Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the best thing that ever happened to photography
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2024
- Wow, what a clickbait!! But wait, I have a point here. AI may be the best thing that ever happened to photography, but maybe not photographers. Let's first see what happened almost 200 years ago and build on that.
You don't need to agree. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say :-)
This idea was based on my discussions with two great thinkers:
Antti Nylen ( / anttinylen ) -- introduced me to the idea of digital photography liberating film photography for a higher purpose
Panu Pohjola ( / forestgrapher ) -- introduced me to the idea of photography creating paining as an art
![Chuckyy - Devil Hours [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f3wZGj0VnZU/mqdefault.jpg)
Nailed it. You are completely right. As usual, your insight is eye opening.
Thanks, thanks -- and thanks for watching!
I couldn't agree more, that's exactly what I said at the upraise of AI and all the rants in the photography business. As a professional photographer, also potentially losing business, I still appreciate the advent of AI generated "photographs", which is just a subsequence of all that stock photography of the past 1-2 decades. AI does not only liberate photography and nourish the inherent art form, it also emphasizes the importance of authentic and genuine photography. The Content Authenticity Initiative is a big and very important thing we have to support as it will be play an extremely essential role in journalism and editorial photography. Sure, the business will change, a lot of photographers specialized in creating all-purpose and meaningless pictures better learn to handle AI, but the rest of us will most likely shine again!
Amen. My point exactly! It is sad how photographers often don’t see it this way but are in denial and defensive. They will be obsolete in no time. Unfortunately.
Love the concept.
I do, when shooting the occasional wedding, use my digital and a film camera with B&W film.
As much as the Bride and Groom love the digitals, they seem to really enjoy and appreciate the film pictures.
In fact, when the wedding photography couple that shot my nephew's wedding saw my film images, they decided to offer that as an option for their clients.
Shooting film has brought me back to my deeper appreciation of shooting pictures.
Thank you for doing this channel... I always look forward to each episode.
Thanks thanks for watching. Yeah, the film and the film look are living a small renaissance. A friend of mine has photographed for this fashion magazine in Finland -- and they have asked for film photos explicitly. So it is not 100% clear cut for the old and the new.
An interesting argument. We should always acknowledge our own position in any argument, and understand that of others. There will be people who make a living from the practice they love who will be alienated, while those of us who don’t need to rely on that practice for income can see ourselves as liberated, if we wish. And so, perhaps the more important question is what will photography’s place in cultural production become...
True. I fully agree. But I've seen tens, if not hundreds, of transformations in my work life in software, consumer products and high-tech. Skills have become obsolete, technology has moved forward, and companies and jobs have disappeared. While I feel sorry for those impacted, there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot stop the world. Those individuals who saw the change as an opportunity, even a painful opportunity, and adapted were much better off than those who stuck to their guns and did not want to move on.
If I were a professional photographer and my income depended on the fields impacted by AI, I'd fully embrace AI and want to change. Take it as a positive development, incorporate it into your work, be at the forefront of the movement, and make it your competitive advantage. OR I would, as I suggested in my video, go totally somewhere else. I'd trust myself as a pure photographer, stop working on the impacted field, and carve out a free niche where I can flourish as a genuine photographer in art, intimacy, smaller business, teaching...
That is easier said than done. Maybe painful. But inevitable.
I am glad you have stepped back from the panic surrounding "AI" by offering a longer view of change and the unimagined benefits that accompany every revolution.
I think we need to accept that it will change things. It’s up to us to decide how to react 😊
Yes, a big yes. I still remember how resistant I was as a "true" photography believer - digital ? NEVER ! Now , though I still remember the whole black-and-white process I enjoy digital photography based on what I learned from classics. Then I started painting and I feel liberated from photographic (technological impact) mechanical process, and same way I feel liberated as a photographer. But skills gained from practicing photography are reflected in my paintings same way as my photographs became better once I started learning more about colors and compositions. I also see digitally generated images inspiring. It is surely a shift in the market and we cannot stop it. The only way I think is to be unique and good at it.
I agree with you 100%. I look at my photography as creating art and also as a way to experience my surroundings in a different way and even on a different level. Thanks for sharing. One more thing, what is the make and model of the folder camera you had. I am looking for one that will complement my vintage collection that I can also use.
Absolutely! It’s a Moskva 5.
*I have to disagree pretty hard.* I'll use your own painting analogy. How many painters in the world are making a living from their art?
