Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
I Say NO To Artificial Intelligence Photography
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2022
- In this video, I explain why I refuse to use artificial intelligence for my photography and instead focus on composing and shooting photos the way I always have. I believe that the natural and emotion-driven approach to photography is the best way to capture special moments, and I'm sure you'll agree!
What are your thoughts on AI photography?
Leave a comment below and let's have an exciting discussion.
(Some AI photography software popular these days: DALL·E 2, Midjourney).
Thank you so much for watching!
I am the founder and editor of FRAMES Magazine, quarterly printed photography publication. If you are passionate about "real" photography, I am pretty sure you would love the magazine.
Have a look over at www.readframes....
We are about to start shipping the 9th edition.
Great video. I don't look at AI as photography at all, no matter how much the output can look like a traditional photo. I do look at it as an artistic tool however -- I am working on an ongoing "serial" set in the 1920s with images that look like vintage photographs. The only way I'd be able to create images like that with photography is to hire models, buy costumes, stage the scenes, etc. For me it's opened up a new avenue of creativity that I can do at my desk (because I write the story as well as produce the images). But, it's a piece of my art that has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHOTOGRAPHY! I don't present it as photography, I present it as my digital art. NOTHING will ever replace, for me, the joy I get from wandering around with my camera looking for cool things to photograph. I look at them as two completely different animals. I do think AI has its place for photo editing, or even photo compositing, but I don't think I will ever accept a strictly AI generated image as photography. With all the recent discussions about AI and the plethora of articles, I find myself LESS interested in it than I was just a few weeks ago (I find it becoming tiresome already), and have been finding the joy with my cameras and carrying my iphone on walks downtown. Photography, real photography, is my bliss! Running prompts and re-rolling them over and over to try to get an image I'm pleased with is nowhere near as exciting to me as realizing that my lawn throws some cool shadows on my sidewalk and taking a photo of that.
YES, YES, YES Cindy! :) Love everything about your comment. Thank you so much watching and for chiming in.
Cindy, je suis entièrement d’accord avec votre commentaire ❤️🙏🙋🏼♂️🇨🇦
I work as a commercial photographer, and much of that work involves illustrating other people's ideas. I read or listen to their words, and those words inspire my image. That does not make the person who wrote or spoke the words the "photographer."
Nice presentation Thomasz. AI photography should be called AI imaging because the process does not start with collecting light - the most basis ingredient of photography.
Couldn't agree more, Boudewijn. Thank you so much for watching.
My feeling about photography and artificial intelligence is very similar to yours. I would separate photography from the AI process in the same way I would separate it from painting. Both create art, but the process is fundamentally different. A photograph begins with a view captured in an instant, complete and sufficient on its own, and turns it into an image. Painting and AI start with a blank space and completely fill it with their own imagination.
Glad to hear we are on the same page, Ted! Thank you so much for leaving a comment here.
@@framesmagazine Ted Patrick says it perfectly and succinctly: AI is an art form separate from others. I suppose that using AI one could adjust camera position and timing,
the two very most basic elements of traditional photography, but it cannot replace human sensibility and sensitivity in a single moment. In a portrait of a person smiling, for example, the smile could theoretically be graphed, showing it beginning, peaking and then fading. Can AI find the optimal 1/100th of a second when the smile was perfect for that person, when the size of the smile and the brightness in the eyes are just right, relative to the surrounding context? Maybe, but creating it is not photography, hence the term 'artificial'. If a photo that looks convincingly like a painting is not a painting, what is it? An artificial painting.
Call me a traditionalist too because I am. Photography for me is an intuitive moment where everything needed to create a magical photograph all come together in my camera: the light, composition, subject, the connection, the moment. All of the ingredients create an image that connects to the viewer and makes them feel something. I also particularly love the mystery and magic of creating photographs with film. AI is not photography, it's a computer generated image and that’s fine for people who like to create art with their computer, I don’t. I like to create with my heart, mind and soul. I like to feel and create from there. That's my preference is all.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts here, Hannah. I guess, we are on the same page :)
Here here! I agree. Sure there is a time and place for all kinds of imagery and art. Saying 'HEY AI create a moody rainy image with a girl in a long red dress with a yellow umbrella". SO EASY right? Going out, finding a model and props, finding a locations, waiting for the right weather and going out and clicking the shutter....that is photography. Sure, add textures and manipulate just as I could in the darkroom. 'nuff said.
My background is analogue photography. You had to think before taking the picture, I could not be satisfied with something I did not create myself. So I share your point of view.
What’s interesting to me about this thread is that it is all from the photographer’s perspective, not apparently the viewer’s. Traditionally, one person is the photographer, whose mind, soul, and heart go into the making of the image. If that image is put on display with the hope that it will impact the mind, soul, and heart of viewers, then the number of impacted people goes up. If you are only making pictures for yourself, that’s fine - one mind, soul, and heart are all that matter. If you go into a museum and are moved by a painting, a photograph, a sculpture, or a piece of art the provenance for which is unknown but which still fills you with wonder, would it be less fulfilling if it were an AI piece?
It is not a photograph. It was not made by one person putting an eye to a viewfinder. But still, the question: is it art? What if we are awed by it? Want to put it on our walls because it is so beautiful? Award it first place in the Colorado State Fair.
It seems a little far fetched to think of AI generated images as invading the photographic space. Like thinking Wikipedia invaded dictionaries. There clearly is overlap. Wikipedia continues to grow and evolve and contains many terms you can look up. But a dictionary is a dictionary, and photography is photography.
I think the way you draw the line between photography amd computer generated images makes sense. When we talk of photography as an art, it is an act of personal creation made possible with the technologies we use. When a computer generates the images from instructions that is not art as in a personal creation. Photography is literally "writing with light". We are not doing that using AI-generated imagery.
Thank you for chiming in, Mark. These are my thoughts as well.
Definitely agree. I've played with AI, creating various images and then manipulating them, layering and such, and combined with my own photos. The results are ultimately my vision/creation but I consider them digital art. Good overview and analysis, Tomasz.
Thank you, Michael.
I have started playing with it and got bored pretty quickly . I’m a creator, I love to create with my cameras, light, creating scenes.
I agree. Photography for me must involve the photographer seeing something rather than typing in an instruction
Thank you for watching, Simon.
A very thought provoking topic. As an amateur photographer, I want the process of deciding where I want to go to take pictures, what equipment I want to use and what I want to do in processing to present the image to others. I feel it must start with an external image that I try to capture and then present in such a way that the mood or concept that triggered my response can be communicated. I do use some AI applications in post-processing and I enjoy that aspect of making those choices.
