I am always heartened by the fact that you gentlemen are willing to take the time to educate those of us on the learning edge. AI will never duplicate the heart or the wisdom that you all share. I watch tutorials from a couple of you world class photographers and am always getting new information that would otherwise take years to develop. I just love getting out and experiencing the outdoors and if I get lucky, I might even get a decent photo out of the time I spend outdoors. Thanks Duade. As a side note, I suffer from glaucoma and am losing my vision, so time is of the essence. Seems odd, but it is my way of leaving a part of my view of the world, even as the light fades.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sotry Michael, sorry to hear about your vision, I am glad you are able to capture images that give you joy. Cheers, Duade
If you are a hobbyist, no, ai isn’t going to affect your photography. However if you are a professional it will absolutely affect your photography. Especially if you are a professional landscape/wildlife photographer. Ai is at the point where it can 99% replicate a professional tier photograph with perfect lighting. Social media is proof that Ai does enough of a good job where people will press the like button on an Ai generated image hundreds of thousands of times and they think it is a real image. Even if people know an image is fake they mostly don’t care. Regular people are not purchasing prints anymore from nature photographers. These photographers will tell you most of their sales are from other photographers. Most of these photographer’s money are from teaching other photographers whether it is from RUclips or workshops. Monetization of actual pictures is extremely difficult.
Thanks Joseph, totally agree and I make next to nothing from images, I occasionally sell them to government but that will likely be replaced by AI. Cheers, Duade
Well put Joseph and if Duade cannot make money from selling his wildlife prints no one can. Professional photography is not dead however eg, more businesses have a demand for photos and videos for their websites and social media etc ton an on going basis their demand is insatiable. I think to sell wildlife and nature prints you need to create a value added proposition.
@@dalloiselle7274 I’m just glad I’m in the field I’m in. I’m a photojournalist. Sports are my bread and butter, and nature photography is my hobby. It sucks though because I love nature photography, but I can’t make decent money off of the photography itself. It has to be something else like tutorials and video making.
Hi Duade, I pondered a lot about the question you pose. While I agree with most of the wisdom others expressed from the photographer's perspective about how being there is the utmost, though I am just an aspiring amateur nature photographer, at best, so my insight from this angle would be nowhere near those who spoke. What gives me the chills though is the viewer's point of view, pun intended. I think nature photography tends to have a profound effect on people, which many times impels us to go for a hike, sit on a tree branch and wait for that black-and-white warbler to show up, and generally to explore and appreciate nature and life around us. It sort of awakens us humans, living most of our "modern" lives confined into artificial surroundings. It makes us realize the wonder that’s out there all the time. And it surely moves many people wanting to preserve all this wonder. All this impact would not be achieved if we the viewers did not know, in the back of our minds, that all this is REAL. What we see is what we get, so as to say, that subject is in fact out there, that lichen covered tree branch with that prairie warbler is out there, and so is the billowing mountain grass, the cirrus clouds, the fine whiskers of a fox, the crest of that cardinal or the iridescent feathers of that tree swallow. And just the same way as this miracle reveals itself to a nature photographer, (the ingenuity of a good photographer notwithstanding!), we too could experience this if we get out there and “smell the roses”. A good photograph, though a silent media, transcends photography, and evokes the sounds and smells and even the motion of nature. And that motion is also moving our souls. Sorry if I got a little carried away here. So instead of trying to answer your question, I will tell you what questions it raises in me. Could an AI generated image have this same deep impact? Would viewers also be moved by a perfectly exposed and composed picture, with the “embedded” bird, in the perfect pose? The computational notion of “how would they know it is fake” aside, I think the real danger lies in ourselves: will we be happy with virtual, computed, fake imagery, which lacks both the reality of the subject in the depicted time and space and the human behind the camera, who experienced and captured that fleeting moment? Will it propel us to get out there and explore? Where is “there” anyway? What hiking boots does one wear in Cyberspace? Would we retain our interest in hearing how that rose-breasted grosbeak really sings out there, or just ask a virtual assistant to play back from a recording or synthesize it anew? And most of all, will a counterfeit picture impel us to preserve its subject, when in fact it has no subject?
PS: To You and all the nature photographers in this forum, I want to express my gratitude for what you are doing. For bringing nature home. I mean it.
Duade you are pretty much spot on. As an old man, and a photographer working pro many years back in darkened rooms with tray and enlargers using 6x6, 35mm and some 6x7 manipulation of imagery was SOP for most finished images for use: from cropping, choice of paper and film, exposure adjustments, adjusting developing times, dodging and burning, let alone onwards to the notorious airbrushing. Even merging of different elements, and what of double exposures in camera? Pictures have generally always been altered. In competitions then there was no ban on such techniques. I would proffer it was part of what was being judged, part of the photographers 'art'. I enjoy digital wildlife photography now and understand the electrons coming from the camera are no more finished than the silver halide crystals of the past . Even a completely made up image is a work that can be judged, no different from a painter for goodness sake. My ten-penneth!
Duade…. I very recently purchased the Canon RF 28-70 F2 and immediately was kicking myself for not using one your ‘affiliated links’… your videos are appreciated - you talk funny - but are appreciated just the same.
Thanks mate, I really appreciate the support and I am glad you can understand this thick Anzac accent :-) Have fun with the new lens, I might borrow that one from Canon at some stage. Cheers, Duade
it’s a 28-70 F2 (thru the entire range) - so the function would be severely limited for birding - however - for close to approaching mid-range it is superb. Perhaps of some good use for semi-macro. Look forward to attempting Milky Way shots, as well. I’m from Brooklyn & live in California so I know what it like nearly speaking a foreign language in my own country. You have a friend in Huntington Beach, CA.
@@davemigliore Thanks Dave, yes, I would likely try the lens for filming and for human portraits of family etc. It could make for some interesting wide nature shots as well. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade. I agree 100% with your views here. I'm still using my D500/500PF combo and simply enjoying being out in nature and capturing the best images I can. I recently captured one of my "bucket list" shots...an Osprey diving towards me with talons out and then catching a fish. I've waited years to get that photo, and no amount of AI can compete with the feeling of being at the right place at the right time and capturing an image you've been after for ages, using the right shutter speed, aperture, exposure and composition. Cheers.
COngrats on the image, what a feeling that is to finally get the shot you have been working on for years. As you say AI can never replace that feeling. Cheers, Duade
As D500 shooter I have to say D500+500PF is definitely not a budget combo. One of the best wildlife DSLR worth about 1000$ and great lens but costing almost 4000$.
This is the best video I’ve seen on this subject. Superb! I own an r6 but have spent the last 20 or so using DSLRs. The hit rate is higher, yes, but as you’ve said, you still need to be there. Choose the right exposure, set up the Autofocus to best suit your subjects movement. It’s still a skilled hobby! I shot damselflies this morning with eye tracking. So precise. Never would have been able to keep the focus locked on with a dslr on a subject so small.
Thanks Steve, I appreciate the comment and yes you raise a good point, modern tech does allow us to capture shots we once would have struggled with. We still need skill but the camera is a tool that assists us to get them. Well done on the damselfly, Cheers, Duade
Where to start... Duade, this is a wonderful video you have made tackling a really big topic. Thank you. On Ai generated images: from 2004 to maybe 2017 I had done a lot of work in post on photos. Removing things in a image that were a problem, cutting out and replacing backgrounds, all manner of changes and I got really good at it. It was quite a skill to acquire I loved it if no body could pick the changes. But it took hours, sometimes days to work a image, so it was pretty limited the amount that I did. Now these same changes can be done by anybody in a matter of minutes, sometimes really well sometimes really badly. Now these works of digital art can flood the world. It's a big change and a rapidly developing field. I can predict, like there is now a strong niche following for film photography, there will soon be a dedicated following for photos that are not pushed into the realm of digital art... But then it's all scales of grey, and what individuals appreciated. On appreciation, the moment your "worst" image of the Eurasian Cote popped up, I loved it. There is an emotion I feel with this photo that connects me with being out in the wetlands watching these birds. It really spoke to me, even though I know technically its a dud. Change in technology: I started taking photos when I was 6 years old, first black and white print that I developed with my dad. Then colour slides and a simple single lens camera. Then a SLR with multiple lens during my teenage years. In 2004 we got our first digital camera and the start of taking bird photos. In 2017 a Canon 6D, and the start of Astro photography for me (as well as more wildlife photography). In the last 5 years I've been transiting to video storytelling, greatly added by the purchase of the Canon R6 and Canon 100mm to 500mm lens in 2022. Each step up in technology has allow me to capture images (and video) I'd never been able to dream of in the past. AI in cameras: I love sharing the stories of the wildlife and native birds that surround us in our rewilded landscape at Grampians Paradise. To be able to let others into my world of encounters with the creatures is such a treat, but often these moment are fleeting and the very special ones infrequent. I need to be able to put the camera on the bird or animal and in a split second be filming with focus acquired (and held), exposure good and great image stabilization. I can't pull this all off without the assistance of the AI in the R6, and there is no way I would reliably hand hold 500mm or 700mm without IBUS and lens stabilization, even with having leant breath control and "practicing" every day. What is interesting, the more capable the cameras I have access too have become, the less and less I process in post. I now have the luxury of discarding lots of footage, and using that is good straight out of camera. In face I now aim to gain footage that is really good (excellent) straight out of camera. It is wonderful that this now regularly possible.
My photos are to remind me of the experience and take me back to that moment. I see my wildlife photos more as a visual aid to my wildlife adventures and stories. When I see my photo of an osprey grabbing a fish out of the lake or a moose looking straight at me, it takes me back to that time. Duade, I see this in your videos as well where you talk about the environment you are in and the wildlife around you all leading up to showing the photo you took. Or when you see your photos of the Crested Tern colony from a few months ago you probably think back to the time you spent with Jan and how much you enjoyed it. I think we all get a little tied up sometimes in getting the best photo instead of being in the moment. I view other’s photos as inspiration to go get my own photo and experience capturing that subject.
Yes! I've seen a lot of awesome wildlife scenes, and some specific species I see a ton of like Bald Eagles and Barred Owls. Yet, every photo I look back on and can say "ah, this was on such and such road" even if it's a super cropped in photo. I almost do photography as a way to allow myself to consistently get out there and experience nature without growing tired of the mundane. Life is about appreciating the smaller things and taking a moment sometimes.
I've just now managed to catch up on the latest videos you've posted. I completely agree with what you said about the most important thing being to be satisfied with the photos you take with the gear you have. Today I'm completely happy with the photos I take and sometimes when I look at my images I can't believe I took that photo myself. I think that's always the most important feeling, the pleasure we get from taking photos.
Great and important video mate. For me, removing a branch, or taking away something in a photo is totally ok. When it goes to fare, is when people put the main subject with ai in their photo, like having a nice perch, and put a perfect bird on it. I started in the time with film and manual focus, and it was for sure more difficult to get good photos. But still with the new cameras that we have now, we have to as you said, find the subject, get the right light and so on. And no ia can take away from us the joy of going out in the nature, enjoying the wildlife around us. Wishing you and yours a great day and week. Cheers, Bjoern
My college photography teacher is always quick to point out when this topic is raised that film photographers also manipulate their photos. "Dodging" and "burning" are from the film era. Although those terms are used today in digital manipulation too. We are past the point of saying that we have removed twigs or enhanced the photo every time we post. As a wildlife photographer, the amount of truly fake photos that are AI generated and are flooding Facebook and other social media, WITHOUT saying that it is "AI Art", not a photograph is upsetting. Especially when they are shared and presented as a real photo. When photographers go into the field and capture an amazing photo there is a real sense of accomplishment. I do not know what the remedy is, but I know I appreciate the true photographers even more now.
I love editing. I frequently focus stack, exposure stack, etc. and I always disclose it on my videos. I don't like AI, but I use it for object removal. Pure AI images have a slightly cartoony look to them. That's the usual "tell" for me. [EDIT: I forgot about AI noise reduction. That's been game-changing for me. I've recently gotten keepers at ISO 12800, ISO 16000, even ISO 25600! That would have been unimaginable a couple of years ago.] As for gear: top gear without skill is worthless, but top gear with good skill is priceless. I've taken shots with my R5 that my old 60D or even my 7D M2 just couldn't match. But I've taken some images with both those cameras that I'm proud of to this day.
This is such and important and overdue discussion Duane, you bring up so many points that are totally relevant to current photography, I really agree that the elements and principles of composition matter in spite of whatever equipment you have, I’m so glad you showed your examples of early shots vs later high tec shots to example that, great discussion on this topic.
As a hobbyist, I am quite relaxed about the AI photography evolution. I also think photography for documentary purposes and capturing events will still be a thing. I do think professional wildlife photography will become more and more obsolete though, which is very unfortunate.
It sounds almost identical to to the discussion a while ago when digital cameras slowly took over the good old film rol. It was the end of skill was what I've heard a lot back in the days. For me personally AI as technical support " like AI eye tracking or AI de-noise programs like Topaz or DXO3" is a great feature which makes me help making the photos i could only dream of a few years ago. On the other hand it's threatening for the professional photographer because they will lose a lot of income because of the AI generated images which can generated much cheaper. But for me as an amateur nothing beats the feeling when i enjoy being out in nature and it feels even better when I'm coming home with a nice image.
In business, a product only needs to be good enough to produce a profit. To produce a profit, an image would only need to "sell" for more than it costs. Turn-around time also can be important. For many advertising uses the fast turn-around and basically free cost of that A.I. image would be more than just good enough.