When photography came around, painters lots their jobs to photographers. Yes, they were "liberated" out of an income to make what they wanted.
*The same applies to AI and Photography.* I don't AI to make a "photo of a flower." As a photographer/artist, that hypothetically is what I want to be liberated to do myself.
Have AI make photos of a corporate team building days, school picture day or someone's eBay listings. That's the tedium we're stuck with while AI "liberates" us from making the art we want.
AI is great for the customer, bad for the photographer who uses photography to put food on the table.
Just my two cents.
But i totally agree with you on everything. For the majority of photographers this is the end of their income. But this is good for photography… and to those who can be liberated. Who can move on. I feel for those who cannot, but not more I’m sorry for all typewriterists, telephoneoperators or others whose jobs have been disrupted. I’m sorry for individual suffering but I don’t need such roles or functions back.
Whole careers and skills have been erased anytime a new technology is introduced to the world, yet somehow we are still here. People find a way.
Kiitos! This is what I’ve been trying to tell people. This is liberation! Now we can forget making money from our photography. What a joy! 😄👍
It’s interesting how painting didn’t evolve into more abstract forms until after photography came along (Impressionism, expressionism, Cubism, etc.)
True. I hope AI can push photography to something new! :-)
Fascinating perspective on the AI issue. I agree that it opens it up to different ways of thinking about what an image is and what its purpose is. What we don't seem to be talking about is how AI is being used in human generated images/ photography for things in digital editing like sharpening, noise reduction, dust removal, cloning, etc. I use a mostly hybrid approach to film photography - making analog images and then post processing in Lightroom, Nix, and sometimes Topaz software to prepare for inkjet printing. Each recent iteration of the software seems to incorporate more AI. AI, in these instances, enhances my process without substantively altering the image.
I agree -- AI is a much broader application than explained here. If you take a photo with your smartphone, it is practically AI-generated.
I personally -- in my hybrid approach, as I explained in my earlier videos -- want to limit all my Lightroom edits of my film scans to those that I know how to do in my analogue dark room. I desperately try to be honest and limit myself -- I believe in limitations and restrictions in my own work.
But if AI helps me within those limitations - I'm all for it. Now I can search photos based on keywords I forgot to put in after scanning, say find me and an image of a boat, etc. That I like. It would NOT get into my process, but it keeps my tools organized :-)
I know a loca photographer who does digital art that is done with Photoshop (fantasy scenes) and was surprised in the discussion by him neglecting AI imaging. To him, it was photography, despite that the scenes were collages so I would disgress.
As one of the youngest generations to start with film (late millenial), I find this situation quite ironical with digital photographers getting defensive to the change. Ha!
Whereas in 2008 on my teen years, shooting film was dissed, nowadays it has found the legitimacy that you comment. Even "proper" cameras are getting rarer and the AI powered phone does a lot. On the latter, I am very glad of what my Google Pixel can do and takes the snapshot photography role very well, and way beyond what "proper P&S" would do before 2012.
Excellent. Yeah, progress happens, and to me, Photoshopping is not photography. But it's just me.
Hate the headline and wanted to get angry, but knew you’d have something sensible and interesting to say.
In my books that makes the click bait forgiveable ;-)
Thanks. My apologies. 😊
@@ShootOnFilm Nice to see a video title that doesn't mislead nor disappoint.
So getting into trying to sell stock photos now seems like a bad choice. Interesting how the timeline goes from painter to photographers to digital to ai. I did do a scan on Instagram and see how many accounts are now ai. I wonder if now photographers should be (if that is the correct phrase) trying to photograph real people. It won’t be long until someone becomes depressed or fill in the blank, of what they feel or do, because they don’t look like someone that isn’t real. Thanks for a thought provoking video!!
I know people who show their picture-perfect life on Instagram, travelling to exotic places and showing off. I don't like that. It is not far from hiring a personal stylist to style your appearance for Instagram, and that happens, too. And then, especially young and more vulnerable people think that that is real and also expected from them.
Thank you thank you thank you for letting this open minded point of view out in the wild. I couldn't agree more. I'm a photog myself and, when discussing with fellow colleagues, I only find walls around me. Power to Creativity! :)
Thanks, thanks. Yeah, this discussion with photographers, musicians, authors, actors, and whatnot is relatively one-sided. However, AI will come, so negativity will not help. Better move on and make the best out of it :-)
Will AI ever match the genius of Kodachrome. Current films cannot come close to giving us the color we experienced with those slides in the little yellow bodes. I was in a book store yesterday and opened a book and the Kodachrome images just jumped out at me. Digital cannot come close to creating the same feeling I get from the "chromes".
