saw photography coming, and when the movie industry saw TV coming, etc.
It's life, it is change.
Without change there wouldn't be any progress.
Stop complaining.
The AI squirrel's tail doesn't move right.
It is too bad that those who have developed and continue to develop AI haven't even appeared to pause to consider the wisdom of their efforts.
The internet is a stellar warning of how dangerous new technology can be, even when it also can be very useful. There is tons of useful information available online, but consider how many people are either too ignorant, too gullible, or just plain too lazy to vett the information they are consuming.
That's going to be increasingly alarming as AI use increases, both in terms of videos and photos, and in the control of real unformation vs. propaganda and conspiracy theories.
As that meme featuring Abe Lincoln points out, "You can't believe everything you read on the internet."
AI generated pictures and videos are nothing but cartoons of the 21st century. What would one call someone who cannot see the difference between cartoons and reality?
People thought that y2k would be the end of the world. People around the world went all chicken little. AI has become the new y2k. People like myself will always enjoy real-world photography. As well as enjoy the creativity that AI creates and provides. 😎✌️
As AI becomes reality, photographers become the journalists for truth.
AI will never ruin wildlife photography because the value is in being the one taking the photos, not the one looking at them 🦜
I'm in shock that in this save the planet time people are not able to tell what is fake from real nature photos. That young people are so impressed with whatever is fake. unfortunately filmmakers and many photographers have cleared the way for this not being faithful to what is real. looking at many photographs nowadays red leaves are much too red. Poor people wear colourful clothes that are not worn out, etc etc.
If a Lorax owned a camera.
So true about AI and wildlife. People should be in nature and not like and share fake ia images. That is so sad. We have so many things to learn about nature and wildlife. I didn’t know you have Instagram account. You have a new follower 😉