Having started my love of photography in the era of film cameras and doing darkroom work, I know that almost all images are changed by the photographer to accomplish the end product. This to me is the "art" of photography. I understand why professionals use image generating software to satisfy their clients' needs, but it is not at this point satisfying any of my needs.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this topic with us, Dave.
In terms of photography, I agree with you 100%. I too am a purist and call me old fashioned, but I like to look at my image and know that the edits I made are minimal enough that I can call the finished image mine, created by me and not a computer. I fear the day is near that photographers will pass off AI images as their own photographs and that saddens me greatly 😢
However, there are some people creating wonderful AI art, which is something very different and does look like or not purport to be photography. It’s a different kind of art completely and very cool.
Its got to a stage where more time is spent on the computer manipulating the image than the time taken to scope out the location.I can see why so many are turning back to film photography...at least it feels real and requires true learnt skills that can relate to being a photographer
Great point, Stephen. I think the reaction to this AI madness will be actually wonderful - human beings love real life experiences more than electronically produced virtual things :)
The often-made point about time spent on a computer is not really valid. When film was the vogue process, much time could be spent in the darkroom, manipulating the final image. Techniques such as dodging and burning, split toning, dropping in skies, removing people (think Stalin), adding elements all took time, but usually in a darkened room, possibly inhaling toxic fumes. As an example, my late uncle won 2nd prize in a print competition many years ago - around the 1950s. The 20 x 16 black and white landscape print showed a rural roadside cottage in a wooded setting, wispy smoke rising from the chimney, and hoar frost on the surrounding trees. And round the corner came a horse and cart. The judges told him they were going to award him first prize until one of them noticed that the wheel of the cart had been “improved” with a touch of applied paint. My uncle confessed to this demeanour but did not tell the judges that he had painted the whole horse and cart on the print! Little is new in photography, just the way we do it. But I do agree with Tomasz that the AI programs he is talking about are the creators of the image, not the “photographers”.
AI is neither artificial nor intelligent. It's data analytics. It has nothing to do with photography. I completely agree with you Tomash. But that said: The installation created by pioneering artist Refik Anadol, in Moma NYC is pretty impressive. AI dreaming of the whole Moma collection........it is a piece of art in its own right.
I agree with you, Tomasz. Your comments are spot on! One, very casual online photography I belong to spent some time messing around with AI programs earlier this year .... most of the images were pretty bizarre and I personally did not enjoy this phase. I understand some of the benefits, however, I would never call it "photography". It comes nowhere close to the challenge and satisfaction of capturing an image you 'see'.
Thanks so much for chiming in, Amanda!
In my opinion, I agree with you, but for slightly different reasons.
As a designer, painter, illustrator, art director, I was drawn to photography for one key reason: It is the ONLY art where you capture an "ACTUAL" nano second of time and freeze it forever. A concept embodied in Robert Doisneau's notion of "Three Seconds To Eternity", where his entire curated body of work added up to three seconds of time ... 1/1000th here, 1/100th there .
Photography is time. Time defines it. The act of photography is capturing infinitesimal time AS IT HAPPENS. When you take a still photo, the still camera is a time machine ... what it captures when you tell it to, is a "one of" image never to be repeated exactly the same ... ever.
This unique aspect makes the camera indispensable to the process whatever form the camera may take, or the technology employed.
Still Photography is unique in that way. What (Content) and when (Time) are critical co-conspirators.
We apply artistic judgements such as composition like most visual artist do, or we use color, light and darks like painters have done for centuries. Etc. Many of the aesthetic applications we use were developed and refined well before photography existed. AI has access to them same as we do. If some other entity makes those "aesthetic" judgments, it begs the question whether the work is your creation.
Anyway, it's how I see it ... for now.
Some great points, Marc. Thanks so much for chiming in. And, yes the "time rule" is a great way to differentiate things here.
Thank you very much Tomasz for your commentary on this somewhat contentious issue. I agree with you 100%.. I believe that there has to be a core image that might be altered (slightly) in AI software (for it to be considered in the beyond category).
I think what I like most and what is most important to me is the fact that you described the relationship between you and your camera and how you are interacting with the world. It is you with that camera, that image that you have recorded that you are trying to be faithful to when you process it in post. To me that shows how intimate photography is for each of us. And to me that is most important. That we are re-creating that scene that we saw in our minds eye and that we took with our camera. To me that’s what post is, teasing out the details and the things that I want you to be able to react to from one of my images. Or some thing that makes me want to tell a story with that integral image.
Thank you for being true to your traditions. I appreciate and applaud you on that.
Thank you so much, Liz.
I so agree with you. For me photography is a very tactile and emotional experience. It nurtures me. AI is cold, impersonal. It assembles an image but it DOES NOT decide to capture a particular moment. That image is surely artificial whereas all photographers actually capture a moment in time, decide on the specific image to capture, a step closer, a step further away, wait for a look, light to change, that thing that inspires us when precisely to press the shutter. NO! NO! NO! to AI 'PHOTOGRAPHY'!!
Thank you so much, Joe. Happy we agree on this one!
Hi Tomasz, thanks for pinning your colours to the mast. As I said in my response to the email that you sent, I too think that AI image making is not photography for pretty much all the reasons that you outlined in your video. I guess that this makes me just a photographer (I wouldn't even use the term traditional).
Thank you, Trefor.
it is difficult to establish boundaries, given that technical evolution creates opportunities for creation and art forms previously unavailable. I try to follow a simple rule: one camera, one image, small retouching in post production is an art and it's called photography, all the rest, with AI or not, are also amazing, and I call it an art form, different from the photography.
Spot on, António.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Tomasz. We all carry a television monitor (if you will) between our shoulders. It is uniquely ours, and through it we process our visual world. Emotions, quality of light, compositions …all constantly fomenting images that represent our experiences and tastes. As photographers our camera distills those personal moments in time. Anything that diminishes the purity of those moments (besides our own post-production enhancements) is acquiescing or submitting to some graphic algorithms that are out of our control (and therefore not ours).
What is sad about technology in the context of a capitalistic society, often times humanistic artwork takes a back seat to monetization. Talent yields to gimmickry.
Thank you, Ron. Well said.
I agree, full-on AI images created solely by inputting text and not using a camera are not photos, and they should be clearly LABELED as such. I mention in descriptions to what degree if any I have enhanced or changed an image.