That is extremely subjective -- but I agree with you. But then again, we are film geeks :-)
Two thumbs up Ari! When I saw the title I was prepared to take you to task, but you make a good argument.
Thank you for giving me a chance to be a bit controversial :-)
You used the word "liberate", but I'm too cynical to see it that way. The word I prefer is "curate". If your art tells a unique human story it may survive in spite of AI, but to survive that curation it will need to be very good to be noticed.
I believe photography will survive. As did painting. As did film photography. As did horseback riding. As did vinyl. And look at them now: for those who still do them better than ever. No need to ride a horse to work but can ride it for fun. 😊
Of course will make majority of photographer unemployed. But that already happened with cellphones. New technology will always make old jobs obsolete. That’s progress.
When you talk about “curate” you mean you hope to still be able to sell your photography, right? Well, that’s where the frustrations comes in. The liberating aspect about Ai is that we can stop hoping to find a niche on the market for our photography now. Instead of trying to come up with something that we think will cater to someone’s needs out there, now we are completely free to do the deep dive into the artistic side of our photography (or painting, or drawing, or whatever…) since the Ai market is already leaps and bounds ahead of us in regards to soulless illustrations that the soulless market seems to be satisfied with. At the moment all Ai generated imagery look the same, which have created a “style” that is all hype right now. Eventually though, Ai will develop many other styles of imagery that will further marginalise artists and photographers.
Ai is essentially digital and as such it cannot compete with traditional forms of art. What is going to arise out of this is a big move back to tangible materials such as pigments, paper, canvases, granit and clay, etc. I predict a rise of a new wave of demands for “genuine” art that holds all the hallmarks of true artistic skills and craftsmanships in the future. Soon the general public is going to be so fed-up with the plasticky look and feel of Ai imagery that it will start taking a renewed interest in true art again. But Ai imagery will remain the long-term favourite source for commercials and much of the publishing industry in the future, I think! Of course, a photographer will always finds a commercial outlet in the market of personal events, such as weddings, birthday parties, etc.
👍 I agree. One stage in the history of photography I've come to appreciate more recently in addition to the steps you point out. In the 1880's after Leach Maddox got silver gelatine worked out and it became possible to make shelf stable plates the revolution was possibly bigger than the digital one. It enabled Kodak to say "you press the button and we do the rest". Most importantly profits from the sale of plates could go into improving the technology. You could pay industrial chemists to create panchromatic, faster emulsions and eventually colour. That couldn't happen before. It was an order of magnitude change but seems to get brushed over today. A change from truly artisan to industrial. Now it feels like anyone shooting film is being a bit artisanal because they get their hands wet!
Absolutely true. There have been these steps of radical innovation, and I agree with you that Maddox's work was one of the most significant!
Good points and I agree with the core message. And btw: you have some imperfections in your last photo, that is good :)
A bit simplified and radicalised -- but that's how I see things in the broader continuum of things.
Yes, I agree. More time for us real passionate photographers. I like photography as an art per se and never wanted to make money out of it.
Yes. I understand people worrying about lost image sales. But that’s gone. Like horse and buggy or like typewriters. Gone.
I have been thinking a long these lines, and I do agree with you to some extents. But I think you’re missing out on an important aspect of art. And this is the craftsmanship. What jobs in photography (and before this illustrating and painting) allowed, was the opportunity for many people to work intensely on their craftsmanship. So many iconic photographers worked with commercial photography, training their eyes and skills for 50 hours a week and this craftsmanship went into their artistic work. So I do think that AI will at least influence both the creative and the technical aspects of photography - and not only in a positive way. We see the same in music by the way. But - as you more or less already said - AI is here to stay, so let’s make the best of it. Thanks for making good material. Keep at it. Cheers from Denmark. 👍
An excellent point -- about new generations maturing and growing into art. !!!
Interesting point of view. The newer technology doesn’t quite kill the old. TV didn’t destroy radio. Digital didn’t kill film. It caused us to look deeper into the old way and find new applications for it. As Alvin Toffler pointed-out many years ago, developing technology carries with it a backlash effect, a longing for the past when things were done with human eyes and human hands.