Hi Duade, really good topic, really interesting to hear different views, you hit the nail on the head that enjoyment of getting out there and taking the pics are so important, I have just come back from a very very wet weekend shooting GT racing and taken lots of junk but some of the keepers are fantastic and taken on a Canon 5DS and a Sigma 150-600mm which so I am always told is no good for sport or action, but by god have I had a great weekend using an older gear, the joy of capturing the shot is a great feeling/
Wonderful to hear mate, saw the pic and its fantastic and a great reward for your effort. Your passion was obvious when we met and that is what is important, have fun out there, Cheers, Duade
Another terrific video Duade! I started seriously photographing my life experiences 50 years ago with a film SLR. I have enjoyed many aspects of photography: the learning of a skill, of a craft, of an art; the focusing of attention on the experiences while traveling; recording the joy of being outside and part of nature; capturing moments that happen just once but can be remembered for a lifetime; “getting to know” a bird that I will never really know. AI can never be a substitute for any of this. But certain, more mundane, parts of AI (denoising, sharpening, distraction-removal, etc.) certainly can make for prettier images, enhancing not cheapening the experiences.
Duade, this essay on AI is spot-on the best commentary I've read about the issue. I'm not a pro, I don't do photography to make a living, and I don't see fame or status for my "work." I do it for very personal satisfaction: the joy of immersing myself in and quietly observing nature. And a bonus: later, when I'm home, processing my digital images lets me re-immerse myself in those experiences. It also puts me in touch with the under-utilized artistic side of my brain cell (singular). Occasionally I'm so happy with an image I made that I print it, so I can see it without a computer or when I'm in another room. What a delightful and fortunate way to spend my retirement years! It's even as much fun as reading!
I think that you nailed it. Why do we go out and photograph? For me, it's getting out and observing nature but secondly, I enjoy the creative process that comes in post processing. Accurate masking saves tedious time. Selecting a replacement sky that I have photographed and placed in my sky library is a creative process. It brings me joy. It would be wrong to present the image as straight out of camera because, at the very least, there would be adjustments of exposure,white balance, perhaps some sharpening, etc. These are processes that have been undertaken in dark rooms in the past. So, where does it leave us? Be honest about how we achieved the image but let the audience enjoy it for what it is.
To be honest, if it is done well, some skill is involved. I've seen some very poorly done hatchett jobs of editing! Still, it's not photography. Digital art, maybe. Having said that, Ansel Adams final images were never "directly out of the camera". He worked them painstakingly in the darkroom to achieve the final result. But his mission was to enhance, not to decieve. Therein lies the difference.
@@alansach8437 the only skill is learning how to use the Post Processing software! But even a 10 year old can learn how! So not really when AI is taking over everything!
@@alansach8437 There is even an AI system you can hook up to any camera, and it will set up the camera to take the best pic for you in any situation! So how can anyone develop ANY skill whatsoever with tools like this available that do everything for you!
I didn't say it was an advanced skill, but even riding a bike, which most ten year olds can do, requires SOME skill. As I get older, even the simplest new software seems daunting! You and I don't disagree. BTW, digital, in my opinion, was the first nail in the coffin of photography. Anyone could click the shutter, look at the image on the back of the camera, check the histogram and the composition, make an adjustment and repeat as necessary before leaving. As someone said, "You no longer had to wait two weeks after you got home to find out you messed up!" Ai is, in some ways, the final nail. But for those of us who love photography for photography's sake, it will have little effect. But for those trying to make a living, it will become increasingly difficult.
What a great video! I think you are exactly on point on this topic. It all depends on why you are taking photos. For me as an hobby photographer, it is all about the experience. The final photo is just something that makes me remember that experience and the story behind it. So if newer and more advanced technology can help me capturing good images that can eternalize my memories, then I am all for it. And that is not something an AI could ever replace.
I totally agree with your conclusions, Duade, especially about having the best gear, doesn't mean you'll have the best photos. It still comes down to skill, knowledge, and experience. Like you said, the gear just helps you to get more keepers.
Thanks, yes, totally agree, good gear just increases your keepers, we still need the underlying skills to get the shot in the first place. Cheers, Duade
Yep. I saw another RUclipsr mentioning that if you have the opportunity to spend 6000 euro on camera gear, it would be much better to spend 2000 on camera gear and 4000 to travel to a really awesome place to use that gear to take fascinating photographs.
Excellent video as usual Duade. Great to see you grasping the nettle of AI in photography. I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comments and offer a balanced view for photographers to follow. As a camera club member in South Wale(uk) we have had to devote a few committee meeting to the AI problem. Basically after much thought we have stuck with our original rules stating that the image must be the original work of the photographer and trusting people to be honest in what they submit to competition. This only refers to competitions what you do with your own work is up to you. Essentially as you mentioned the whole point of photography in general is to be there experience the moment and try and portray that moment to other people using your own skill and imagination. I can not see this changing, "F8 and be there."
Hi Duade. Great video with good points. I certainly agree concerning the AI topic, and the comments you show from different viewer are indeed very good too. Again, It's a major plus, that you keep showing original RAW files. No one else does this, and we all know how much Photoshop can alter a (good) RAW file. Kind Regards, Jan from DK
Superb and thought provoking as always. As someone who would describe themselves as a birder who takes photos (though my my wife might think I am devoting too much time to photography, especially since I got an R5) I am more than happy to use the technology to get shots that I could never imagine from film days. I guess I take photos to reinforce the memories of birding experiences. I am much less happy with image manipulation when post processing. Sharpening, shadows, highlights, denoise etc. no problem, but cloning and so on is not really for me. I have cloned out bits of feeder etc. very occasionally, but by and large I don't want to spend that much time tied to a computer. Also I want my photos to show what was actually there not what I might wish to have been there. I'm another who really appreciates the way you show the raw file and the final edit.
Interesting video - Thanks Duade. I have a friend who hunts in Canada with an antique smoothbore musket for which the powder and shot have to be poured into the barrel. He enjoys this more than using a top of the line rifle because it requires far superior fieldcraft to get close enough for a viable shot - and he is happy to go home without firing a shot all day. The analogies with photography is pretty clear - you can choose your level of technology, and this includes playback and baiting as well as the AI post processing, autofocus and other aspects that all make it easier to nail the perfect shot.
Hi Duade thanks as always for your very informative videos, I have been a canon shooter since the first film EOS 5 with AF & eye control. Prior to that I had a number of Pentax manual focus camers the first was a SP1000 and the last was Super A with program mode. The point is to indicate that the Pentax were all manual focus film, limited exposure metering, no auta advance, no ibis, no electronic shutter, no rolling shutter, no high speed burst, no pre-capture, no ai, no video, so all photos were taken in single shot this meant that after a lot of practice we had about a 15% OK hit rate for fast moving animals/birds/sport etc. The eos 5 film camera changed some of that, we now had auto focus and continuous burst capability (1 roll of film finished in 2 secs). I didnt move to digital till the Eos 60d apsc 18mp and articulating screen, High mp full frame was available but out of my reach financially, photography was my passion not my profession (film had better resolution till that time) I had a dark room so developed and printed my own, this of course kept the price down to a minimum (professional imaging was extremely expensive) I now have a Eos R and continue with my EF lens collection. The type of photography technique that I have grown with is still the way that I shoot today, I rarely shoot burst or pre-capture, my success rate is still around 15%. Your videos have encouraged me to try more adventuresome aspects including some high speed bursts. I now use a digital darkroom, Topaz etc and I can shoot all day with virtually no cost involved. I will soon add a R7 or R10 to my collection for use with my 100-400 & Tamron G2 150-600. I am a pensioner and have limited funds available for my photographic pursuits though I will upgrade my Eos R to at least an R6..Since retirement I have done mostly bird photography with Panasonic G9 & 100-400 (FF equiv 200-800) image quality is good enough for me though down on the Eos R, it is much lighter and easier to carry. Thanks again for your videos I have used a lot of your suggestions and been happy with the results and as you have mentioned, whilst still an old school shooter never too old to learn more tricks
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Photography is a skill. My first camera was a Nikon shooting slide film in 1983 - as a student. 20 shots per spool. Had to write down the details for each photograph in a notebook and then after developing go back and check the exposure settings against my notes. And try and learn from it. My first DSLR was a 40D too - gave me years of good use and just passed it on to a budding photographer. For me its getting out there and spending time in nature and improving my skills - no amount of AI is going to change that.
Thanks for sharing Richard, sounds like you have had a long love of photography and have seen all the many changes over time. Glad to hear your passion is still strong. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, couldn't agree more. Personally i've always aspired to being a good photographer and not someone who takes good photographs - not necessarilly the same thing in my book! People are taking photographs with a smartphone which I would struggle to take with my 7d mkii. I have no problem with that other than they have no idea what they are doing. I do embrace the technology but nothing beats the thrill of 'finally getting it right' and capturing that image you've been striving for with the the equipment to hand. Keep up the good work.
Another great video, Duade. You have to decide for yourself where to draw the line. For me, my general rule is, would I feel okay if someone asked for the raw file, or would I feel guilty about the manipulations I’ve made? Virtually all of my images are manipulated in some ways - contrast adjustments, white balance, cropping, etc. But I pretty much saw in the viewfinder what I posted. In the case of cropping, it’s actually less than what I saw in the viewfinder, but what you’re seeing, I saw.
Thanks Mark, totally agree with what you have said, I too make many adjustments to my images as I have a vision in mind and I am ultimately creating an image that pleases me first. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, thanks for this new video where, as in all others, it is your humanity that makes it so special. Draw a line across a fuzzy continuum is tricky at best. For me, a first one is between generative and what one could call corrective AI. There is a huge difference between denoising and slightly sharpening an image with DxO PureRaw and replacing a cockatoo with an emu. That would be a first line. I used dodging and burning in the darkroom 50 years ago and it didn't feel like cheating. But then... even corrective AI can be problematic in certain areas. I am also an astrphotographer. There also the debate is intense. I have seen images of nebulae with strucutres that don't exist, images that have apparent "resolution" by far exceeding that of the telescope used (but with lots of spurious structures), Jupiter images with cloud structures that superficially resembled the true ones but were half invented (easy to see for an trained eye). I too advocate full disclosure about the processing steps used to produce the final image. Doing that grants you full freedom and legitimity to whatever pleases you best! As for camera technology, I love the incredible possibilities of modern gear. And yes the key remains the feeling to be out with the birds... anticipating what this technology now allows you to achieve. Otherwise well... if you don't like the modern cameras, just stick to older ones. After all, photography has not killed painting both coexist. Modern photography has pretty much killed daguerreotypes, though... 😊
Great video which seems to touch all the elements of this conversation. As one gets older, I am 76, the new technology compensates for aging eyes, unsteady hands and slow reflexes. Thus allowing me to continue capturing great images of birds. I have manipulated one sky on one image over the years. Although I like the result, I have never shared it. For those who are artistic and creative enough to modify their images, go for it. For those who, like you and me, want to capture birds doing bird things, I love the AI stuff. Can’t wait for the R5 markII. Thanks again for the conversation.
ThanI s Duade, your channel has inspired me to learn and understand photography to the best of my abilities. My grandfather who was a avid wildlife photographer did not have digital cameras ,ibis and AI , and I can say with all honesty his photos were on par with today's professional wildlife photographers.
Thanks for your video, Duade. I was (again ) surprised how far AI has evolved building a picture. Another topic but still relevant for our hobby is AI while taking the photo or in post processing. For the latter: removing branches seems common nowadays . For my first point: e.g. Samsung's flagship smartphones are known to fake pictures of the moon when the computer inside the smartphone determines it is night, full moon and the tele lens recognizes the moon. This happens in expensive smart phones. But as time goes by this "technology" gets cheaper and (hopefully not) may find it's way into big camera bodies. I find this also quite concerning, not only from a photographer's perspective but also as a human who can't tell what's fake and what not .
Hi Duade, I always appreciate your unbiased opinions and follow your channel to learn more about bird photography. I am based out of India and use the Canon 80D and Canon 100-400 Mk2 combo.... looking to move on to R7, have gone through the features, just wanted to know if there is a significant improvement in image quality of R7 over 80D ( keeping the additional MPs and animal eye tracking aside). Looking forward to your advice
It would be helpful to formally define classes of gear and processing so that people can compete and honestly label their work within more level playing fields. In an archery analogy, there are competitions with bare bows, traditional bows, Olympic bows, compound bows, etc. It enables people to interact within a class of their gear peers.
Thanks Jack, yes it is very difficult, many competition now have certain rules. Anzang down here is no manipulation outside contrast etc. You have to submit raw files. But then they often also have a digital art category for people who want to get creative. Cheers, Duade
Pretty much agree with everything there. As far as ‘where the line is’… I’m a bit different to most photographers… I’m coming from a deep graphic design background prior, where I’m adept at image retouching and manipulation before I was any good at taking original images. Even when retouching, my moral code is asking this question: “Is it conceivable that the image could look like this on any given day”? E.g removing a pimple from a person in a portrait because in two days time it wouldn’t be there anyway… or removing a tree branch because the wind could’ve easily have blown it down. If the answer is yes and you’re using elements within the same environment or captured imagery to compile a scene (stitching) that could conceivably have happened, then it’s fair game. If you’re adding or removing elements that fall outside of that (i.e. adding a bridge over a valley, or removing a mountain because it creates a better balanced composition), then that for me falls into digital art. Which is fine, but that’s my line of distinction.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Chris, it is an interesting topic that will no doubt continue on. Ultimately if we are open and honest about what we do there is no real issue IMO. Cheers, Duade
I experience the same joy with my Z8 and 500mm f4 lens costing 10k€ as 40 years ago with my Pentax MEF and secondhand 500mm f8 which took all my money as well. Technology moves on so do we. What a joy to be an amateur photographer and be part of a global community with guys like you!