I think the key thing here is when AI is the original sole creator of the image (except for the text prompt), by definition it's not a photograph. When AI is used as a tool to speed up workflow (e.g. to select an object automatically rather than spending ages tracing the object's edge manually), or enhancing detail (as you say to sharpen a blur or add detail or resolution to a face or a missing texture to existing hair/fur/features), that to me is not affecting the creativity of the image. It's still the photographer's image, all we are using AI for there is to speed up a laborious process no different than using a power tool instead of a hand tool for DIY. It still needs the skill of the creator to apply it in a realistic and nuanced manner and in accordance with their vision. It will be interesting to see how far AI develops in-camera. Using AI for focus selection is clearly a very useful tool and in no way compromises the photographer's creativity. If we start getting mobile phone style computational photography appearing in cameras (e.g. fake depth of field, bokeh etc), that may be a step too far.
We are on the same page. Thank you so much for chiming in.
For me it is very simple, what you do and many others like you who like traditional photography, take pictures usually with a camera. Others like me have little interest in taking pictures, I prefer to make pictures. As a result I have no interest in being called a photographer, but rather an image or picture maker. AI and other similar technologies (including cameras) can be used to make images. My primary job as an artist is to edit those images made by whatever means, and form them into my art. Making art is all I care about doing no matter how I do it.
Images made byTraditional photography can certainly be considered art depending on the image, and so can images made by anything else. I suggest that you simply call what you do traditional photography, and everything else image making. If in your photo blogs, web sites, newsletters, etc. you only want to present photography as it is traditionally defined, don't show anything else. Or perhaps you could have two segments one dedicated to traditional photography, and one to image making of any kind.
Absolutely, Michael. Couldn't agree more. What I am occasionally "annoyed" with is the fact that people call their AI-only-generated-images "photography". As you know, I am more than open for any other kinds of creative, visual creations. That's why we maintain a special "Beyond" section in FRAMES Magazine.
@@framesmagazine Yes and I am thankful that you do so I can continue to share my images, THANKS!
Totally agree. Should not be called photography. It's a computer game where the computer does all the work. I recently saw a image in a photo group, the image was awesome however I knew the image had been created as it was well beyond the expertise of the person that created it. I did ask the person if the image was created using AI. however they didnot get back to me. It's like cheating or using someone else's image. As I said it should not be called photography.
Great start! Totally agree with your perspective, and yes, that is a "traditionalist" perspective. There are many different perspectives and opinions on this subject, and there is room for all those perspectives. It is a new technology, and who knows where it will go and how it might shape what we do. We have to accept that things do change. There were photographers who felt digital image-making (way back, just before the turn of the century) was not photography. I still want to carry my camera and make an image from reality, but while I made the image it is no more "real" than an AI image. Still, I am not ready to fully cede my creativity to another - be it human or silicon.
Thank you so much for watching and chiming in, Reed.
There are AI-generated images that 'look like' photos' but it certainly does not make them photography. There is a very simple test: just replace the word photography with a word painting. You can create an AI image that looks very much like a painting, but you cannot mislead anybody by calling it a painting. It's just an image that looks like a painting.
I agree with everything you say here.
My personal view and approach is based on trying to take the image as well as possible in the first place that is, trying to have the eye for a situation and capturing a moment just as the great photographers from the past would have done. No matter how much we spend on equipment, it will never compensate for a lack of vision.
I also try to limit any post editing to what I would do in the darkroom with film printing.
Thanks for your information sharing.
Thank you so much for joining the discussion, Michael and for sharing your approach.
Dear Thomasz, I would happily implement certain aspects of AI Imaging into my photography as a tool in my photography. Thank you for highlighting and discussing this new development in our image making process. An image generated by submitting words and getting them translated into a visual pixel blender is not photography in my opinion but may suit certain people and purposes. A brain (or vision etc.) and camera are still the only and ultimate tools for creating photography.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here, Robert!
I’m totally with you, if it hasn’t been captured with a camera, it isn’t photography. Whilst I play with long exposure landscape and coastal photography, there are always recognisable, static structures in the image, the exposures is to enhance patterns and lines in the sky and the sea, to give the impression of movement. There is something very therapeutic in the process of capturing the image, being in the moment and at one with your surroundings, that cannot be created artificially.
It has more in common with someone who draws or paints. Something I wish I was good at! But it's not photography.
Too me, photography is about capturing a moment in time that may never happen again. Yes, it's acceptable to improve the technical aspects such as making an image sharper. I feel it's also acceptable to remove litter or other 'snags' that may detract from your concept. Changes in colour or tones should help the viewer to feel what the photographer is feeling when he presses the button. Doesn't always work, of course!
In a nutshell. Painting, drawing and AI means adding components to try and build a concept. Whereas, photography, generally means changing the feeling of what you've captured, using those colours or tones, and removing those things that are an obstruction.
A photograph is a moment captured in time. Once the shutter is clicked, the captured image is of a moment that can never be recreated. The moment is gone; the photo is the preservation of the moment. It becomes a part of history. Digital photo-art and AI images are not photographs - they are computer creations.
I agree with you. it may be a new kind of art, but the feeling is completely different from photography. it lacks all purposes of photography and there are so many. Register a moment in time, freeze something important in history for you or for others, capture the most amazing light, click a sunset or the milky way. For me what this new world lacks the most is the experience itself. If you don't value the experience and moment you captured which ever event, how can you trully value photography ?
Thank you so much for leaving a comment, Pedro. Nice hearing from you.
My take on AI Photography is that is basically script writing. It's writing up a story and having a software program produce your story. Sometimes when I create an elaborate photograph I will write down my ideas and produce a mood board. This helps get my idea across to my creative team. We use my ideas as a starting point and once on set we may adapt from there and shift and change as we get inspired. It's that human element that helps create the photograph. It's something from our hearts and minds and the free flow of creative intuition that helps create a photo. "We see with our eyes and capture with our hearts."
Nice thoughts. Thank you, Christian.
This reminds me of a photography class I took about ? 15 years ago? back when digital first came out cheap enough to become popular. The instructor said "it's not a photograph, it's a file." I often ender if that teacher still feels that way, and if they now consider digital shots to be "photographs."
I wonder if in 15 years we'll be thinking of AI as photography, too.
📷
Digital capture is still… a capture. I think that’s a fundamental difference between a photograph and what an AI generated image is.
1. "Photography" is literally writing with light which is AI is not. AI is image generation software.
2. What to do if one cannot distinguish between photograph and AI generated image anymore???
It's all about being transparent and honest for me, Andriy.
It 100% isn’t photography, But it will put a lot of photographers out of work on the not to distant future.
Dougie, to be honest I am not so worried. I do believe that the power of human creativity and emotions will always (or at least - in the long run) win over a computer chip.