I 100% agree. Old will not die. The business of the old dies or minimises dramatically, but the "art" of the old never dies. And the video killed the radio star! :-)
Hmmm. That's an interesting view, and I think I agree. 😊 I'm probably going to have to let the idea mature for a few days, but I'll get there! 😁 Of course history is repeating itself with all technological advances. We are liberated. I think I feel good about that! 😊
Painful -- but liberating? Maybe?
Damned cars did away with the buggy whip...
Yeah, I still have not forgiven Ford!... and if I'd comment on this like some here, I would say: but a car is not a horse!!! :-)
It's a long hard road ahead for people who make money with photography.
It is. Like computers and word processors for type writers or cellular networks for manual telephone operators. But for the world at large - a marvelous thing!
You seem to forget that people started to create art with their cameras early on. I am sure that you are familiar with the work of Julia Margaret Cameron, Alfred Stieglitz, Andre Kertesz etc, etc., so, for this type of photographers, AI is actually a neutral factor, we will continue enjoying what we do just because we love the creative process of making pictures, and that is why we do not draw, paint, sing or create images in the computer, or do it in addition to creating photographs. This is a good discussion now a days though.
I think said --not all, but the majority.
If we go back to the time before cellphones and digital, I'd say that there were three groups of photographers: Amateurs who just shot for themselves, professionals who were hired guns or employed as photographers and pure artists. The last group was the smallest by a considerable margin. Now, in addition to those groups, there is a third group: self-publishing photographers who promote themselves on Instagram and elsewhere.
Pretty much everything of those can be replaced by AI but not art. The same that happened to painting back then. Hardly any painting happens anymore but for artistic reasons.
IMHO :-)
Agree with everything you said. I would add that as the revenues in those respective niches rise and fall .. so does the availability of the materials and tools - which is disappointing. I miss some of the films and processing which were so accessible in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. I dont think it likely I will ever see them agsin. My point is - as these evolutions continue their unending march into the future, while liberating on one facet we are also increasingly constrained in others.
That is true. The old one gets more complicated, more rare and more laborious. But then it also gets more exciting and valuable -- IMHO.
@@ShootOnFilm To be clear, it is not the the greater effort or time (which is part of the joy) rather I am seeing the total loss of for example Kodachrome and its processing. It is as if the painter has lost Titanium White or Cadmium Red. Not the end of the world but something quite tangible is lost from my palette.
i agree, and I shoot on film for the love of it. The pain is for those who have built a business from photography and need to pay the mortgage. I make documentaries for a living, so I should have a few year left, until Boston Dynamics build a robot with built-in camera and can interview people ;)
True. But like with all technology, it will make old professions and skills obsolete IN THEIR PREVIOUS CONTEXT. And people will lose their jobs. I feel for them and feel sorry. But bitching and moaning won't help :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching and moaning. It's the way it is. If you invested your time in a single career, say stock photos; then you have to either change yourself, and have some control doing so, or the technology will flash by and you'll get caught in the turbulence until you work it out. I followed artists' channels when the whole AI thing started, and you could see how lost some felt. Their work was taken to train the AI models, and then people could create work in their style, with no compensation. I'm lucky, and could not work without the technology we have today. I live in a remote part of Australia, but make documentaries mostly for ARTE Europe, everything is online, from meetings to editing. What I like about Ari and this channel is that it takes us away from all this, back to photography for the joy of it and creating images that please us and people around us.
@@loupetho Thank you for your kind words. And, yes, it is hard for those whose jobs are challenged by new technologies. I get that!!!!
Interesting points. The natural follow-up question then is: Now that we've been liberated, what are we going to do with our newfound freedom?
Photographs.
There's a reason they call it "artificial."
Yes. It is not photography. But it will change photography for ever. And I believe we will see an ever-increasing number of hybrids where you take a picture of your loved one, a camera captures her face, and AI fills in the rest, enhancing. I would not like it -- you would not like it -- but many would!
Sharp, as always!
Thanks, thanks :-)
Great, Ari! I've been thinking AI should be part of photography business nowadays. Your historic perspective confirms that. Thanks for your excellent video!
I think so, too. It's a bit painful, and we do not know how it will end. But photography and AI will intervene. Nothing we can do about it -- so let's get the best out of it!!
Thanks, lot. The liberation!
:-) Freedom is not always easy!