Agree with the comments highlighted in the video. For us the satisfaction is being in nature, using fieldcraft to find and get close to subjects and having the skills to use the equipment whatever it is. People will soon get bored pressing computer keys to create an image that anybody else can, like painting with numbers. However we need to be mindful of camera companies creating technology for the sake of technology to part us from more of our money than their competitors. Remember the days when companies competed on the number mega pixels, we soon learnt the quality of the pixels was far more important than the number. The R7 is a good example, marketed for the impressive technology but in reality eye detect only works well in good light, 30 fps of little use due to rolling shutter and the buffer because the sensor is of insufficient quality to service the other great technology. Images and satisfaction I got with the 7D 2 are on par with the R7.
Canon R62 and 200-800 mm lens here. My background in photography began as a professional geologist and later, in astrophotography. While signal processing such as brightness, contrast, color balance, etc. is just fine, altering the objects in any way is completely forbidden in scientific photography. I can’t imagine taking a stick out of my bird pictures! I use Topaz for noise reduction and a very light touch with its sharpening engine, but these do involve generative adjustments in the image and I strive to prevent them from looking too good to be true. As for the power of the cameras: this just increases your ability to capture more and more difficult things. There will always be bigger challenges to use them on.
Agree 100%. Getting the wow factor in your photos is a learned skill and requires knowledge. Good gear helps you get more opportunities to get the shot. Knowledge of the subject, the light, the environment can’t be bought. I see photographers all the time with really expensive gear shoot straight down on the subject with no regard to the light, background or angle. Or in some cases with no regard for the wellbeing of the animal. I guess it depends on your objective. I shoot a fair amount of ID shots too. But my favorites of my own work are the ones shot with intention. They evoke feeling. Tell a story. Show some behavior. Capture a moment. Show off colors or details of the subject. I’m happy to just experience these moments. Getting the shot is a bonus. I don’t think AI can give either the photographer or the viewer that special feeling. To quote Duade: , “Where else would you want to be!”
LOL! NOPE, it does not! The sad reality is, the days where actual SKILL was required to produce great photos are LONG GONE! Now everyone on the internet is a "photographer", and literally anyone, regardless of skill, can produce professional looking photos with just a few mouse clicks! Sorry, but photography is now a lost art!~
I'm always in awe how balanced and thoughtful your opinions are! Couldn't agree more with the final conclusions! I got to the spot I'm in for bird photography (Oly EM1.2 and 75-300mm) by iterating and stretching my budget to get out of 'too hard' or too pricey corners which would just frustrate me and take all the fun out of the photography. I love ProCapture, but also have massive respect for hundreds of old school photographers who could take a perfect shot just based on behavioural clues of the animal. I must admit I still frown upon photo trap pictures I see in museums that won the highest prizes, but hey that still required a lot of dedication to get there to a mountain peak etc and set the photo trap framed to get a chance for a perfect picture. And got myself a Pluto Trigger to set photo traps in my garden so we'll see where it leads😂
Interesting discussion, I agree with about everything you said. There needs to be continual development of standards and safeguards for transparency and fairness for all. PS - I think ‘being successful’ is a more apt term than ‘privileged’ even though casually they are probably used interchangeably sometimes. Acquiring better tools and nice things because you have worked fairly and hard through dedication is success, nothing is wrong with that. It is something to be proud of, with the right amount of humility, and this last thing always comes across in your videos which is why you are my favorite YT photog!
I agree with your assessment about AI. Personally I believe using equipment that many of us photographers can afford will render excellent photos if used with our ability to “see” the image in our minds before actually taking the picture. That takes experience and time, sometimes hours of even days depending on what we set out to capture. I still shoot with many cameras including a Nikon D200, Canon EOS 7D mk2, and an Olympus OM-D em5. Traded my trusty 5D, 40D and a number of underused lenses to purchase a R8. I am not a professional but have shot a number of weddings, portraits for friends. Just enjoy shooting landscape, wildlife, street photography and portraits.
Great topic. I started shooting with film on an SLR (Canon EOS) and after various bodies now the R5. I have enjoyed taking photos with all of them - just being out in the field, regardless of the gear is as fulfilling as it gets. If there is one thing that I appreciate most about the R5 is the ease with which I can shoot videos now ......
Great video Duade, some excellent explanations. I think basic edits to enhance an image is still a photo. Once you start to manipulate and remove parts, massively change colour etc then it’s digital art.
It doesn't matter what you use it is the way you use it to some extent . Being in the right place in the right time is the most important element in wildlife photography . Having said that I am really enjoying the Sony A1 with the 300mm f2.8, a lens I did't think I would ever buy . I am just going out now to use it in one of the best spots around here too . Awesome 🤔
As is my general opinion regarding your videos, well articulated, and appropriate vantage point. I wish there were more channels like yours that were level headed and instructional. The "mega channels" have their space, and some are done very well. That said, I find your discussions refreshing, so thank you for that. It's very difficult to get into the business of knowing how to feel about "AI" and the rules surrounding its use. Like it or not, it's here. Taking it to the absurd, should we outlaw any wildlife photograph taken with subject detection? Auto-focus? Auto-ISO? or image generated using the patch tool, healing brush, clone stamp? Shall we go back and call Ansel Adams dodge and burn manipulation? I realize, as I'm sure you do, the frustration felt by many people in photography as of late, with the advance of pre-capture, auto-capture, global shutter w/insane frame rates and subject detection when paired with the best of gear. People feel like you can buy your way to the top by using more expensive tools. I think it's a little bit of this envy (which is understandable) driving part of this "current technology is killing the industry". I am also sure it happened with recorded music (and synthesizers), movement to digital mediums, and many other industries. Embrace it, because it's here is easily said, but it can leave some feeling left in the dust, and I can see for some of those people, it might take some of the energy out of shooting. Look at RUclips. Some people are already complaining about AI generated videos put out by people with no real photography experience looking at camera specs as "ruining the time and effort I put in making my video". Point is, there are going to be those that are turned sour by the experience, and those challenged to go out and make even better content - or become better storytellers with their photographic images. Thanks, as always, for your time and effort.
The challenge is the fun part of photography. I have a canon rebel t7. Great dlsr. That's what I could afford and recently I was able to couple that with a sigma 150-600 c. That has made some of what I do easier but challenge too to learn to work with it. No matter what the gear it's the skills that makes the camera. Sometimes I think some of the new gear makes photography like shooting fish in a barrel 😊. Thanks for you video. Very good insights.
Dear Duade, I come from Canon AE-1, I went through several Kodaks, Canon 70-D, 5D-IV and now R5. I keep them all. I continue to fight against my stupidities and limitations. I'll have to find a personal limit to this... Best from South Brazil.
Interesting video. As a hobbyist, AI can help with little touch ups or generative fill/remove. But I’d stick to the productivity side of things with AI to free me up to be creative or enjoy the experience
Thanks Duade. I agree with you. AI is fine as long as we're honest about it. For me the fun is getting out there and challenging myself and my skill to get the best shot I can. It's like the slot machine. A lot of misses but great joy when you get that one win!
I would like to see a category in competitions where no manipulation has been included in editing especially the removal of objects, people. To even out the categories. And show a different skillset
When editing photos i draw the line between removing distractions with ai/generative fill (such as branches) which take away from the composition and adding things to the photo which were not originally there. Changing backgrounds/skys or adding anything i didnt capture myself in the field for me takes away from photography and it just doesnt feel honest.
I agree with you duade Ai images should be published or share with truth and clarity. Just we photographer share even setting and time and gear. I like you discussed this point. Thanks a lot be blessed always and keep sharing your thoughts and incredible images.
Hi Duade, I've just come back in from my local nature park and it was very quiet and I didn't expect too much, but looking at the photos now, I see that I have 8 photos that I am dead chuffed with and I have uploaded them to my usual 4 Facebook sites, and I am already being told ," yes, it was well worth going out for" and working on these photos, a little sharpening, alter contrast slightly, then crop, gives me immense satisfaction, it's relaxing, I can print them and they are mine, I took them with my Nikon D500 and my Sigma 150-600mm lens, not a fortune to buy, and I won't be chasing AI .. I think AI will change publicity shots, media firms will think it a Godsend, just like estate agents did when digital came out, all of a sudden they could send anybody out even the office boy to photograph the homes for sale and they could print them or upload them, no more colour negs to be processed outside! The average photographer who enjoys the excitement of getting down and dirty will not change we need the excitement bro, God bless you you are a real nice guy. Chris.
Thanks Chris and congrats on your images and enjoying yourself whilst doing it, that is ultimately what it is all about. Yes stock photography and news etc will likey use AI as it will be so much cheaper. Cheers, Duade
I try to take images that are unique. So AI will never match a person trying to capture something that has never been seen before. As Robert Capa says “f8 and be there.” We must keep taking pictures and better tech will simply expand our opportunities.
I would say that each evolution of cameras has helped me produce better photographs in certain scenarios, I could not imagine taking kingfisher diving photos with my film camera 20 plus years ago, however studio portraits are most probably no better, just a lot more convenient.
My concern is for the working photographer. As a retired newspaper photographer I can assure you that our photo staff was limited to spotting, dodging and burning an image. Doing anything more was a firing offense. Wedding photographers of the future may be asked only for quick formal portraits of the bride and groom and family, if that so the family can go home and have those photos ingested by Ai, allowing their "wedding" to take place in any of the grand cathedrals of the world or other locations of their choice. I've spent my life as a working photographer and "birding" photography allows me to keep my hand in what is now a hobby while motivating me to get out and get some exercise, hunting for my "decisive moments" in nature instead of sporting events. Ai created or altered images need to be automatically, indelibly and boldly branded as such in their meta data before we start to see a lot of "Santos" copy cats with images in the style of Duade Paton, Mark Smith, Jan Wagner, Steve Perry, etc. If the geniuses who gave us Ai can't fix this perhaps we can ask the Ai itself if it really needs programmers anymore. Things to consider.
No amount of camera technology can replace a photographers field craft and knowledge of subject behavior. If I was shooting as a pro for magazines or trying to sell prints, yes I would want the latest greatest gear. But I'm not. I'm just a serious bird nerd that likes taking photos of what I see. I'm a Nikon shooter and use the D500/200-500 f5.6 lens and get excellent results. I am seriously considering the D850 instead of the Z6iii or Z8 for my next body.
As soon as I clicked on this space to give a comment, Google AI, without a prompt, popped up with "Help me write"; "Powered by Google". Duade, an excellent presentation that thoughtfully discusses the issues confronting photographers. Related to this is the issue of post-processing. If you survey the wildlife photos on Flickr, it is obvious that many of the best submitters are as skillful with photoshop as they are with a camera. But, perfect can get boring. Nowadays, my favorite submitter on Flickr is "Randy Ramshackle" who uses old film cameras, ancient lenses, and expired film to make some truly crazy and fun images.
Thanks Edward, yes, I agree that we have become saturated with perfect images and its fun to see something different. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Cheers, Duade
It's a tricky topic things like AF has allowed us to get wonderful shots that we would not have with 35mm film when I was a lad. When it's all said you have to be in the right place at the right time, then get your setup correct. Some days, I go out and don't get a shot. The camera can't make the birds appear it's your knowledge and patience and dedication to get a shot.
First off, Duade, I agree with you. It doesn't matter if you're riding a horse or a bike, driving an old beater or a luxury car if either one can get you to your destination. It's the journey that matters. Second, this conversation is not new and has been a part of everything that is touched by technological change and innovation. Innovation brings change because it seeks better, faster, more efficient ways of achieving a task. Photography is no different. And yet, during more than 30 years as a journalist, there was resistance every time we upgraded our computer systems to allow those of us who were editors to do so more efficiently, to allow news page designers to do so more effeciently while at the same time giving them more time to be creative in the way they do their work. Don't get me wrong -- I think it is good to have discussions about change. The whole field of AI gas generated lots of discussion on a number of fronts -- including the ethical implications of this new technology. Those discussions are necessary to set ethical parameters around new or changing technology. This conversation you have facilitated is a necessary part of change. Change comes often with bumps and bruises, so we adapt. And when we adapt while recognizing the potential pitfalls of the change, then maybe, as humanity often does, we can adapt in positive ways. Thanks for the discussion. It needs to happen.
When i first started out. I tried to make the moon look bigger in a beautiful image I took. It was a big mistake! Real photographers were quick to point out the lens choice and the scale of the moon compared to the background. I was very embarrassed and shamed. I have never done it since. It taught me that a true image without manipulating means you have done the best job possible without trying to change or take away elements. I recently watched a you tube channel that showed how they got the image. They pinned up a blurry background, lit it with lights and made their own branches and added sugar water to the plant in order to attract the birds. That to me is as bad as A.I.
Hello Duade! Very good video! You let us a lot of food for thuoght. You should do a review of the canon r10 because a lot of people are interested on that canera. What is ypur opinion about the r10? Would you buy it if you were a beginner with a small budget? Thanks in advance, Nick🙂
As cameras and lenses become more high tech, there are still skills needed by the photographer it is just that those skills change. Every photographer still needs the basic knowledge of the exposure triangle, composition etc. The new skills they need are how to use the tech in the camera to achieve the result they want. The debate of cameras getting too easy has been going on since cameras were invented as each were updated. Also with regards to photo manipulation, this was going on in the dark room before digital, with dodging and burning etc. The advent of technology makes photography more accessible to more users and surely that is something to be celebrated, more people can take good photos, but it is still only good photographers that can take great photos consistently.