Technically, it isn't "photography" unless it's "drawing with light," as the name reflects. And yes, as Dougie mentioned, it will soon put a great many people out of work -- as digital and the "out of the woods, instant photographers" put me out. I get it, and neither do I endorse AI "photos." But hey, I might have listened to more than half of your video . . . except the "repetitive, 'telephone waiting'" music underlying it all was driving me bonkers. Maybe get a real tune and have it playing softly in the background?
Yes it is not. However cameras also use AI to improve focus and make it possible to take action and detail pictures that has not been possible before. As a Fuji and Sony user I find use for both brands. Fuji for traditional every day photography that I love, but Sony A1 allow me to take action pictures in nature due to its fantastic focus system that Fuji cannot do with current cameras especially focus systems also driven by AI
It will kill whats left of the stock photography market for sure.
Just say what you want and a picture pops out. What commercial art buyer can resist that?
Thank you so much for this thoughtful, detailed commentary. I enjoy both taking photos and creating digital art pieces with them, and I like your distinction -- if something is injected into a photo -- then it becomes digital art. I really enjoy the processes of getting just as close to the line as I can, while keeping it a photograph, as well as pushing through the line in order to create what is undoubtedly a piece of digital photo art.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts here, Bill.
I'm in total agreement, Thomasz. An image can be many things, including art. But, if it didn't originate in a camera; i.e. isn't the result of human decision regarding subject and perspective, it's not a photograph.
Thank you so much for watching and for chiming in here, George.
I agree with you. I still use film alongside digital. I recently purchased an old Mamiya RB67 to get that authentic mediun format look. Yes it has its drawbacks but it is a real capture and not dreamed up in my laptop.
Wonderful, Lujon!
Thanks, Tomasz! I agree with your assessment. I started with film and photographs were taken as a result of curiosity or intent to investigate a particular subject. The darkroom experience was magical! Had to give it up eventually because of health considerations. When digital came about I had to learn Photoshop. Am not a natural computer person nor do a I enjoy being tethered to them for hours. Too much like my former day job. So, limit my involvement to the bare minimum and concentrate on the process when making a photograph. Sometimes it works and if it doesn’t I go back and retake or create a new version. Would rather learn from my own mistakes than from an APP or Ai. I am a former printmaker and process plus visual decisions are critical to make a good print. Think the same is true with photography so Ai is not my path.
🙏🙏🙏
I do consider it an ART form, but it is definitely not photography. You are correct a photo always start with a capture of an image not digitally designing without the capture being made.
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing your thoughts 🙏
The term "AI Photography" is indeed misleading. From my own long background in moving images/motion pictures/movies/film/video, "AI" is only a tool, a part of the process not standalone in and of itself. Since early days of creating images, many artists have combined elements in camera, or in post - photoshop or in optical compositing tools, computer-assisted motion control "photography" or CGI - computer-generated imagery (for film/movies). What "AI" can do for any photographer/artist/imagist is indeed tweak, customize, fix, sharpen, etc. But if a picture is fully created via prompts - I would want to separate that method and concept from what Photography is; but, then, what to call this technique?. AI Imagery sounds better to me; or, at least, credit given to the program that provided the capability.
Absolutely, Jane. What I can't stand is people using "AI" and "photography" in one single phrase :)
@@framesmagazine people like to take an easy route to describe something. I hope more users do give credit to the program / app.
Totally agree with you. Photography is art, art is expressing our soul and intellect without rules or boundaries, it represents the way we humans understand, interpret and choose to express our thoughts. No AI so matter how perfect it will be will ever replace art, it can improve it, it can perfect it, but the minute art is not produced by a mortal soul can not be called art. It can be an amazing photograph but it is not art, it does not express emotions, feelings, ideas, perceptions, knowledge, of the photographer.
Graphing or recording light (Photography) is a human need to express / record the creators feelings and emotions at a specific time and space of our temporary existance on this planet. Best wishes to all Photographers / Artists.
Thank you so much for chiming in, @arig!
Hey Tomasz, great opening rant - and I agree with what you say. What I'd like to ask these software designers is this: when are you gonna stop to think for a second about the consequences of your efforts? I used to play drums for a living- a big percentage of my work was replaced by drum machines. AI is replacing photographers, and even the faces of actual people on corporate websites - not only is the headshot photographer's job under threat, but companies are pretending they have a bigger staff than they really do to gain a business advantage. Now I make some of my money by editing text and writing web content. That too is under threat from AI-generated text and grammar correction engines, along with the work of voice-over artists whose voices are being replaced with AI-generated ones. I don't begrudge AI designers the right to make a living, and they are undeniably talented people, but can't they focus their efforts on creating new spheres of endeavour which don't destroy the livelihoods of others? Surely there's money to be made elsewhere.
Thank you, Fred, for sharing your thoughts.
Unless a person is willing to add a second name like “AI” to all those fancy signatures I see under prints, then I say no way.
Lots of good points. I completely agree that AI generated imagery is not photography. And it’s very much has to be a personal choice where to draw the boundary with digital enhancements to camera captures.
I always believe an image that is going to get a strong effect applied needs to be very strong compositionally, good bones, to be more than just a showcase for an effect.
AI is here, like it or not and I expect from a commercial standpoint, will devalue stock photography even more, eventually replacing it for the most part.
I’m not too concerned with it. I’m just going to keep seeing and taking pictures. And sometimes add a texture to them. Or two.
Absolutely, Maisy. I am not worried about "traditional photography" too much. It will always have its place.
Cameras will always be part of my photographic experience. But, as a learning photographer I am a user of post processing developed by a Ukrainian company that helps me eliminate, correct or replace items which were not available at the time I depressed the shutter. Thank you for your forthright and educated opinions and product
Tom, of course editing (to a certain extent) can be vastly supported by AI. It has already been a part of photo editing applications for years.
@@framesmagazine I fully understand that the programs have been and still available. AI shortens the learning curve, that may be moot to younger artists but at 84 I want to do what I can Now. Thanks
Storm in a tea cup. The featured awarding winning A.I art isn't what it seems. The art st had to specifically give the network what to draw. The creator knew what subjects, styles and content would place well. That is a win for the artist, not the machine. The artist then worked on the image in post for another 80 hours to finesse it to the standard it was. That is a win for the artist. The most superior of computers cannot process any equation that involves infinity. Creativity is an infinity. When we ask the most advanced science, why do create, draw, sculpt, do music, dream, and sleep? We have no firm answers, yet we are somehow thinking we can explain to a neural machine that which we can't explain ourselves. The A.I art is very much human art, where the artist used a tool to speed up their own thought and lay the framework for them to finish the work.