It all sounds well, but there is one important aspect that seems to be overlooked. In the past, photographers could switch to painting while painters had the freedom to work on their own terms. However, in the end, these were real people who depended on their earned money to buy food, clothes and other necessities. I can imagine the "free" Picasso and some portrait photographer going to the same bakery or cheese shop. There was not a single painter who could solely rely on their painting earnings, but there were a few more photographers who could.
Nowadays, things have changed dramatically. Big corporations own AI technology, and it is neither free nor democratic. All the money from subscriptions will be going to just a few pockets because big corporations will no longer need as many employees. They will replace all other possible jobs with AI.
Maybe so, but corporations need our money to survive, if no one has a job and no money, where do you think they will get money from? we have a symbiotic relationship with them. Will some careers disappear? Of course, this has happened anytime there has been a major leap in technology.
I don't know how I feel about AI. I'll just have to wait and see!!!
I have no emotional feelings. It is happening -- I will adapt.
AI is not photography
Of course not. It’s computer generated. Never said it would be. And photography is not painting.
@@ShootOnFilm my comment has been generated by a bot, we apologize for the inconvenience
@@chriscard6544 haha
In everything there is a Rubican. AI is that Rubican for photography.
I don't know, Ari. With respect, this seems a little simplistic, ignoring the broad and deep use of photography for artistic expression from its very birth. This practice has evolved alongside commercial photography throughout the medium's history. Similarly, some photographers have adopted digital technology for the purpose of artistic expression from the birth of digital. And now others will use AI to artistic ends. It is my belief that commercial and artistic practice are parallel and often overlap, as they have throughout the history of image making, irrespective of evolving tool sets.
I agree it is simplistic. But in one video, you can tell only so much and gotta simplify -- I noticed it is a bit like emailing with my landlord years back. Say I had three issues, and I mailed her:
The front door lock doesn't work
The toilet overflows
The garage is on fire
She'd reply: I'll get you a new key.
And that's it. SO only one message goes through :-)
Anyways, there were artistic painters since the dawn of humanity. But in the 1700s-1800s, the majority of paintings and drawings looking at the shared volume of painters and paintings were for a purpose, utility. Born not from artistic reason but ordered for a purpose.
The same I claim with photography. Say, in the 1990's, I believe that the vast majority of film photographers worked for portrait studios, advertisement agents, newspapers, etc. Currently, none of that. 99% of the film is either recreational or art.
Great episode and quite interesting… everything that evolves comes back to its origin! Cannot agree more… Be safe, Cheers..
You too! And let's create some real photography -- not that AI nonsense :-)
Okay. The "Currency of the Photograph".
In the beginning as you rightly said painters and drawers were the only ones capable of making an image. A 2D image. Then came photography. Painters complained but the good painters got their shit together and painted what they felt and not just what they saw, exactly as you said. Photography took over all the mundane stuff.
The public got used to seeing photographs instead of paintings and drawings, but something else snuck under the radar. The world was aware of how photos were made . Point, click, develop. This initiated an unconscious understanding that the photograph, unlike the painting or drawing always "Bears Witness to Event", whether it be a photo of the back of a lens cap or a fake photo that bears witness to fraud, the photo always Bears Witness to Event. The viewers knows, based upon his rudimentary understanding of photography that what he is looking at really happened in the real world at some time in the past. Which cannot be said of a painting or drawing. So much so that a photograph became admissible in a court of law as hard evidence. Something a painting or drawing can't do. Which is why we have speed cameras and not artists at the side of the road drawing speeding cars. Think about it.
This is what for over a century gave photography a unique position in the hierarchy of imaging,
.
The Currency of the Photograph. The Photograph always bears witness to event. The photograph can be 99% trusted to tell the truth. It is what photography is and what distinguishes it from everything else.
Until... Adobe came along and made it possible to easily create what looked like a "Photograph", as defined above, but did NOT Bear Witness To Event. An apparent photograph of something that never happened or even existed. This put a cat among the pigeons in what was previously defined as a "photograph" and "photography".
Now we have AI imaging. which certainly does not, no way Bear Witness to Event. In the same way that drawing and painting cannot Bear Witness to Event.
The point is that to understand an image the viewer will have some a priori understanding of how that image was made. Which will influence the way in which and what the image communicates with the viewer.