Have you ever seen someone compare 2 images from different cameras and declare that one is a good R5 image? My original Canon digital was the 1D with 4.4 megapixels. Some of my best images came from a 7D mark 1. I’s all about light, shadow and composition. The technology just increases your chance of success and how fast you get there.
I love wildlife photography and the only editing I do on my pictures is changing the colours abit , if the image is to dark I just brighten it up a bit or if a birds colours look abit dull with a bright background I would just up the colours of the bird , I try to keep it as original as possible 😁
Great video. AI will not ruin this that take pictures for a hobby, but those that take it for profit to be used in advertising. Now with AI the marketing department or agency don’t ned a photographer to take a certain picture but they simply create it with AI. For years many photographers are not getting anything from stock photos as there are many people photographing for hobby and used the revenue of stock photos to finance their hobby. For the professional wedding, events and sports photographers this will not impact because their image needs to be a real event taken place. For those doing a lot of artists photography they are in danger. Or their needs will decline. But not forget that AI needs to be feed with photos to generate the AI images. Who will shoot this photos?
Personally I have no issues with what can be achieved in camera. New tech or old , but my issues is in post process adding or taking away things or sky , that to me is then not a photograph . I use a canon 90D with sigma glass ,, I do what I can in camera to minimise editing. That's just what I prefer, as you said it's experience and practice, work with what you have and push your equipment to the limits .
Hi Duade, as I see it there is a clear dividing line. Step one has to be in the Ai debate: first take a picture. You can then debate with varying degrees of difficulty about what Ai and how much you use in post processing an actual image. People will always justify the degree to which they use or will not use Ai in post processing.
Good video, this is a topic for a full dissertation, I'll try and keep my thoughts to a few thousand words though. First if we side step the meaning of the term A.I. as that could be its own video (is it A.I. if all it is doing is searching a database and not actually self learning) Before I leave my thoughts on AI/Technology, I want to talk about money. Money in photography has always been a barrier someone that could afford a top end camera and a fast telephoto prime lens 20 years ago, had an advantage over those that couldn't, that is the same today.... Arguing from a point of financial jealousy is always going to happen, but like you said even with the best gear... you stick it in automatic will the camera get the right shutter speed for the type of bird you are trying to capture? will it get the right ISO for the amount of noise you are comfortable with, will it get the right DOF.... or will it expose the photo correctly without any thought to the subject matter. Technology in cameras that help to improve keeper rate etc, autofocus, eye detect, subject detect, pre-capture, all these are good and there is not a good argument against them. I shoot in the studio and have complete control of the lighting so yes I use manual exposure for everything.... but when i am at an event if the lighting is changing constantly and i don't have time to change settings (I really always do) I'd set the time of capture and depth of field and let the camera adjust the iso. Technology in software to improve images we have taken is generally a good thing, manipulation of an image to change its meaning is a grey area (especially in the world of documentary photography and what is reported in the media and shown on social media) Now the thing I really am torn about is computer generated images, the effect is very different on a enthusiast photographer taking photographs for themselves and a professional photographer who is trying to sell them, and this varies by genre. Starting with the Wildlife photography, an Enthusiast that has got his camera gear and gone to Africa in the hopes of capturing photographs of the wildlife, someone's ability to have an image generated of a lion in Africa, does not effect the photograph they captured while they were there. It does however effect the professional photographer, who spends months in Africa taking the perfect photographs of Lions who sells them as wall art to companies... will those companies care if the picture they put on the wall in the managers office was computer generated or actually captured? Back to news photographers and documentary photographers image creation can be used to sway opinions (it always has, the way photos were taking and framed can paint a way different picture) but now images can be created so easily, and shared on social media, before the truth comes out the damage will have already been done... content authenticity will be a big thing for professional work , but it is not widely available yet in cameras. But the average, youtube, tiktok, facebook, x user etc, is not going to check if the image behind the post is real of computer generated. Portrait photography, will it be effected, yes but less so. improved mobile phone cameras and filters already impact on the headshot business, but where a real likeness is needed and memories are created photography will be needed. I'll end comment here, already so long no one will read it :)
I look at a camera as a tool. Simple as that! You can decide what kind of tool you want/need based on your income, preference, subject matter, location (South Pole, Namib Desert, Sumatran Rain Forest), profession , etc. The tools we have today are truly incredible! They can do amazing things but you still have to get up early, stay up late, haul gear, get bitten, get scraped, get wet, get cold, get hot, get dirty, get hungry and thirsty, climb, hike, wade, crawl to get the shot!! The camera can't do that for you nor can it pick a subject, compose, adjust for lighting, change it's own batteries, change lenses, ad fill flash, adjust EV and the list goes on. I'd love to have a Nikon Z9 but I don't!. I shoot with what I have and its enough. It has to be! I am a master of the tools I have because I use them all the time! I figure out how to make what I have do what I need it to do! The technology and advancements in Camera equipment are somewhat interesting to me but they are not photography! They are still just tools! I avoid conversing with the gear junkie because they have nothing to teach me about photography. I'd rather have a conversation with ssome of our greatest photographers like like Duade Patton (wink) or Simon D'entremont, Art Wolf (I'm dating myself), Franz Lanting about their most interesting experiences in the field. Ask them how best to approach a Barred Owl without spooking it than about what camera they used to take a shot. For me a camera is a necessary tool but close to the least interesting part about wildlife photography. As for AI. AI is a PITA as far as I am concerned. I see an image online somewhere and its clearly AI generated and I'm a bit insulted. But what about the more subtle AI generated images? The ones that are harder to spot? Or the ones that are impossible to spot? If I look at an image of a Great Blue Heron flying over a pond in the early morning I want to know its real! I need to know its real! I need to know that someone, somewhere got up early in the morning with shitty, beat up gear and pulled off a miracle of a shot! Because they were in the right place at the right time while suffering the cold and the wet for their passion, their art, and they had skill and they nailed it.
G'day Duade. There's indeed 2 sides to the AI and newest tech. I see no problem in using AI for AF assistance and denoising. Also removing disturbing background stuff doesn't hurt too much the authenticity. But when one uses AI to generate the subject or a complete fake sunset or fake background, that's when it becomes a no-go for me. at that point it's no longer an enhanced photograph, but it becomes some kind of generating art using parts of photos as input.
I think it should be obligated that for social media you have to show or clarify if AI is used. For competitions RAW submissions feels like mandatory nowadays. Yes some of the newer gear makes photography very easy but it doesnt mean you make good photos. I for example have a R7 and 150-600 Sigma but still struggle with basic things like finding the Animals, getting a nice backkround or even just going out. Gear and AI isn’t everything
Thanks to social media everything like music, movies, news and photography are over-saturated. 15 sec on Tik Tok and scrolling through endless media has made people numb. And now that machines can do the creativity and replace the human aspect is quite something. That's why NG is going down. It's a sad time IMO. Strange how AI is replacing the arts first and not something like scientists or politicians. :P Thank god for sports. :(
Great thoughts on such a controversial topic. Sticking to the gear one can afford, trying to get better without comparing it to others with other gear. I know it's easier said than done. But it's probably the only way to get fun and satisfaction out of it. Just getting out there enjoying the world an such a cool thing like photography.
Some people refuse to use power tools when repairing their cars: "they calling it turning a wrench for a reason..." To each his or her own. I do what I need to do to make myself happy.
Pretty interesting topic, for the most part my photography is 95% for me and 5% sharing with friends. To me it is a way to get outside an enjoy nature. I'm currently working in Shanghai, China and there is not an abundant amount of wildlife here. What wildlife there is is mostly birds. However, just getting out and exploring different areas in the nearby countryside and parks, one realizes there are more animals (mostly birds) than most local people realize. I have seen endangered species (Black Faced Spoonbill, and Chinese Alligators), invasive species (Musk Rats), frogs, hedgehogs, Chinese Water Deer, spiders, weasels (unfortunately hit by a vehicle and dead), and lots of different birds with the Golden Eagle being my favorite. I am concerned about the impact AI will have on many aspects in our daily life not just on photography, however typing some commands to a computer will never replace the experience of seeing these animals in the wild, or a beautiful sunset, etc.
Mate, that was such a brilliant insight into the current situation of digital imagery, that I'm suspicious you may be AI generated 🤣 But seriously, you have asked & answered some really important questions that creators face in 2024. Art that is creator focussed vs Art that is audience orientated. I can only contribute with the age old saying.....It's all subjective!
I agree with your conclusion. Cameras and software are tools that photographers use. Yes, the tools keep improving, but it's the person's skill in taking the photos and editing them that makes them come alive. For me, it's an exciting time for photography. I embrace the changes and use them to produce the best photo possible, not generate AI elements that were not in the photo.
I get those surveys every now and then from Adobe about what I think about so-and-so feature. And when generative AI comes up I give the same answer: there is a very thin line between photography and an illustration. It's one thing to use these tools to enhance what the sensor captures. But it's whole 'nother thing to start inserting things that were never in the frame. And I'm very uncomfortable about the glee all these companies have about being able to just remove people who were just passing by at that moment in frame. And, yeah, I'll admit I'll edit out dust-on-the-sensor blobs, but that's as far as I'll go when taking things out.
Some of my thoughts: - for me, photography ends where you're addressing concrete details in the photo. I like to change highlights, shadows, white balance etc, as soon as it affects the whole image equally. As soon as i say something like "this corner gets treated differently", that's a step to much. But that's for me personally. As long as it's not too much changes (for example "only" putting a gradient to reinforce the lighting effects, etc.), i dont really mind it too much either, to be honest. But removing elements, or adding new ones and so on, that's where i 100% prefer the original for it's authenticity. I don't mind people enjoying ai art or heavy editing, that's just something different in my eyes. Just like photography is not the same as painting, so is ai (assisted) art not the same as photography - someone who's calling DSLMs cheating because of better tech is stupid. DSLMs have more tech than DSLRs, but DSLRs have just as much more tech compared to anaglog photography, and so on. about a hundred years ago, you couldn't take pictures in the first place, and if you wanted an image, you had to paint (etc.) it. Is it cheating we got 40FPS and preburst on a R6m2 or R8 while DSLRs only went to like 10FPS? Is it cheating that DSLRs have 10FPS while an analog camera has to manually change to the next film, or that you have to process the images in a darkroom? Is it cheating you dont need an hour to paint a painting while having infinetly more details? It's just f'ing selfish to try to force one's own past struggles on others, while ignoring how easy it was for oneself compared to those before.
I think we created the thin edge of the wedge years ago with Lightroom Photoshop manipulation. We started with exposure correction and then colour saturation levels and specific masked areas. I remember a video you did of a seminar of bird photography to a group who weren't necessarily photographers. The ooh's of being impressed with your photography to aah's of disappointment when you showed how you edit your photos stuck with me. I could feel the disappointment of the little old ladies of being deceived somehow. I photograph with editing in mind so for me editing is at least 50% of digital photography of any genre. Exposure in particular is something I shoot for editing in mind. However when we start removing distractions in the shot like a lot of us do, it does feel like cheating a little bit. Sometimes we can go too far and sterilise a photo to almost look like a drawing or cartoon.
I like technology to a point But i feel like getting good photo's is getting easier. I think of photography like fishing and some days you just come home having only caught tiddlers. I tried to get a picture of a willow warbler yesterday but even with dxo and some lightroom i only got what I'd class as a 6/10 photo. But it's the trying that i enjoy.
Ai is not for me tbh at 70 and being a photographer for 40 plus years I'm just not interested, nothing better than getting out and use your gear not sitting in front of a PC making some sort of image, great video as always Duade.
Machine learning is ruining post-photography for me. Because I was satisfied with minor edits to my casual vacation/hiking bird photos but after trying PureRAW on some I am now being compelled to use it and raw editing on photos I would have spent 20 seconds on the jpeg cropping, adjusting brightness and moving on. Damned tech is just too amazing to make a crappy 'documentation' shot to a decent photo. Stepped on a very slippery slope for a casual photo person who has avoided having any RAW photo workflow. Damned ai!
Hi... I'm from malaysia... Can you suggest a series of canon lens best for handheld bird photography? Im using canon r7... Lens with sharpen image, best image stabilization and friendly price....
I am always heartened by the fact that you gentlemen are willing to take the time to educate those of us on the learning edge. AI will never duplicate the heart or the wisdom that you all share. I watch tutorials from a couple of you world class photographers and am always getting new information that would otherwise take years to develop. I just love getting out and experiencing the outdoors and if I get lucky, I might even get a decent photo out of the time I spend outdoors. Thanks Duade. As a side note, I suffer from glaucoma and am losing my vision, so time is of the essence. Seems odd, but it is my way of leaving a part of my view of the world, even as the light fades.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sotry Michael, sorry to hear about your vision, I am glad you are able to capture images that give you joy. Cheers, Duade
If you are a hobbyist, no, ai isn’t going to affect your photography. However if you are a professional it will absolutely affect your photography. Especially if you are a professional landscape/wildlife photographer. Ai is at the point where it can 99% replicate a professional tier photograph with perfect lighting.
Social media is proof that Ai does enough of a good job where people will press the like button on an Ai generated image hundreds of thousands of times and they think it is a real image. Even if people know an image is fake they mostly don’t care. Regular people are not purchasing prints anymore from nature photographers. These photographers will tell you most of their sales are from other photographers. Most of these photographer’s money are from teaching other photographers whether it is from RUclips or workshops. Monetization of actual pictures is extremely difficult.