I agree with you, Thomas. I also think the modern cameras which can a bird or other animals eye and “the photographer” only need to press the shutter. After 2 seconds he/she has 200 hundred of images to select from. In my opinion this will kill wildlife photography.
Make sure you stick to your values and ideals, Kenneth. Only this way you will be truly enjoying what you do.
100% agree! Don't see how it can be called photography which by definition involves the use of a camera. A more accurate name would be AI image or art! We should sue them for using the misleading concept that it has anything to do with photography!!!
Thank you for commenting, Stefan!
Agree. It is not photography. In fact it bears absolutely no relation to photography. It's closer to painting, in which the artist (or, in this case, the computer) creates the picture in response to stimulus they have received. In the case of a painter working in the field, the stimulus is their impression of the scene and their feelings towards it. In the case of the computer, it is your text input.
With photography, light reflected off the actual subject enters the lens and falls on the film or sensor. Those photons create an actual link between the subject and the medium!
I think maybe the term AI "Photography" has probably arisen due to the average person first thinking about photography when imagining how to create image. If this technology had existed 200 years ago it would probably have been called "AI Painting".
I do believe there is a place for AI in photography though. I make fairly frequent use of Adobe's "Super Resolution" to quadruple the size of my images. This is a powerful tool, far superior in my opinion to the regular upsizing options that exist in Photoshop. It uses AI and I have to say, it has restored detail in some of my images that I believed you'd have had to be there at the point of capture to see.
Thank you so much for watching and for sharing your thoughts with us, Mark.
I totally agree with you Tomasz. However much I love and embrace new technology using a computer to be creative for me just doesn’t float my boat. Photography for me is my creative outlet my camera is my paint brush my environment is my canvas. I am happiest when I have a camera in my hand wandering, looking, visualizing and creating an image. But I also understand that a lot of people get their creative buzz in front of a computer screen we are all different. I try to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer.
Thank you for sharing your perspective here, Kate 🙏🙏
Hi Tomasz, I am so happy you brought this conversation here. I've been using cameras since 1977, both stills and video cameras. I witnessed, as you did, the shift from a 'straight' pure (if you discount any dodging and burning old school style) image that represented a memory or a moment in time. For me, still the purest form of photography and indeed I am sure one of the reasons Leica are successfully relaunching the M6. Purists, old schoolers, hipsters and those new to the analogue experience will no doubt buy them up. And for very good reason, for me (and I think for you), photography is just that; the stopping of time in a fraction of a second - the intrinsic satisfaction of using the camera, choosing the right lens, working with the light, composition and so on... something I teach my photography students all the time (I am not a full time photography teacher, though). Sure, when we do product shoots in some of my lessons, we use macro lenses, stack images in photoshop, clean up here and there, but like you, a cigarette butt, a piece of trash, a crane on a skyscraper might be removed in photoshop, unless we are purely after a cinema verite look. Now, due to where I live, I am unable to photograph outdoors for around 6 months of the year; humidity, sand, dust and heat do not allow it. But, I NEED to be creative - bought a piano to teach myself and my daughter to play, we draw, I dabble in AI generated images ('images' I repeat, definitely NOT photography). AI tools in PS and upscaling tools are marvellous... need to upscale an old photo for printing? Great! But, Midjourney and the likes are not photography, in the same way CGI and digitally created frames in blockbuster features might not be true 'cinema' to a purest (I lean towards this, too). However, isn't it the narrative associated with the thing we are looking at that counts, that supersedes how the image we are viewing was created (opens can of worms)? I spent 4 months teaching myself Midjourney, not to 'replace' or even enhance my photography, but as a deep experiment to generate 101 images that had a theme, a narrative and connection to things that could never be photographed in reality, as they do not exist. Unable to go out and shoot (yes, I could shoot indoors and often do), I needed an experiment, an outlet, to see what this whole thing is about. What I do strongly believe and know empirically is that AI generated images are NOT photography, I think that is a clear quantitative and indeed qualitative statement. Can AI images be mistaken for photographs? Not so much (yet), perhaps as 3D art or as water paintings and so on, depending on using prompts such as 'in the style of an oil painting'. I have had several robust discussions with fellow photographers on this subject, some are very anti and some also enjoy playing with AI to create something new, AI NFT's are selling, AI images used as ad campaigns, used to try and generate product photographs and so on. I get it, I really get it and there is a deep philosophical, artistic and practical discussion to be had here. My plan is to try and get my images printed and shown in an exhibition to OPEN UP a discussion with many artists I know (painters, photographers, musicians) around this subject. I find exhibitions offer the opportunity to have a true conversation face to face rather than in a chat in a facebook comment thread, or even here - there is so much more going on as to who is creating these images, their motivations (to make mood boards, storyboards, images for graphic novels, to win fine art competitions, or simply to play), but what I can tell you is that you and I are on the same page Tomasz. AI images are definitely NOT photography, but what this tech is, is disruptive and will have a lasting effect on image creation across all types of genres... AI composed music, AI created movies, AI written TV news scripts and presenters. The key is to be and stay human, interact with each other and embrace a sense of community in 'real life' not in the meta verse. Long live photography in print and FRAMES Magazine.
Thank you so much, Richard, for such an insightful comment.
I agree totally with everything you have said in this video and frankly a little worried about the future of photography! I am definitely a traditionalist, ie., an image or even several captured through a lens, wether it be a mobile or camera.
We will be fine, Joanna! :)
Questions about what constitutes photography have abounded since its invention in the 1820s by Niépce and Daguerre. These definitional battles between purists who only tolerated single negative images and progressives who used collage techniques, both in the darkroom and afterwards, have plagued the history of photography. Robinson, Rejlander and Hanna Maynard were early collagists but their work always stemmed from the camera. The battles became more fierce in the 20th century exemplified by William Mortensen's debate with Ansel Adams in the pages of Camera Craft magazine. Now most of us use digital approaches to photography and manipulate the image in the computer. At the least most use colour and tone correction which does much to determine the look of the image, and many of us go further using digital filters to alter images and even collaging other elements into the final images.
All these are part of photography, which means writing with light (photo and graphos). Even photograms, made in the darkroom or the scanner, involve building an image with light and deserve to be part of the world of photography. The AI imagery that you describe doesn't involve that crucial element of making an image with light so they are not photographs in any way, neither more or less so than a pen and ink drawing, an etching, a water colour, a fresco or an oil painting. That doesn't mean the AI image can't be art, but it doesn't meet the definition of "writing with light".
Of course, Tom. I never would say that AI image can't be art by itself. But I can't accept it as being called "photography".