When you watch a Tom and Jerry cartoon you know that it isn't a real cat and a real mouse, so it doesn't matter if the cat gets squashed flat and then springs back to life.
The cartoons communicates with you in an entirely different way than a natural history film. Because you have a fundamental understanding of how those films were made.
The same will apply to AI. AI will not take anything away from "photography".
In fact AI with further strengthen "The Currency of the Photograph" (The photograph always bears witness to event).
No AI speeding images! They won't stand up in a court of law any more than my sketch of you robbing a bank.
So therefore AI is the best thing that could have happened to photography especially analog photography.
The one downside is that AI could kill digital camera photography, in that AI is a natural progression of digital photography. AI is the direction in which digital photography has been progressing since the early 90's The digital camera removed the need for film and processing and now AI has removed the need for the digital camera and whoever's holding it.
So where might we end up?.
AI replacing digital photography for all ancillary work? Why hire a wedding photographer to make digital images of your wedding when you can make your own?
Sorry that was a bit long winded and academic, but you have raised a very valid point which as far as I can see has only ever been discussed in very rudimentary ways .
Keep up the good work.
What an excellent point. This authentic nature of a photograph that we will now lose, -- or lost a while ago -- is part of a more significant problem: what can we trust in our society and world anymore. That is an excellent point; in that sense, AI is problematic!!!
It's only problematic if you think of AI as "Photography". In fact AI has far more in common with drawing and painting. This problem has been coming down the rails since the first introduction of digital. photography. When digital electronic photography came along we called it "Digital Photography". Now thinking about it electronic photography had been around for half a century or more. It was so distinct from analog film photography that we gave it its own name .. TELEVISION. Half a century prior to that moving image came along and we gave it it's own name CINEMATOGRAPHY. Both these media were given their own distinct identity in order to distance and differentiate them from PHOTOGRAPHY.
Okay what's in a name? Giving TV and Cinema their own distinct identity allowed them both to evolve and develop their own critical theories and intellectual identity. Digital imaging came along at the end of the 20th century. However Digital imaging wasn't given its own identity as with TV and Cinematography. Purely for marketing reasons it was called DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY. In other words a branch or offshoot or replacement for Photography. Which prevented Digital Imaging (digital photography) from evolving its own critical theory. Most PHOTOGRAPHY critical theory cannot be applied to DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY because they are entirely different, and certainly cannot be applied to AI.
So I guess AI will have a huge impact on "Digital Photography" removing the need for the camera, lens and camera operator altogether. Which is where digital imaging was always heading anyways. It was just a matter of waiting for computing power to develop enough, which it now has.
So where does that leave us?
"Digital photography" dead? If so where does that leave analog photography with its nearly two centuries of critical theory and "CURRENCY"?
So it's all about the way we think about these things, because how we think about them influences how the image communicates to us. Tom and Jerry are not real. We know that therefore we enjoy their antics and accept them for what they are..
You are correct, AI is the best thing that could have ever happened to Analog Photography.
Cheers and keep up the good work, and keep questioning and thinking. Thinking about stuff is very important :)
@@ShootOnFilm
I don't think a new medium really vaporizes the prior work or work methods. I had a portrait of my wife painted (from a photograph as a surprise) and she really liked that. I have her photograph on the wall, and I also have that painting. I guess that there was never a million people painting portraits. Just a few painting for the rich back in the olden days. In fact, I guess that there are more portrait painters today than at any previous time in history. There are still art galleries full of paintings, including contemporary portraits. So even though photography was very alarming to the painters when it arrived, I don't think it killed anything. Now, what about photography? What do people tend to photograph? Family members, vacations, etc. Will you want an AI generated picture of your wife or a photograph, or perhaps even a painting? I would rank those (in terms of desirability) as 0, 10, 10. Do you want AI to generate images of what your vacation to Iceland looks like? Because I don't and I don't think anybody else does either. As far as stock photography goes (and I do think stock photography is threatened to some degree) I think real photographs will still be better. And as for liberation to do whatever we want... I was always liberated. You were always liberated. Anyone who wanted liberation was already liberated. I have had some fun playing with AI image generation. It's good for a laugh. For me it will never be more than that. And I think that even stock photographers will still be able to generate worthy images and get paid for them, long into the future if they so choose (provided that they do quality work and produce beautiful and interesting images -- but what else would you expect to get paid for?). I am no more liberated than I was before the first AI image was ever conceived because I have always photographed whatever I like. I use analog photography when it suits me. I use digital photography when it suits me. I would paint too, if I had the talent (my mother was an oil painter who made beautiful images she sold in art galleries, but I did not seem to inherit that gene or I was too lazy to get good at it). I do have some ability to sculpt, and I did a sculpture of my wife when I was in college (she was also very fond of that). At any rate, I don't think anyone needs to fear technology. It's like Inigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride, "That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means." which is to say, in reality, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
I believe photography killed all such painting that it was capable of killing. There are no longer tens of newspaper illustrators or traveling portrait painters. And, AI will kill as much mundane illustrations as possible. Old formats will never die, though. New painters and film photographers emerge every day. But no new film photographer applies to work as a newspaper photographer. 😊
Also ai will generate better stock photos and put background to your portrait better and cheaper than any photographer. IMHO. Already now and certainly in 5 years.