Thanks Joseph, totally agree and I make next to nothing from images, I occasionally sell them to government but that will likely be replaced by AI. Cheers, Duade
I think you stated it quite well.
_"Even if people know an image is fake they mostly don’t care."_
This is so true, and perhaps the saddest part.
Well put Joseph and if Duade cannot make money from selling his wildlife prints no one can.
Professional photography is not dead however eg, more businesses have a demand for photos and videos for their websites and social media etc ton an on going basis their demand is insatiable.
I think to sell wildlife and nature prints you need to create a value added proposition.
@@dalloiselle7274 I’m just glad I’m in the field I’m in. I’m a photojournalist. Sports are my bread and butter, and nature photography is my hobby. It sucks though because I love nature photography, but I can’t make decent money off of the photography itself. It has to be something else like tutorials and video making.
Hi Duade,
I pondered a lot about the question you pose. While I agree with most of the wisdom others expressed from the photographer's perspective about how being there is the utmost, though I am just an aspiring amateur nature photographer, at best, so my insight from this angle would be nowhere near those who spoke.
What gives me the chills though is the viewer's point of view, pun intended.
I think nature photography tends to have a profound effect on people, which many times impels us to go for a hike, sit on a tree branch and wait for that black-and-white warbler to show up, and generally to explore and appreciate nature and life around us. It sort of awakens us humans, living most of our "modern" lives confined into artificial surroundings. It makes us realize the wonder that’s out there all the time. And it surely moves many people wanting to preserve all this wonder.
All this impact would not be achieved if we the viewers did not know, in the back of our minds, that all this is REAL. What we see is what we get, so as to say, that subject is in fact out there, that lichen covered tree branch with that prairie warbler is out there, and so is the billowing mountain grass, the cirrus clouds, the fine whiskers of a fox, the crest of that cardinal or the iridescent feathers of that tree swallow. And just the same way as this miracle reveals itself to a nature photographer, (the ingenuity of a good photographer notwithstanding!), we too could experience this if we get out there and “smell the roses”. A good photograph, though a silent media, transcends photography, and evokes the sounds and smells and even the motion of nature. And that motion is also moving our souls.
Sorry if I got a little carried away here. So instead of trying to answer your question, I will tell you what questions it raises in me. Could an AI generated image have this same deep impact? Would viewers also be moved by a perfectly exposed and composed picture, with the “embedded” bird, in the perfect pose? The computational notion of “how would they know it is fake” aside, I think the real danger lies in ourselves: will we be happy with virtual, computed, fake imagery, which lacks both the reality of the subject in the depicted time and space and the human behind the camera, who experienced and captured that fleeting moment? Will it propel us to get out there and explore? Where is “there” anyway? What hiking boots does one wear in Cyberspace? Would we retain our interest in hearing how that rose-breasted grosbeak really sings out there, or just ask a virtual assistant to play back from a recording or synthesize it anew? And most of all, will a counterfeit picture impel us to preserve its subject, when in fact it has no subject?
PS: To You and all the nature photographers in this forum, I want to express my gratitude for what you are doing. For bringing nature home. I mean it.
How come that this comment only has four likes?
Duade you are pretty much spot on.
As an old man, and a photographer working pro many years back in darkened rooms with tray and enlargers using 6x6, 35mm and some 6x7 manipulation of imagery was SOP for most finished images for use: from cropping, choice of paper and film, exposure adjustments, adjusting developing times, dodging and burning, let alone onwards to the notorious airbrushing. Even merging of different elements, and what of double exposures in camera? Pictures have generally always been altered.
In competitions then there was no ban on such techniques. I would proffer it was part of what was being judged, part of the photographers 'art'.
I enjoy digital wildlife photography now and understand the electrons coming from the camera are no more finished than the silver halide crystals of the past .
Even a completely made up image is a work that can be judged, no different from a painter for goodness sake.
My ten-penneth!
Duade…. I very recently purchased the Canon RF 28-70 F2 and immediately was kicking myself for not using one your ‘affiliated links’… your videos are appreciated - you talk funny - but are appreciated just the same.
Thanks mate, I really appreciate the support and I am glad you can understand this thick Anzac accent :-) Have fun with the new lens, I might borrow that one from Canon at some stage. Cheers, Duade
it’s a 28-70 F2 (thru the entire range) - so the function would be severely limited for birding - however - for close to approaching mid-range it is superb. Perhaps of some good use for semi-macro. Look forward to attempting Milky Way shots, as well. I’m from Brooklyn & live in California so I know what it like nearly speaking a foreign language in my own country. You have a friend in Huntington Beach, CA.
@@davemigliore Thanks Dave, yes, I would likely try the lens for filming and for human portraits of family etc. It could make for some interesting wide nature shots as well. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade. I agree 100% with your views here. I'm still using my D500/500PF combo and simply enjoying being out in nature and capturing the best images I can. I recently captured one of my "bucket list" shots...an Osprey diving towards me with talons out and then catching a fish. I've waited years to get that photo, and no amount of AI can compete with the feeling of being at the right place at the right time and capturing an image you've been after for ages, using the right shutter speed, aperture, exposure and composition. Cheers.
Wow! Congratulations! I know the feeling of getting a bucket list shot!
COngrats on the image, what a feeling that is to finally get the shot you have been working on for years. As you say AI can never replace that feeling. Cheers, Duade
Absolutely!
I am also shooting with a Nikon D500, and various lenses including the 500mm PF. I love that combo for wildlife!
As D500 shooter I have to say D500+500PF is definitely not a budget combo. One of the best wildlife DSLR worth about 1000$ and great lens but costing almost 4000$.
This is the best video I’ve seen on this subject. Superb! I own an r6 but have spent the last 20 or so using DSLRs. The hit rate is higher, yes, but as you’ve said, you still need to be there. Choose the right exposure, set up the Autofocus to best suit your subjects movement. It’s still a skilled hobby! I shot damselflies this morning with eye tracking. So precise. Never would have been able to keep the focus locked on with a dslr on a subject so small.
Thanks Steve, I appreciate the comment and yes you raise a good point, modern tech does allow us to capture shots we once would have struggled with. We still need skill but the camera is a tool that assists us to get them. Well done on the damselfly, Cheers, Duade
Where to start... Duade, this is a wonderful video you have made tackling a really big topic. Thank you.
On Ai generated images: from 2004 to maybe 2017 I had done a lot of work in post on photos. Removing things in a image that were a problem, cutting out and replacing backgrounds, all manner of changes and I got really good at it. It was quite a skill to acquire I loved it if no body could pick the changes. But it took hours, sometimes days to work a image, so it was pretty limited the amount that I did. Now these same changes can be done by anybody in a matter of minutes, sometimes really well sometimes really badly. Now these works of digital art can flood the world. It's a big change and a rapidly developing field. I can predict, like there is now a strong niche following for film photography, there will soon be a dedicated following for photos that are not pushed into the realm of digital art... But then it's all scales of grey, and what individuals appreciated.
On appreciation, the moment your "worst" image of the Eurasian Cote popped up, I loved it. There is an emotion I feel with this photo that connects me with being out in the wetlands watching these birds. It really spoke to me, even though I know technically its a dud.
Change in technology: I started taking photos when I was 6 years old, first black and white print that I developed with my dad. Then colour slides and a simple single lens camera. Then a SLR with multiple lens during my teenage years. In 2004 we got our first digital camera and the start of taking bird photos. In 2017 a Canon 6D, and the start of Astro photography for me (as well as more wildlife photography). In the last 5 years I've been transiting to video storytelling, greatly added by the purchase of the Canon R6 and Canon 100mm to 500mm lens in 2022. Each step up in technology has allow me to capture images (and video) I'd never been able to dream of in the past.
AI in cameras: I love sharing the stories of the wildlife and native birds that surround us in our rewilded landscape at Grampians Paradise. To be able to let others into my world of encounters with the creatures is such a treat, but often these moment are fleeting and the very special ones infrequent. I need to be able to put the camera on the bird or animal and in a split second be filming with focus acquired (and held), exposure good and great image stabilization. I can't pull this all off without the assistance of the AI in the R6, and there is no way I would reliably hand hold 500mm or 700mm without IBUS and lens stabilization, even with having leant breath control and "practicing" every day.
What is interesting, the more capable the cameras I have access too have become, the less and less I process in post. I now have the luxury of discarding lots of footage, and using that is good straight out of camera. In face I now aim to gain footage that is really good (excellent) straight out of camera. It is wonderful that this now regularly possible.
My photos are to remind me of the experience and take me back to that moment. I see my wildlife photos more as a visual aid to my wildlife adventures and stories. When I see my photo of an osprey grabbing a fish out of the lake or a moose looking straight at me, it takes me back to that time. Duade, I see this in your videos as well where you talk about the environment you are in and the wildlife around you all leading up to showing the photo you took. Or when you see your photos of the Crested Tern colony from a few months ago you probably think back to the time you spent with Jan and how much you enjoyed it. I think we all get a little tied up sometimes in getting the best photo instead of being in the moment.
I view other’s photos as inspiration to go get my own photo and experience capturing that subject.
Yes! I've seen a lot of awesome wildlife scenes, and some specific species I see a ton of like Bald Eagles and Barred Owls. Yet, every photo I look back on and can say "ah, this was on such and such road" even if it's a super cropped in photo. I almost do photography as a way to allow myself to consistently get out there and experience nature without growing tired of the mundane. Life is about appreciating the smaller things and taking a moment sometimes.
I've just now managed to catch up on the latest videos you've posted. I completely agree with what you said about the most important thing being to be satisfied with the photos you take with the gear you have. Today I'm completely happy with the photos I take and sometimes when I look at my images I can't believe I took that photo myself. I think that's always the most important feeling, the pleasure we get from taking photos.
Thanks for the feedback and totally agree, that is the most important thing for sure, Cheers, Duade
Bedankt
Thank you so much for the support, I really do appreciate it, Cheers, Duade
Great and important video mate. For me, removing a branch, or taking away something in a photo is totally ok. When it goes to fare, is when people put the main subject with ai in their photo, like having a nice perch, and put a perfect bird on it. I started in the time with film and manual focus, and it was for sure more difficult to get good photos. But still with the new cameras that we have now, we have to as you said, find the subject, get the right light and so on. And no ia can take away from us the joy of going out in the nature, enjoying the wildlife around us.
Wishing you and yours a great day and week.
Cheers, Bjoern
Thanks mate, I always enjoy your comments and again you are bang on, thanks for sharing, Cheers, Duade
תודה!
Thank you so much for the support, Cheers, Duade
My college photography teacher is always quick to point out when this topic is raised that film photographers also manipulate their photos. "Dodging" and "burning" are from the film era. Although those terms are used today in digital manipulation too. We are past the point of saying that we have removed twigs or enhanced the photo every time we post. As a wildlife photographer, the amount of truly fake photos that are AI generated and are flooding Facebook and other social media, WITHOUT saying that it is "AI Art", not a photograph is upsetting. Especially when they are shared and presented as a real photo. When photographers go into the field and capture an amazing photo there is a real sense of accomplishment. I do not know what the remedy is, but I know I appreciate the true photographers even more now.
I love editing. I frequently focus stack, exposure stack, etc. and I always disclose it on my videos. I don't like AI, but I use it for object removal. Pure AI images have a slightly cartoony look to them. That's the usual "tell" for me.
[EDIT: I forgot about AI noise reduction. That's been game-changing for me. I've recently gotten keepers at ISO 12800, ISO 16000, even ISO 25600! That would have been unimaginable a couple of years ago.]
As for gear: top gear without skill is worthless, but top gear with good skill is priceless. I've taken shots with my R5 that my old 60D or even my 7D M2 just couldn't match. But I've taken some images with both those cameras that I'm proud of to this day.
Don't forget about the masking now. Amazing.
This is such and important and overdue discussion Duane, you bring up so many points that are totally relevant to current photography, I really agree that the elements and principles of composition matter in spite of whatever equipment you have, I’m so glad you showed your examples of early shots vs later high tec shots to example that, great discussion on this topic.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your support, I really do appreciate it. I agree a discussion worth having for sure. Cheers, Duade
As a hobbyist, I am quite relaxed about the AI photography evolution. I also think photography for documentary purposes and capturing events will still be a thing. I do think professional wildlife photography will become more and more obsolete though, which is very unfortunate.
It sounds almost identical to to the discussion a while ago when digital cameras slowly took over the good old film rol. It was the end of skill was what I've heard a lot back in the days. For me personally AI as technical support " like AI eye tracking or AI de-noise programs like Topaz or DXO3" is a great feature which makes me help making the photos i could only dream of a few years ago. On the other hand it's threatening for the professional photographer because they will lose a lot of income because of the AI generated images which can generated much cheaper. But for me as an amateur nothing beats the feeling when i enjoy being out in nature and it feels even better when I'm coming home with a nice image.
In business, a product only needs to be good enough to produce a profit. To produce a profit, an image would only need to "sell" for more than it costs. Turn-around time also can be important. For many advertising uses the fast turn-around and basically free cost of that A.I. image would be more than just good enough.
Very true Ray, I feel for professional photographers who make a living selling prints or images. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, really good topic, really interesting to hear different views, you hit the nail on the head that enjoyment of getting out there and taking the pics are so important, I have just come back from a very very wet weekend shooting GT racing and taken lots of junk but some of the keepers are fantastic and taken on a Canon 5DS and a Sigma 150-600mm which so I am always told is no good for sport or action, but by god have I had a great weekend using an older gear, the joy of capturing the shot is a great feeling/
Wonderful to hear mate, saw the pic and its fantastic and a great reward for your effort. Your passion was obvious when we met and that is what is important, have fun out there, Cheers, Duade
Another terrific video Duade!