I have been having this debate with myself and other members of my local photography group for the past few years!
What is a photograph? Are we photojournalists capturing exactly what the camera sees (often less but sometimes more than the human eye can visualize) or are we artists trying to realize a vision that we have or expect? Perhaps it is a little of both?
Whatever our purpose, with modern cameras and software with artificial intelligence (ai) and adjustment sliders we have seemingly infinite capabilities to manipulate an image from the journalistic (what you see is what you get) to the fantastical (compositing, background and sky replacement,etc.) where reality is left behind.
Personally, while I love the activity of photography, when I am out capturing the Fall colors, a sunrise or sunset, or what have you, the camera is somewhat of an afterthought - even if photography is one of the purposes of my outing! I want to be the true witness to whatever scene I put before my eyes.
I recently posted two images to show reality vs. enhancement. While the enhanced view was vibrant and the type of scene that might get a few more oohs and aahs, the straight out of camera view is what registered on my brain.
The enhanced view was no more than using the usual tricks to "boost" fall color in Lightroom. Things like auto-tone, contrast, vibrancy, HSL/Color, shadows, etc. It looked great, but wasn't even close to what I saw. I was a bit disappointed that the natural colors weren't more vibrant that day. Nothing can change that experienced perception.
While the enhanced version might give others the impression that the scene was beautiful (as we had hoped), to me it didn't change reality. Had I posted just the enhanced version and someone jumped in their car and drove for a couple of hours to see the same view, they would be pissed!!!
I still enjoyed the outing and didn't stop searching...and I guess that's the point.
I don't think you have to capture bigger, better, brighter images every time. It is about the experience. The "being there" as I call it is what makes the heart beat a little faster and makes you say wow...or it can sometimes leave you unfulfilled. When the latter is the case, it also fills me with a resolve - to get back out and try again when the conditions are better. I KNOW the scene is there but I want to see it with my own eyes and be moved somehow.
Enhancing or creating an alternate vision will not make me feel as good as "being there". For as many days...and hopefully years that I have left, I will continue to be motivated by the search for beauty in things. Photography while an important part of my life, will hopefully let me document a moment in time but will never replace the feeling that you have inside once you really find it.
I can see Ai for some needs...editorial, advertising, actually creating a surrealistic view or world to suit a need, but I don't feel it should be used as a crutch...or even a total replacement for proper camera and processing techniques - that "I can fix it in post" mentality.
I would rather have the experience of going out to capture my perfect scene ten times before I finally get "the one" instead of faking it. When I do play with an image just to see what will happen and like the result, I feel a responsibility to disclose what was done so that I am not selling a false impression.
Thank you so much for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts with us. I guess we are sharing the same approach!
I agree with you 100%. I have a hard time with processing techniques like sky replacement if you want to call a photograph. I am very much a traditional get and walk photographer. Thanks for this! BTW, love the magazine.
Thank you so much, Tim.
Hello, I believe the vision, decision or click is irreplaceable, as well as the entire repertoire of the photographer's life, creating images based on the concept he has of that moment is unique.
👍🏼💪📷
I really enjoyed this video. I share your feelings about photography being personal. It is the human connection that counts. AI to me is more about entertainment than art.
Thank you, Sonja.
Totally agree. The definition of photography is “drawing with light”. AI is drawing with computers.
Thank You Thomasz this video and your opion what is AI. This term and information was what I needed to take topic discussion this AI. And now I knew what I have been and what I want to do in future. I have been photographer and I want learn and learn more for it. And thats why I do to take photos. And I want to take also filmphotos, I haven't learn it yet. So I agree your opinion AI.On the other hand I also be artist and in future I want learn about digital art. But to me it's different thing than photography.
Thank you, Ru! Stick to what inspires and excites you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on AI. I agree that a "real" photograph is created by capturing an image with a camera ... it does not start on a computer. I use Topaz AI software as an extension of Photoshop Lightroom to sharpen and enhance photographs as the finishing touches before printing the image on paper or some other tangible thing. Creating images using only AI software and a computer has its place but it is a totally different thing. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to tell the difference in the final product if the intent was to make a fake photograph ... that would be heresy.
Bravo ... I am glad you have finally come out with this ... I hope that others will sign onto you opinion. AI created image IS artwork but NOT photography.
Thanks so much, David.
I enjoy taking my camera, making an image, and working with it in post processing. I get all sorts of advertisements telling me that the AI post processing will do all the work for me and give me a superior photograph compared to what I can do. That may be true, but why do I want someone else's "vision" of what my photo should be take priority over my "vision"? I enjoy post processing as much (not "almost as much") as taking the photo. I enjoy recreating what I "saw" when I took the photo. I, too, am old school and intend to stay that way.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, Jim.
I'm very much the same for AI image generation. Let's not use the word AI photography, it frames the process into something it isn't. Even taking a screenshot in a photorealistic video game has more to do with photography than this, if you are able to change composition, angle etc.
For everything which is happening in editing, everyone has their own boundaries. I was against sky replacement for a long time. I changed my mind with two rules: 1. I never use a sky which I didn’t photograph myself. 2. I won't change the scene completely, like doing a sunset on an overcast daylight sky. But also I don’t refuse it completely, especially when I was taking photos at a place I might never go again.
Removing elements from a scene: Yes, mostly if they are non-permanent, like some litter on the street, or some skin issue in a portrait, which will be gone in a few days.
Sven, agreed. Everyone has to set his own boundaries. But I am also against combining “AI” and “photography” in one phrase.
My thoughts are the same as your own but you said it better than i ever could have done , AI image making has its place but is not photography as i understand photography and i tend to ignore it at every turn , great video and well explained , thank for sharing Tomasz
Thank you so much.
I absolutely agree!!! 100% AI disallows creativity, intuition, contemplation, connection, and story, capturing a moment from your personal and individual view point. To express the world through AI is to disconnect from humanity, while it might find it's own niche like "creative editing" there needs to be a distinct separation. Otherwise what the hell is the point of Human Creativity??? If bots replace humans with all casual interaction, we literally and figuratively "check ourselves out", who do we have to blame but ourselves??? Then we are no longer really self actualizing are we? I prefer not to be an extension of AI. I am a visually challenged and stimulated photographer who prefers interpreting the world with all my 7 senses, and as an independent woman who said "hell no to the darkness" I say the same thing to AI.
Thank you so much for joining this discussion, Lori-Anne. Appreciate it a lot.
AI is Graphic Arts. Photography is so much more.