I started seriously photographing my life experiences 50 years ago with a film SLR. I have enjoyed many aspects of photography: the learning of a skill, of a craft, of an art; the focusing of attention on the experiences while traveling; recording the joy of being outside and part of nature; capturing moments that happen just once but can be remembered for a lifetime; “getting to know” a bird that I will never really know. AI can never be a substitute for any of this. But certain, more mundane, parts of AI (denoising, sharpening, distraction-removal, etc.) certainly can make for prettier images, enhancing not cheapening the experiences.
Duade, this essay on AI is spot-on the best commentary I've read about the issue. I'm not a pro, I don't do photography to make a living, and I don't see fame or status for my "work." I do it for very personal satisfaction: the joy of immersing myself in and quietly observing nature. And a bonus: later, when I'm home, processing my digital images lets me re-immerse myself in those experiences. It also puts me in touch with the under-utilized artistic side of my brain cell (singular). Occasionally I'm so happy with an image I made that I print it, so I can see it without a computer or when I'm in another room. What a delightful and fortunate way to spend my retirement years! It's even as much fun as reading!
I think that you nailed it. Why do we go out and photograph? For me, it's getting out and observing nature but secondly, I enjoy the creative process that comes in post processing. Accurate masking saves tedious time. Selecting a replacement sky that I have photographed and placed in my sky library is a creative process. It brings me joy. It would be wrong to present the image as straight out of camera because, at the very least, there would be adjustments of exposure,white balance, perhaps some sharpening, etc.
These are processes that have been undertaken in dark rooms in the past. So, where does it leave us?
Be honest about how we achieved the image but let the audience enjoy it for what it is.
Except, literally ANYONE can do exactly what you are doing, with NO skill required whatsoever!~
To be honest, if it is done well, some skill is involved. I've seen some very poorly done hatchett jobs of editing! Still, it's not photography. Digital art, maybe. Having said that, Ansel Adams final images were never "directly out of the camera". He worked them painstakingly in the darkroom to achieve the final result. But his mission was to enhance, not to decieve. Therein lies the difference.
@@alansach8437 the only skill is learning how to use the Post Processing software! But even a 10 year old can learn how! So not really when AI is taking over everything!
@@alansach8437 There is even an AI system you can hook up to any camera, and it will set up the camera to take the best pic for you in any situation! So how can anyone develop ANY skill whatsoever with tools like this available that do everything for you!
I didn't say it was an advanced skill, but even riding a bike, which most ten year olds can do, requires SOME skill. As I get older, even the simplest new software seems daunting! You and I don't disagree.
BTW, digital, in my opinion, was the first nail in the coffin of photography. Anyone could click the shutter, look at the image on the back of the camera, check the histogram and the composition, make an adjustment and repeat as necessary before leaving. As someone said, "You no longer had to wait two weeks after you got home to find out you messed up!" Ai is, in some ways, the final nail. But for those of us who love photography for photography's sake, it will have little effect. But for those trying to make a living, it will become increasingly difficult.
What a great video! I think you are exactly on point on this topic. It all depends on why you are taking photos. For me as an hobby photographer, it is all about the experience. The final photo is just something that makes me remember that experience and the story behind it. So if newer and more advanced technology can help me capturing good images that can eternalize my memories, then I am all for it. And that is not something an AI could ever replace.
I totally agree with your conclusions, Duade, especially about having the best gear, doesn't mean you'll have the best photos. It still comes down to skill, knowledge, and experience. Like you said, the gear just helps you to get more keepers.
Thanks, yes, totally agree, good gear just increases your keepers, we still need the underlying skills to get the shot in the first place. Cheers, Duade
Yep. I saw another RUclipsr mentioning that if you have the opportunity to spend 6000 euro on camera gear, it would be much better to spend 2000 on camera gear and 4000 to travel to a really awesome place to use that gear to take fascinating photographs.
Excellent video as usual Duade. Great to see you grasping the nettle of AI in photography. I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comments and offer a balanced view for photographers to follow. As a camera club member in South Wale(uk) we have had to devote a few committee meeting to the AI problem. Basically after much thought we have stuck with our original rules stating that the image must be the original work of the photographer and trusting people to be honest in what they submit to competition. This only refers to competitions what you do with your own work is up to you. Essentially as you mentioned the whole point of photography in general is to be there experience the moment and try and portray that moment to other people using your own skill and imagination. I can not see this changing, "F8 and be there."
Hi Duade.
Great video with good points. I certainly agree concerning the AI topic, and the comments you show from different viewer are indeed very good too.
Again, It's a major plus, that you keep showing original RAW files. No one else does this, and we all know how much Photoshop can alter a (good) RAW file.
Kind Regards, Jan from DK
Superb and thought provoking as always. As someone who would describe themselves as a birder who takes photos (though my my wife might think I am devoting too much time to photography, especially since I got an R5) I am more than happy to use the technology to get shots that I could never imagine from film days. I guess I take photos to reinforce the memories of birding experiences. I am much less happy with image manipulation when post processing. Sharpening, shadows, highlights, denoise etc. no problem, but cloning and so on is not really for me. I have cloned out bits of feeder etc. very occasionally, but by and large I don't want to spend that much time tied to a computer. Also I want my photos to show what was actually there not what I might wish to have been there. I'm another who really appreciates the way you show the raw file and the final edit.
Interesting video - Thanks Duade. I have a friend who hunts in Canada with an antique smoothbore musket for which the powder and shot have to be poured into the barrel. He enjoys this more than using a top of the line rifle because it requires far superior fieldcraft to get close enough for a viable shot - and he is happy to go home without firing a shot all day. The analogies with photography is pretty clear - you can choose your level of technology, and this includes playback and baiting as well as the AI post processing, autofocus and other aspects that all make it easier to nail the perfect shot.
Nicely done... presenting the facts and offering balanced opinions. That's just one of the reasons I continue to support you and your channel.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate the feedback, Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade thanks as always for your very informative videos, I have been a canon shooter since the first film EOS 5 with AF & eye control. Prior to that I had a number of Pentax manual focus camers the first was a SP1000 and the last was Super A with program mode. The point is to indicate that the Pentax were all manual focus film, limited exposure metering, no auta advance, no ibis, no electronic shutter, no rolling shutter, no high speed burst, no pre-capture, no ai, no video, so all photos were taken in single shot this meant that after a lot of practice we had about a 15% OK hit rate for fast moving animals/birds/sport etc. The eos 5 film camera changed some of that, we now had auto focus and continuous burst capability (1 roll of film finished in 2 secs). I didnt move to digital till the Eos 60d apsc 18mp and articulating screen, High mp full frame was available but out of my reach financially, photography was my passion not my profession (film had better resolution till that time) I had a dark room so developed and printed my own, this of course kept the price down to a minimum (professional imaging was extremely expensive) I now have a Eos R and continue with my EF lens collection. The type of photography technique that I have grown with is still the way that I shoot today, I rarely shoot burst or pre-capture, my success rate is still around 15%. Your videos have encouraged me to try more adventuresome aspects including some high speed bursts. I now use a digital darkroom, Topaz etc and I can shoot all day with virtually no cost involved. I will soon add a R7 or R10 to my collection for use with my 100-400 & Tamron G2 150-600. I am a pensioner and have limited funds available for my photographic pursuits though I will upgrade my Eos R to at least an R6..Since retirement I have done mostly bird photography with Panasonic G9 & 100-400 (FF equiv 200-800) image quality is good enough for me though down on the Eos R, it is much lighter and easier to carry. Thanks again for your videos I have used a lot of your suggestions and been happy with the results and as you have mentioned, whilst still an old school shooter never too old to learn more tricks
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Photography is a skill. My first camera was a Nikon shooting slide film in 1983 - as a student. 20 shots per spool. Had to write down the details for each photograph in a notebook and then after developing go back and check the exposure settings against my notes. And try and learn from it. My first DSLR was a 40D too - gave me years of good use and just passed it on to a budding photographer. For me its getting out there and spending time in nature and improving my skills - no amount of AI is going to change that.
Thanks for sharing Richard, sounds like you have had a long love of photography and have seen all the many changes over time. Glad to hear your passion is still strong. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, couldn't agree more. Personally i've always aspired to being a good photographer and not someone who takes good photographs - not necessarilly the same thing in my book! People are taking photographs with a smartphone which I would struggle to take with my 7d mkii. I have no problem with that other than they have no idea what they are doing. I do embrace the technology but nothing beats the thrill of 'finally getting it right' and capturing that image you've been striving for with the the equipment to hand. Keep up the good work.
Another great video, Duade. You have to decide for yourself where to draw the line. For me, my general rule is, would I feel okay if someone asked for the raw file, or would I feel guilty about the manipulations I’ve made? Virtually all of my images are manipulated in some ways - contrast adjustments, white balance, cropping, etc. But I pretty much saw in the viewfinder what I posted. In the case of cropping, it’s actually less than what I saw in the viewfinder, but what you’re seeing, I saw.
Thanks Mark, totally agree with what you have said, I too make many adjustments to my images as I have a vision in mind and I am ultimately creating an image that pleases me first. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, thanks for this new video where, as in all others, it is your humanity that makes it so special.
Draw a line across a fuzzy continuum is tricky at best. For me, a first one is between generative and what one could call corrective AI. There is a huge difference between denoising and slightly sharpening an image with DxO PureRaw and replacing a cockatoo with an emu. That would be a first line. I used dodging and burning in the darkroom 50 years ago and it didn't feel like cheating.
But then... even corrective AI can be problematic in certain areas. I am also an astrphotographer. There also the debate is intense. I have seen images of nebulae with strucutres that don't exist, images that have apparent "resolution" by far exceeding that of the telescope used (but with lots of spurious structures), Jupiter images with cloud structures that superficially resembled the true ones but were half invented (easy to see for an trained eye).
I too advocate full disclosure about the processing steps used to produce the final image. Doing that grants you full freedom and legitimity to whatever pleases you best!
As for camera technology, I love the incredible possibilities of modern gear. And yes the key remains the feeling to be out with the birds... anticipating what this technology now allows you to achieve. Otherwise well... if you don't like the modern cameras, just stick to older ones. After all, photography has not killed painting both coexist.
Modern photography has pretty much killed daguerreotypes, though... 😊
what a great conversation, time and love given to your community, thank you
Great video which seems to touch all the elements of this conversation. As one gets older, I am 76, the new technology compensates for aging eyes, unsteady hands and slow reflexes. Thus allowing me to continue capturing great images of birds. I have manipulated one sky on one image over the years. Although I like the result, I have never shared it. For those who are artistic and creative enough to modify their images, go for it. For those who, like you and me, want to capture birds doing bird things, I love the AI stuff. Can’t wait for the R5 markII. Thanks again for the conversation.
ThanI s Duade, your channel has inspired me to learn and understand photography to the best of my abilities. My grandfather who was a avid wildlife photographer did not have digital cameras ,ibis and AI , and I can say with all honesty his photos were on par with today's professional wildlife photographers.
Thanks for your video, Duade. I was (again ) surprised how far AI has evolved building a picture.
Another topic but still relevant for our hobby is AI while taking the photo or in post processing. For the latter: removing branches seems common nowadays . For my first point: e.g. Samsung's flagship smartphones are known to fake pictures of the moon when the computer inside the smartphone determines it is night, full moon and the tele lens recognizes the moon. This happens in expensive smart phones. But as time goes by this "technology" gets cheaper and (hopefully not) may find it's way into big camera bodies. I find this also quite concerning, not only from a photographer's perspective but also as a human who can't tell what's fake and what not .
Hi Duade, I always appreciate your unbiased opinions and follow your channel to learn more about bird photography. I am based out of India and use the Canon 80D and Canon 100-400 Mk2 combo.... looking to move on to R7, have gone through the features, just wanted to know if there is a significant improvement in image quality of R7 over 80D ( keeping the additional MPs and animal eye tracking aside). Looking forward to your advice
It would be helpful to formally define classes of gear and processing so that people can compete and honestly label their work within more level playing fields. In an archery analogy, there are competitions with bare bows, traditional bows, Olympic bows, compound bows, etc. It enables people to interact within a class of their gear peers.
Thanks Jack, yes it is very difficult, many competition now have certain rules. Anzang down here is no manipulation outside contrast etc. You have to submit raw files. But then they often also have a digital art category for people who want to get creative. Cheers, Duade
Pretty much agree with everything there. As far as ‘where the line is’… I’m a bit different to most photographers… I’m coming from a deep graphic design background prior, where I’m adept at image retouching and manipulation before I was any good at taking original images.
Even when retouching, my moral code is asking this question: “Is it conceivable that the image could look like this on any given day”? E.g removing a pimple from a person in a portrait because in two days time it wouldn’t be there anyway… or removing a tree branch because the wind could’ve easily have blown it down.
If the answer is yes and you’re using elements within the same environment or captured imagery to compile a scene (stitching) that could conceivably have happened, then it’s fair game. If you’re adding or removing elements that fall outside of that (i.e. adding a bridge over a valley, or removing a mountain because it creates a better balanced composition), then that for me falls into digital art. Which is fine, but that’s my line of distinction.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Chris, it is an interesting topic that will no doubt continue on. Ultimately if we are open and honest about what we do there is no real issue IMO. Cheers, Duade
I experience the same joy with my Z8 and 500mm f4 lens costing 10k€ as 40 years ago with my Pentax MEF and secondhand 500mm f8 which took all my money as well. Technology moves on so do we. What a joy to be an amateur photographer and be part of a global community with guys like you!
Agree with the comments highlighted in the video. For us the satisfaction is being in nature, using fieldcraft to find and get close to subjects and having the skills to use the equipment whatever it is. People will soon get bored pressing computer keys to create an image that anybody else can, like painting with numbers. However we need to be mindful of camera companies creating technology for the sake of technology to part us from more of our money than their competitors. Remember the days when companies competed on the number mega pixels, we soon learnt the quality of the pixels was far more important than the number. The R7 is a good example, marketed for the impressive technology but in reality eye detect only works well in good light, 30 fps of little use due to rolling shutter and the buffer because the sensor is of insufficient quality to service the other great technology. Images and satisfaction I got with the 7D 2 are on par with the R7.
Canon R62 and 200-800 mm lens here. My background in photography began as a professional geologist and later, in astrophotography. While signal processing such as brightness, contrast, color balance, etc. is just fine, altering the objects in any way is completely forbidden in scientific photography. I can’t imagine taking a stick out of my bird pictures! I use Topaz for noise reduction and a very light touch with its sharpening engine, but these do involve generative adjustments in the image and I strive to prevent them from looking too good to be true. As for the power of the cameras: this just increases your ability to capture more and more difficult things. There will always be bigger challenges to use them on.
Agree 100%. Getting the wow factor in your photos is a learned skill and requires knowledge. Good gear helps you get more opportunities to get the shot. Knowledge of the subject, the light, the environment can’t be bought. I see photographers all the time with really expensive gear shoot straight down on the subject with no regard to the light, background or angle. Or in some cases with no regard for the wellbeing of the animal. I guess it depends on your objective. I shoot a fair amount of ID shots too. But my favorites of my own work are the ones shot with intention. They evoke feeling. Tell a story. Show some behavior. Capture a moment. Show off colors or details of the subject. I’m happy to just experience these moments. Getting the shot is a bonus. I don’t think AI can give either the photographer or the viewer that special feeling. To quote Duade: , “Where else would you want to be!”
LOL! NOPE, it does not! The sad reality is, the days where actual SKILL was required to produce great photos are LONG GONE! Now everyone on the internet is a "photographer", and literally anyone, regardless of skill, can produce professional looking photos with just a few mouse clicks! Sorry, but photography is now a lost art!~
I'm always in awe how balanced and thoughtful your opinions are! Couldn't agree more with the final conclusions! I got to the spot I'm in for bird photography (Oly EM1.2 and 75-300mm) by iterating and stretching my budget to get out of 'too hard' or too pricey corners which would just frustrate me and take all the fun out of the photography. I love ProCapture, but also have massive respect for hundreds of old school photographers who could take a perfect shot just based on behavioural clues of the animal. I must admit I still frown upon photo trap pictures I see in museums that won the highest prizes, but hey that still required a lot of dedication to get there to a mountain peak etc and set the photo trap framed to get a chance for a perfect picture. And got myself a Pluto Trigger to set photo traps in my garden so we'll see where it leads😂
Interesting discussion, I agree with about everything you said. There needs to be continual development of standards and safeguards for transparency and fairness for all. PS - I think ‘being successful’ is a more apt term than ‘privileged’ even though casually they are probably used interchangeably sometimes. Acquiring better tools and nice things because you have worked fairly and hard through dedication is success, nothing is wrong with that. It is something to be proud of, with the right amount of humility, and this last thing always comes across in your videos which is why you are my favorite YT photog!
Thank you for the kind words and comments, I appreciate it. Cheers, Duade
I agree with your assessment about AI. Personally I believe using equipment that many of us photographers can afford will render excellent photos if used with our ability to “see” the image in our minds before actually taking the picture. That takes experience and time, sometimes hours of even days depending on what we set out to capture. I still shoot with many cameras including a Nikon D200, Canon EOS 7D mk2, and an Olympus OM-D em5. Traded my trusty 5D, 40D and a number of underused lenses to purchase a R8. I am not a professional but have shot a number of weddings, portraits for friends. Just enjoy shooting landscape, wildlife, street photography and portraits.
Great topic. I started shooting with film on an SLR (Canon EOS) and after various bodies now the R5. I have enjoyed taking photos with all of them - just being out in the field, regardless of the gear is as fulfilling as it gets. If there is one thing that I appreciate most about the R5 is the ease with which I can shoot videos now ......
Great video Duade, some excellent explanations. I think basic edits to enhance an image is still a photo. Once you start to manipulate and remove parts, massively change colour etc then it’s digital art.
Thanks mate, totally agree, Cheers, Duade
It doesn't matter what you use it is the way you use it to some extent . Being in the right place in the right time is the most important element in wildlife photography . Having said that I am really enjoying the Sony A1 with the 300mm f2.8, a lens I did't think I would ever buy . I am just going out now to use it in one of the best spots around here too . Awesome 🤔
As is my general opinion regarding your videos, well articulated, and appropriate vantage point. I wish there were more channels like yours that were level headed and instructional. The "mega channels" have their space, and some are done very well. That said, I find your discussions refreshing, so thank you for that. It's very difficult to get into the business of knowing how to feel about "AI" and the rules surrounding its use. Like it or not, it's here. Taking it to the absurd, should we outlaw any wildlife photograph taken with subject detection? Auto-focus? Auto-ISO? or image generated using the patch tool, healing brush, clone stamp? Shall we go back and call Ansel Adams dodge and burn manipulation? I realize, as I'm sure you do, the frustration felt by many people in photography as of late, with the advance of pre-capture, auto-capture, global shutter w/insane frame rates and subject detection when paired with the best of gear. People feel like you can buy your way to the top by using more expensive tools. I think it's a little bit of this envy (which is understandable) driving part of this "current technology is killing the industry". I am also sure it happened with recorded music (and synthesizers), movement to digital mediums, and many other industries. Embrace it, because it's here is easily said, but it can leave some feeling left in the dust, and I can see for some of those people, it might take some of the energy out of shooting. Look at RUclips. Some people are already complaining about AI generated videos put out by people with no real photography experience looking at camera specs as "ruining the time and effort I put in making my video". Point is, there are going to be those that are turned sour by the experience, and those challenged to go out and make even better content - or become better storytellers with their photographic images. Thanks, as always, for your time and effort.
The challenge is the fun part of photography. I have a canon rebel t7. Great dlsr. That's what I could afford and recently I was able to couple that with a sigma 150-600 c. That has made some of what I do easier but challenge too to learn to work with it. No matter what the gear it's the skills that makes the camera. Sometimes I think some of the new gear makes photography like shooting fish in a barrel 😊. Thanks for you video. Very good insights.
Dear Duade, I come from Canon AE-1, I went through several Kodaks, Canon 70-D, 5D-IV and now R5. I keep them all. I continue to fight against my stupidities and limitations. I'll have to find a personal limit to this... Best from South Brazil.
Beautiful comments. Love how precisely they capture how little I care about AI when I am out there just feeling the breeze and hearing the birds.
Interesting video. As a hobbyist, AI can help with little touch ups or generative fill/remove. But I’d stick to the productivity side of things with AI to free me up to be creative or enjoy the experience
Thanks Duade. I agree with you. AI is fine as long as we're honest about it. For me the fun is getting out there and challenging myself and my skill to get the best shot I can. It's like the slot machine. A lot of misses but great joy when you get that one win!
Thanks, very true and I agree nothing can beat being out there with your camera. Cheers, Duade
I would like to see a category in competitions where no manipulation has been included in editing especially the removal of objects, people. To even out the categories. And show a different skillset
When editing photos i draw the line between removing distractions with ai/generative fill (such as branches) which take away from the composition and adding things to the photo which were not originally there. Changing backgrounds/skys or adding anything i didnt capture myself in the field for me takes away from photography and it just doesnt feel honest.
Hi Duade. I agree with your assessment 100%…. Great video mate.
Thanks Rick, I appreciate the support and feedback, Cheers, Duade
I agree with you duade Ai images should be published or share with truth and clarity. Just we photographer share even setting and time and gear. I like you discussed this point. Thanks a lot be blessed always and keep sharing your thoughts and incredible images.
Hi Duade, I've just come back in from my local nature park and it was very quiet and I didn't expect too much, but looking at the photos now, I see that I have 8 photos that I am dead chuffed with and I have uploaded them to my usual 4 Facebook sites, and I am already being told ," yes, it was well worth going out for" and working on these photos, a little sharpening, alter contrast slightly, then crop, gives me immense satisfaction, it's relaxing, I can print them and they are mine, I took them with my Nikon D500 and my Sigma 150-600mm lens, not a fortune to buy, and I won't be chasing AI .. I think AI will change publicity shots, media firms will think it a Godsend, just like estate agents did when digital came out, all of a sudden they could send anybody out even the office boy to photograph the homes for sale and they could print them or upload them, no more colour negs to be processed outside! The average photographer who enjoys the excitement of getting down and dirty will not change we need the excitement bro, God bless you you are a real nice guy. Chris.
Thanks Chris and congrats on your images and enjoying yourself whilst doing it, that is ultimately what it is all about. Yes stock photography and news etc will likey use AI as it will be so much cheaper. Cheers, Duade
I try to take images that are unique. So AI will never match a person trying to capture something that has never been seen before. As Robert Capa says “f8 and be there.” We must keep taking pictures and better tech will simply expand our opportunities.
Brilliant video Duade, certainly a lot of food for thought.
I would say that each evolution of cameras has helped me produce better photographs in certain scenarios, I could not imagine taking kingfisher diving photos with my film camera 20 plus years ago, however studio portraits are most probably no better, just a lot more convenient.
My concern is for the working photographer. As a retired newspaper photographer I can assure you that our photo staff was limited to spotting, dodging and burning an image. Doing anything more was a firing offense. Wedding photographers of the future may be asked only for quick formal portraits of the bride and groom and family, if that so the family can go home and have those photos ingested by Ai, allowing their "wedding" to take place in any of the grand cathedrals of the world or other locations of their choice. I've spent my life as a working photographer and "birding" photography allows me to keep my hand in what is now a hobby while motivating me to get out and get some exercise, hunting for my "decisive moments" in nature instead of sporting events. Ai created or altered images need to be automatically, indelibly and boldly branded as such in their meta data before we start to see a lot of "Santos" copy cats with images in the style of Duade Paton, Mark Smith, Jan Wagner, Steve Perry, etc. If the geniuses who gave us Ai can't fix this perhaps we can ask the Ai itself if it really needs programmers anymore. Things to consider.
Well presented, Sir. I still like the Corvette over the Mustang though 😉
Thanks mate, depends on the year doesnt it? Cheers, Duade
No amount of camera technology can replace a photographers field craft and knowledge of subject behavior. If I was shooting as a pro for magazines or trying to sell prints, yes I would want the latest greatest gear. But I'm not. I'm just a serious bird nerd that likes taking photos of what I see. I'm a Nikon shooter and use the D500/200-500 f5.6 lens and get excellent results. I am seriously considering the D850 instead of the Z6iii or Z8 for my next body.
As soon as I clicked on this space to give a comment, Google AI, without a prompt, popped up with "Help me write"; "Powered by Google". Duade, an excellent presentation that thoughtfully discusses the issues confronting photographers. Related to this is the issue of post-processing. If you survey the wildlife photos on Flickr, it is obvious that many of the best submitters are as skillful with photoshop as they are with a camera. But, perfect can get boring. Nowadays, my favorite submitter on Flickr is "Randy Ramshackle" who uses old film cameras, ancient lenses, and expired film to make some truly crazy and fun images.
Thanks Edward, yes, I agree that we have become saturated with perfect images and its fun to see something different. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Cheers, Duade
I checked out Randy's page. Nice work. Thanks for sharing.
It's a tricky topic things like AF has allowed us to get wonderful shots that we would not have with 35mm film when I was a lad. When it's all said you have to be in the right place at the right time, then get your setup correct. Some days, I go out and don't get a shot. The camera can't make the birds appear it's your knowledge and patience and dedication to get a shot.
Thanks Ian, well said and I totally agree with you, Cheers, Duade
Thanks for commenting on a very challenging issue. well done. I agree AI is a valuable tool available to assist with the experience..
First off, Duade, I agree with you. It doesn't matter if you're riding a horse or a bike, driving an old beater or a luxury car if either one can get you to your destination. It's the journey that matters.
Second, this conversation is not new and has been a part of everything that is touched by technological change and innovation. Innovation brings change because it seeks better, faster, more efficient ways of achieving a task. Photography is no different.
And yet, during more than 30 years as a journalist, there was resistance every time we upgraded our computer systems to allow those of us who were editors to do so more efficiently, to allow news page designers to do so more effeciently while at the same time giving them more time to be creative in the way they do their work.
Don't get me wrong -- I think it is good to have discussions about change. The whole field of AI gas generated lots of discussion on a number of fronts -- including the ethical implications of this new technology. Those discussions are necessary to set ethical parameters around new or changing technology. This conversation you have facilitated is a necessary part of change.
Change comes often with bumps and bruises, so we adapt. And when we adapt while recognizing the potential pitfalls of the change, then maybe, as humanity often does, we can adapt in positive ways.
Thanks for the discussion. It needs to happen.