I agree that AI is not photography. But it is image making. I've only just become aware of it through a video of one of my musical favorites, the late Walter Becker. Somebody generated the still images for the video- I don't think Walter had anything to do with them. I found some of the images to be quite evocative, while others added some odd distortions to the faces. Maybe the technique one needs to develop will have to do with how one enters the prompts, how one useslanguage- another favorite thing of mine. I don't know. I haven't tried AI myself yet. But I would like to try. But no, I don't think of it as photography. I think they are two different things, each resulting in images, but via two very different paths.
Thank you for commenting, James. Yes, my biggest problem is with someone using "AI" and "photography" in one phrase.
@@framesmagazine Right, like using "rap" and "music" in the same sentence...
For me, AI will kill photography as we know it. I want to take my own pictures by going out and about, not by sitting at a computer.
I will definitely not kill it, Philip. No worries here!!
With no photographer involved in capturing the image, it is not photography. Image creation yes, photography no. Great video 👍
Thank you, Matt!
I agree, and my editing boundaries are pretty similar to yours. I still would call photo art, even if it modifies the original photo photography too, or at least as some call it lens-based art. But AI, that's not even light capture, that's an artificial creation of an image, more like a painting. All you have to do is look at a typical definition of photography: "The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)". That includes alternative processes like cyanotype etc, it doesn't necessarily require a lens. But it does require exposure through light on a photo sensitive medium. And AI in my limited understanding of it is surely not that.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Karin!
I believe the capture of a reality, both in terms of the photographer, camera in hand, selecting facing and recording something - and the thing being recorded by camera and photographer, in all its messiness (rain, dim light, trash on ground, fingertip on lens etc) is the only real photograph. Any alteration after that even at the most basic level is not photography. It is creating an image. I crop, filter etc but I never feel like a photographer when I do. I feel like an artist. I value both equally but once that initial take is changed artificially whether the photographer changing what they took to make it look better, or AI, they change the heart of the photo. I think both are equally valuable but the minute I tinker my photographer self is back seat. Having said that I have changed a photo to make it look like what I was aiming at, but I still see (or feel) the end product as a construct. AI photography seems just an extension of what I do when I tinker with the filters on my phone. The difference being that I express my vision in text. Both mess with visual truth and create false realities.
Thank you so much for joining this conversation, Rhonda, and for sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated.
So much now is in a state of flux. Stock agencies will soon be dead as is even the need for models in advertising. Do we think industries will pay for that which can be created for free? Is there soon to be a Bresson 'Decisive moment' command or a Gene Smith printing style filter? There's the Van Gogh style order, why not these? The way this change is happening so quickly, I think many need to be prepared to have the rugs pulled out from beneath them. Get ready to jump.
I agree. A photograph is a picture produced with an equipment taking photos: camera, mobile etc and that has been manipulated basically within the boundaries of a analog lightroom. A photograph is a sub-group of image/picture. AI-based picture is another sub-group, a painting another etc.
That’s how I see it. And for me the end result is the most important.
Best regards
Christian Odevall
That
🙏🙏🙏
Many thanks Tomasz for this video, I completely agree with you.
Thank you so much, Mikołaj.
Fantastic overview of what true photography is and should always remain. The capturing of a scene, a person, people, wildlife etc. in real-time with a photographic device albeit a film or digital camera or whatever image capturing technology the future will bring us. But AI produced works are not photography but digital art with occasional elements of photography included. I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for AI art but it definitely should not be classified as photography. Although AI imagery can be impressive and have the ability be able to hold your gaze momentarily to me it is soulless, lifeless and devoid of reality. I would much rather studying a less than perfect photograph that has captured something that is genuine, beautiful, emotional and real instead of something that has been created entirely by the use of zeros and ones. The wonderful thing about art is that it is totally subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And the creation of any art in any form is a wonderful and enjoyable experience for the artist and those who enjoy his or her work. There can never be enough experimentation, exploration, pushing of boundaries or creative passion in the art world. Without these elements art would become stale, boring , mundane and repetitive. May every artist let their imagination run wild and allow everyone to contribute to create beautiful art. It is one of life’s saving graces in these crazy and uncertain times. It keeps us centred, focused, mindful and at peace when we are in the creative flow. Thanks for the video Tomash and the opportunity to comment. Craig George
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this topic, Craig. Much appreciated.
I think your commentary was right on. AI should be tool, not an end in itself.
Thank you, Larry.
Tomasz, I'm with you! A critical and informative blog. Thanks.
Thank you, Andrew.
Frankly speaking I get to know what is AI photography is only clearly now! Personally I am not adept to it! I’m an old fashioned & outdated yet still a serious amateur photographer! Thanks for the video! I liked it.
Thank you so much for watching and leaving a comment, Sabur.
The AI image generation I have seen is by Midjourney. No one would mistake one of those for a photograph. They all look like illustration or painting. Are there other AI systems that create realistic photographs?
Bill, there are certain specific instructions you can add to your prompt that will make Midjourney generate images looking really photorealistic.
There's no comparison IMO. I take photographs for my own intrinsic pleasure, I enjoy it. Image submission I make to magazines or competition the rules exclude image manipulation & AI.
I also enjoy digital compositing which includes AI but i see this as separate pastime & is not photography.
Comparing apples with oranges imo
Agree, Bubble. Two completely different kinds of activity.
I agree for 100% with your analysis !
Thank you so much, Jo.
I tend to agree with you for the most part because I too view photography as quite different from an AI generated image, just as watercolour is different from carving wood (though both are ways of creating visual art). What I don't understand is how the AI software can 'create' a 'photograph' ... from where are these images drawn? Are they taking bits and pieces from photographs that are online somewhere? I don't honestly understand that 'creation' process.
Yes, that's exactly how it works, Diane. It analyses millions of photos available online and creates a new image based on this data.
@@framesmagazine Thank you so much for clarifying this for me.
I like honesty in photography. I'm not interested in make believe. Not only is AI phony, the vast majority of photos you see on various display boards are artificial because they're enhanced way beyond reality. People ought to label them as computer art. I see pictures saturated like comic books, with sun rays added, lampposts removed, people inserted. It's bogus. Sure, they get more attention than my standard-colored pictures, because people like entertainment, but at least I know that my reflect the actual scene or portrait person. I don't have any problem with exposure or slight color adjustment as long as you're not altering reality. I use a Fujifilm X100V
Very clear point of view in this discussion over AI.
I totally agree with Thomas.