When i first started out. I tried to make the moon look bigger in a beautiful image I took. It was a big mistake! Real photographers were quick to point out the lens choice and the scale of the moon compared to the background. I was very embarrassed and shamed. I have never done it since. It taught me that a true image without manipulating means you have done the best job possible without trying to change or take away elements. I recently watched a you tube channel that showed how they got the image. They pinned up a blurry background, lit it with lights and made their own branches and added sugar water to the plant in order to attract the birds. That to me is as bad as A.I.
Hello Duade! Very good video! You let us a lot of food for thuoght. You should do a review of the canon r10 because a lot of people are interested on that canera. What is ypur opinion about the r10? Would you buy it if you were a beginner with a small budget?
Thanks in advance, Nick🙂
As cameras and lenses become more high tech, there are still skills needed by the photographer it is just that those skills change. Every photographer still needs the basic knowledge of the exposure triangle, composition etc. The new skills they need are how to use the tech in the camera to achieve the result they want. The debate of cameras getting too easy has been going on since cameras were invented as each were updated. Also with regards to photo manipulation, this was going on in the dark room before digital, with dodging and burning etc. The advent of technology makes photography more accessible to more users and surely that is something to be celebrated, more people can take good photos, but it is still only good photographers that can take great photos consistently.
Have you ever seen someone compare 2 images from different cameras and declare that one is a good R5 image? My original Canon digital was the 1D with 4.4 megapixels. Some of my best images came from a 7D mark 1. I’s all about light, shadow and composition. The technology just increases your chance of success and how fast you get there.
Very thought provoking, Duade!
I love wildlife photography and the only editing I do on my pictures is changing the colours abit , if the image is to dark I just brighten it up a bit or if a birds colours look abit dull with a bright background I would just up the colours of the bird , I try to keep it as original as possible 😁
Great video. AI will not ruin this that take pictures for a hobby, but those that take it for profit to be used in advertising. Now with AI the marketing department or agency don’t ned a photographer to take a certain picture but they simply create it with AI. For years many photographers are not getting anything from stock photos as there are many people photographing for hobby and used the revenue of stock photos to finance their hobby.
For the professional wedding, events and sports photographers this will not impact because their image needs to be a real event taken place. For those doing a lot of artists photography they are in danger. Or their needs will decline. But not forget that AI needs to be feed with photos to generate the AI images. Who will shoot this photos?
Personally I have no issues with what can be achieved in camera. New tech or old , but my issues is in post process adding or taking away things or sky , that to me is then not a photograph . I use a canon 90D with sigma glass ,, I do what I can in camera to minimise editing. That's just what I prefer, as you said it's experience and practice, work with what you have and push your equipment to the limits .
Hi Duade, as I see it there is a clear dividing line. Step one has to be in the Ai debate: first take a picture. You can then debate with varying degrees of difficulty about what Ai and how much you use in post processing an actual image. People will always justify the degree to which they use or will not use Ai in post processing.
Thanks Tony, yes, I agree if we use AI or heavy manipulate our images then there is clear dividing line. Cheers, Duade
Good video, this is a topic for a full dissertation, I'll try and keep my thoughts to a few thousand words though.
First if we side step the meaning of the term A.I. as that could be its own video (is it A.I. if all it is doing is searching a database and not actually self learning)
Before I leave my thoughts on AI/Technology, I want to talk about money.
Money in photography has always been a barrier someone that could afford a top end camera and a fast telephoto prime lens 20 years ago, had an advantage over those that couldn't, that is the same today.... Arguing from a point of financial jealousy is always going to happen, but like you said even with the best gear... you stick it in automatic will the camera get the right shutter speed for the type of bird you are trying to capture? will it get the right ISO for the amount of noise you are comfortable with, will it get the right DOF.... or will it expose the photo correctly without any thought to the subject matter.
Technology in cameras that help to improve keeper rate etc, autofocus, eye detect, subject detect, pre-capture, all these are good and there is not a good argument against them. I shoot in the studio and have complete control of the lighting so yes I use manual exposure for everything.... but when i am at an event if the lighting is changing constantly and i don't have time to change settings (I really always do) I'd set the time of capture and depth of field and let the camera adjust the iso.
Technology in software to improve images we have taken is generally a good thing, manipulation of an image to change its meaning is a grey area (especially in the world of documentary photography and what is reported in the media and shown on social media)
Now the thing I really am torn about is computer generated images, the effect is very different on a enthusiast photographer taking photographs for themselves and a professional photographer who is trying to sell them, and this varies by genre.
Starting with the Wildlife photography, an Enthusiast that has got his camera gear and gone to Africa in the hopes of capturing photographs of the wildlife, someone's ability to have an image generated of a lion in Africa, does not effect the photograph they captured while they were there.
It does however effect the professional photographer, who spends months in Africa taking the perfect photographs of Lions who sells them as wall art to companies... will those companies care if the picture they put on the wall in the managers office was computer generated or actually captured?
Back to news photographers and documentary photographers image creation can be used to sway opinions (it always has, the way photos were taking and framed can paint a way different picture) but now images can be created so easily, and shared on social media, before the truth comes out the damage will have already been done... content authenticity will be a big thing for professional work , but it is not widely available yet in cameras. But the average, youtube, tiktok, facebook, x user etc, is not going to check if the image behind the post is real of computer generated.
Portrait photography, will it be effected, yes but less so. improved mobile phone cameras and filters already impact on the headshot business, but where a real likeness is needed and memories are created photography will be needed.
I'll end comment here, already so long no one will read it :)
I read it and agree with it.
I look at a camera as a tool. Simple as that! You can decide what kind of tool you want/need based on your income, preference, subject matter, location (South Pole, Namib Desert, Sumatran Rain Forest), profession , etc.
The tools we have today are truly incredible! They can do amazing things but you still have to get up early, stay up late, haul gear, get bitten, get scraped, get wet, get cold, get hot, get dirty, get hungry and thirsty, climb, hike, wade, crawl to get the shot!! The camera can't do that for you nor can it pick a subject, compose, adjust for lighting, change it's own batteries, change lenses, ad fill flash, adjust EV and the list goes on.
I'd love to have a Nikon Z9 but I don't!. I shoot with what I have and its enough. It has to be! I am a master of the tools I have because I use them all the time! I figure out how to make what I have do what I need it to do! The technology and advancements in Camera equipment are somewhat interesting to me but they are not photography! They are still just tools!
I avoid conversing with the gear junkie because they have nothing to teach me about photography. I'd rather have a conversation with ssome of our greatest photographers like like Duade Patton (wink) or Simon D'entremont, Art Wolf (I'm dating myself), Franz Lanting about their most interesting experiences in the field. Ask them how best to approach a Barred Owl without spooking it than about what camera they used to take a shot.
For me a camera is a necessary tool but close to the least interesting part about wildlife photography.
As for AI. AI is a PITA as far as I am concerned. I see an image online somewhere and its clearly AI generated and I'm a bit insulted. But what about the more subtle AI generated images? The ones that are harder to spot? Or the ones that are impossible to spot? If I look at an image of a Great Blue Heron flying over a pond in the early morning I want to know its real! I need to know its real! I need to know that someone, somewhere got up early in the morning with shitty, beat up gear and pulled off a miracle of a shot! Because they were in the right place at the right time while suffering the cold and the wet for their passion, their art, and they had skill and they nailed it.
G'day Duade. There's indeed 2 sides to the AI and newest tech. I see no problem in using AI for AF assistance and denoising. Also removing disturbing background stuff doesn't hurt too much the authenticity. But when one uses AI to generate the subject or a complete fake sunset or fake background, that's when it becomes a no-go for me. at that point it's no longer an enhanced photograph, but it becomes some kind of generating art using parts of photos as input.
I think it should be obligated that for social media you have to show or clarify if AI is used. For competitions RAW submissions feels like mandatory nowadays.
Yes some of the newer gear makes photography very easy but it doesnt mean you make good photos. I for example have a R7 and 150-600 Sigma but still struggle with basic things like finding the Animals, getting a nice backkround or even just going out.
Gear and AI isn’t everything
Thanks to social media everything like music, movies, news and photography are over-saturated. 15 sec on Tik Tok and scrolling through endless media has made people numb. And now that machines can do the creativity and replace the human aspect is quite something. That's why NG is going down. It's a sad time IMO. Strange how AI is replacing the arts first and not something like scientists or politicians. :P Thank god for sports. :(
Great thoughts on such a controversial topic.
Sticking to the gear one can afford, trying to get better without comparing it to others with other gear.
I know it's easier said than done. But it's probably the only way to get fun and satisfaction out of it.
Just getting out there enjoying the world an such a cool thing like photography.
Some people refuse to use power tools when repairing their cars: "they calling it turning a wrench for a reason..." To each his or her own. I do what I need to do to make myself happy.
Pretty interesting topic, for the most part my photography is 95% for me and 5% sharing with friends. To me it is a way to get outside an enjoy nature. I'm currently working in Shanghai, China and there is not an abundant amount of wildlife here. What wildlife there is is mostly birds. However, just getting out and exploring different areas in the nearby countryside and parks, one realizes there are more animals (mostly birds) than most local people realize. I have seen endangered species (Black Faced Spoonbill, and Chinese Alligators), invasive species (Musk Rats), frogs, hedgehogs, Chinese Water Deer, spiders, weasels (unfortunately hit by a vehicle and dead), and lots of different birds with the Golden Eagle being my favorite. I am concerned about the impact AI will have on many aspects in our daily life not just on photography, however typing some commands to a computer will never replace the experience of seeing these animals in the wild, or a beautiful sunset, etc.
Mate, that was such a brilliant insight into the current situation of digital imagery, that I'm suspicious you may be AI generated 🤣 But seriously, you have asked & answered some really important questions that creators face in 2024. Art that is creator focussed vs Art that is audience orientated. I can only contribute with the age old saying.....It's all subjective!
I agree with your conclusion. Cameras and software are tools that photographers use. Yes, the tools keep improving, but it's the person's skill in taking the photos and editing them that makes them come alive. For me, it's an exciting time for photography. I embrace the changes and use them to produce the best photo possible, not generate AI elements that were not in the photo.
I get those surveys every now and then from Adobe about what I think about so-and-so feature. And when generative AI comes up I give the same answer: there is a very thin line between photography and an illustration. It's one thing to use these tools to enhance what the sensor captures. But it's whole 'nother thing to start inserting things that were never in the frame. And I'm very uncomfortable about the glee all these companies have about being able to just remove people who were just passing by at that moment in frame. And, yeah, I'll admit I'll edit out dust-on-the-sensor blobs, but that's as far as I'll go when taking things out.
Some of my thoughts:
- for me, photography ends where you're addressing concrete details in the photo. I like to change highlights, shadows, white balance etc, as soon as it affects the whole image equally. As soon as i say something like "this corner gets treated differently", that's a step to much. But that's for me personally. As long as it's not too much changes (for example "only" putting a gradient to reinforce the lighting effects, etc.), i dont really mind it too much either, to be honest. But removing elements, or adding new ones and so on, that's where i 100% prefer the original for it's authenticity. I don't mind people enjoying ai art or heavy editing, that's just something different in my eyes. Just like photography is not the same as painting, so is ai (assisted) art not the same as photography
- someone who's calling DSLMs cheating because of better tech is stupid. DSLMs have more tech than DSLRs, but DSLRs have just as much more tech compared to anaglog photography, and so on. about a hundred years ago, you couldn't take pictures in the first place, and if you wanted an image, you had to paint (etc.) it. Is it cheating we got 40FPS and preburst on a R6m2 or R8 while DSLRs only went to like 10FPS? Is it cheating that DSLRs have 10FPS while an analog camera has to manually change to the next film, or that you have to process the images in a darkroom? Is it cheating you dont need an hour to paint a painting while having infinetly more details? It's just f'ing selfish to try to force one's own past struggles on others, while ignoring how easy it was for oneself compared to those before.
I think we created the thin edge of the wedge years ago with Lightroom Photoshop manipulation. We started with exposure correction and then colour saturation levels and specific masked areas. I remember a video you did of a seminar of bird photography to a group who weren't necessarily photographers. The ooh's of being impressed with your photography to aah's of disappointment when you showed how you edit your photos stuck with me. I could feel the disappointment of the little old ladies of being deceived somehow.
I photograph with editing in mind so for me editing is at least 50% of digital photography of any genre. Exposure in particular is something I shoot for editing in mind. However when we start removing distractions in the shot like a lot of us do, it does feel like cheating a little bit. Sometimes we can go too far and sterilise a photo to almost look like a drawing or cartoon.
I like technology to a point
But i feel like getting good photo's is getting easier.
I think of photography like fishing and some days you just come home having only caught tiddlers.
I tried to get a picture of a willow warbler yesterday but even with dxo and some lightroom i only got what I'd class as a 6/10 photo.
But it's the trying that i enjoy.
Ai is not for me tbh at 70 and being a photographer for 40 plus years I'm just not interested, nothing better than getting out and use your gear not sitting in front of a PC making some sort of image, great video as always Duade.
Machine learning is ruining post-photography for me. Because I was satisfied with minor edits to my casual vacation/hiking bird photos but after trying PureRAW on some I am now being compelled to use it and raw editing on photos I would have spent 20 seconds on the jpeg cropping, adjusting brightness and moving on. Damned tech is just too amazing to make a crappy 'documentation' shot to a decent photo. Stepped on a very slippery slope for a casual photo person who has avoided having any RAW photo workflow. Damned ai!
Nicely presented
Hi... I'm from malaysia... Can you suggest a series of canon lens best for handheld bird photography? Im using canon r7... Lens with sharpen image, best image stabilization and friendly price....