Artificial intelligence doesn't take a photo .It merely gives you a picture. May be fantasy , may be based on real photographs , there the photographer is absent.But looking at the picture [AI] may invoke in the viewer an emotional response that could be very similar to that produced by a photograph of the same place ,object , animal etc.But the pleasure of taking the photograph , being there in the moment and losing oneself in the process and becoming one with the universe where you forget everything else ,is not there with AI. So from a photographer's perspective it is worthless but from an ordinary viewers viewpoint it still gives him the joy of seeing a picture if it is good enough.And all intelligence whether artificial or otherwise comes from the LORD himself and without there being an observer there is no experience.
Absolutely agree, Usha. And of course I am not talking about the viewer's perspective in the video. I am talking about the definition being used and about using "AI" and "photography" combined in one single phrase. That does not work for me.
It's certainly a way to create art, but it is not photography.
Your video makes me think of a dream I had some time in the late 1970s. You'll recall a famous photograph taken during the war in Vietnam, depicting a terrified young girl walking down a road following a napalm attack.
That was the subject of the dream, in which technicians in a lab were asked to create a picture inside a computing device that, in the dream, was called a Probability Simulator. They were given a brief description of the desired image, and the probability simulator did the rest for them. Its purpose was to create a probable-looking representation of something for which there was no actual photograph.
The image took shape inside a box and was a hologram. When it was completed, the technicians sent the data to a printer of some kind, and the resulting (two-dimensional) image was transmitted via conventional means to news agencies.
I agree that AI imagery is not photography. I don't know who first started calling it "photography" but that is a clear misnomer. It is digital image making for sure, and AI Image Making or AI Illustration is a more accurate term for what is happening. It certainly does not match my definition of what a photograph is, and I am someone who takes photographs and also dabbles in AI Imaging because I always have. But I would never call that work photography. They are two different things. Thank you for the morning rant. 😀
I think the problem lies with the labelling "AI PHOTOGRAPHY".
As you imply in your video, by definition, it quite simply is not photography being generated, it's an image, therefore I have no problem with the term "AI IMAGERY".
Good point, Wayil. Somehow a phrase “AI Photography” has already been established and this kind of imagery it is often characterised as such. Some people tend to call it this way. Crazy world!
Sadly, we live in an ultra comercial media world which doesn't escape the sometimes immoral revenue driven mantras and the phrase "AI PHOTOGRAPHY", whether it photography or not is probably more marketable.
You could surmise that PHOTOGRAPHY has become collateral damage.
Let me put some oil on the fire...
I started with photography in the seventies, only full manually was available, and it all happened in the darkroom. Since then a lot of things changed: automatic, presets, film-simulations...with Photoshop as the ultimate devil (at that time). You weren't called a 'real' photographer when using those 'new' evolutions.
Things change, and we finally accept that. AI is just another step, and, finally we also will accept it. (curious what will be next)
Alain, I absolutely understand where you are coming from. For me simply the boundary of artist's control over the entire process is crossed in this particular case.
It's a scary tool for art-painters, which can't use a pen, or a brush. So as in many areas today, skill is not required so much anymore. The tools are helping us. I'm just a bit worried, where it will lead us, not just in image making, also in any other matter.
But, no, it's has nothing to do with photography. As much as photography has to do with drawing. If I may say so.
PS: is the Frames App already available?
Heinz, thank you so much for leaving a comment and sharing your thoughts. The FRAMES app should be available in ca. 2 weeks time.
J'ai pu voir une magnifique image produite par IA au Musée des Beaux Arts de Québec. C'était un paysage de rêve vraimant séduisant! Dans la même salle, des photographes avaient exposé leurs oeuvres. Le contraste était énorme! La différence est manifeste! Les visiteurs pouvaient sentir l'effort créatif du photographe. La communication du vécu photographique réel était palpable dans le choix du sujet, la texture de l'image et l'empreinte tecnique du choix de la lentille. Malheureusement, je pense que les utilisateurs de l'IA vont s'approprier les personalités, les caractéristiques uniques de plusieurs photographes et les ajouter à leur recette miracle comme un nouvel ingrédient. Mais, si je fais un parralèlle avec la littérature contemporaine, je ne pense pas que nous retrouvions de grands romans écrits par l'IA.
It’s not photography it’s graphics or graphic design. Photography is imagining of something actually tangible that is more actual than conceptual.
Totally agree AI is not photography in anyway though it has its place and should be kept seperate.
Thank you so much for chiming in, Darrjn!
You don't have to look or feel anymore with AI. What's the fun of it? What is left of the emotion behind the image, there isn't. But....... it could be a tool to create a different artform. I'm not a professional photographer but I love to create and doing so with several materials as paint and clay. AI can't help me with that, but may be it's usable for others in a certain way, I don't know. Curious I am for that matter ;-)
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts 🙏🙏
I understand the discussion well, but it's similar to so many other trends over the past decades. Kodak had digital technology many years before the first digital camera became popular. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fujifilm, etc. let Apple bring out an easy to use computational photography tool that fits in a pants or shirt pocket before they embraced computational features. It's ultimately the consumer who drives the trends. AI generates a large portion of online web articles these days and is used by some of the largest multinational Fortune 100 companies daily. If the consumer sees a need for AI image creation then its inevitable that it will gain wide popularity. I grew up in a community that still moves from place to place via horse, wagon, and bicycle, but self-driving cars are a reality.
Yes, of course. I am not talking about the needs and the ways it will go. I was simply debating the "AI Photography" term. Thank you so much for leaving a comment. Appreciate it.
I agree with you that AI programs that generate images is not photography. However editing programs that have AI components to it are a godsend in my opinion in speeding up the editing process for me. I use them In Luminar and believe they will become ubiquitous in post processing software.
Absolutely. Thank you for leaving your comment, Allen.
I couldn't agree more with you, I feel much the same way.
Tomasz, I have a hearing disability. Why background music? It's like someone smoking just besides me, when I'm trying to smell the flowers.
Now for the topic. I'm old, ergo I'm traditional. Of what I could hear, I agree with you in your conclusions. We have AI already all over the place. AI writes music, makes paintings, will probably soon write books, and so on. I appreciate craftsmanship, a person behind the typewriter, behind the piano, behind the camera. We will soon need some validation process. Made by man, not by machine.
Thank you, Hans. Background music seems to be a norm on "talking head videos". It makes them flow better. But I can experiment with some without music.
@@framesmagazine Tomasz, You could add subtitles, or publish your manuscript. Both would help a lot.
I agree, AI image making is not photography. How can it be when you have asked the program to create something that wasn't there to start with. Yet when you and I go out and put the camera to our eye we witness something that is happening in front of us. The click of the shutter stops that moment in time. That's photography. Imagine asking the AI program to create a photograph like Cartier Bresson then calling it photography. Photography for lazy people would be a better description.
👍🏼🙏