@@ShootOnFilm all good points, but I (personally) don't really care for AI images. You can tell at a glance that they are fake. For me, that means they are also shallow. What I mean by that is that AI can write stories and poetry. But I know that metaphors and allegories constructed will only be accidental because the computer has no real understanding. I would never pay for an AI image. They have no draw for me. The newspaper industry in general is nearly destroyed by digital media. I subscribed to a newspaper until a few years ago, but I found the editorials were getting more and more offensive and decided that I didn't want to buy a paper just for the comics and sports section. Now that we have electronic media, newspapers have become the horse drawn carts of the automotive Era. Too bad too. Newspapers were (at least) fact checked.
❤
An interesting conclusion, maybe it is so......
😊
When ai frees us up to be imaginative, creative it doesn't stand still it follows us closely and emulates us
When ai first hit the scene the images were all ridiculously fantastic , these days I find myself drawn to soulful analog / alt process images on instagram only to find they are Ai rip offs .
True. In many cases, you can be only 24 hours ahead. But that's plenty in this modern era :-)
Seriously, I understand. Maybe we could also enjoy those AI-generated images for what they are. And not feel guilty. And then go and do something different again.
No Comment
You must have read some of my last years posts / articles or have had the same idea.
Difficult to accept for some people but true.
No, sorry. Have not seen them. Will check them out. But you are right-- hard for some to accept. Also, its difficult for people to differentiate between lost job opportunities and the new opportunities that emerge. Like if you build horse buggies it's hard to admire cars.
Great argumtation.
Thanks thanks
AI generated images = Fast Food
Mindful, creative photography = Haute Cuisine?
Certainly food for thought. 🤔
Apologies for that terrible pun. Maybe I’m more AI than I’d like to admit. 😉
Well said!
In terms of product photography, probably modeling and some other photographic genres, AI may take over. However, since 1855 and Roger Fenton's assignment in Krimea and up until today, photography, photojournalism to be precise, played a very important role on documenting and informing people about everything going on in the world. Not only wars, revolutions and protests but also major natural disasters, discoveries and major achievements.
I can name you dozens of photographs which were so influential that their impact changed important political and social decisions and photojournalists who will stay forever in our memory for their huge influence not only to us as photographers but to the public eye as well.
With the introduction of AI, this very important rore of photography as a Document, is losing its credibility. Anyone can create an image which can be used for any kind of propaganda, looking real and believable. For that there is no going back and as a photojournalist I am sad and totally against this kind of AI use.
I agree -- there is a role there. However, photographers need to improve their game to compete with AI. Here is a scenario: you don't need a photojournalist. Somebody with a cell phone will do. Cellphone images are already significantly AI-improved, and the next thing we will see are hybrid photos, where part of a photo is augmented with AI. So, different image materials will be available, from cell phones to drones and CTV surveillance footage, improved with AI.
It is concerning that AI will blur the line between reality and fake. But that is another subject, and I did not address that at all. I am also worried about this. Not at all because it would jeopardise photography as a discipline, craft or art. I don't care as it's up to photographers themselves to stay relevant; and if they cannot, we all can stop making photographs. . But I'm concerned about AI-generated images and stories because they jeopardise democracy.
So, in the future if I want to make a carbon print I'll actually be making a carbon substrate in layers corresponding to CMYK that is cut by a laser cutter into the image I took with my Agfa Ansco Universal from 1938? Artisan paper, artisan layering for an original work. Cool, sign me up.
I'm not sure if I followed, but I agree. 100% :-)
Painters replaced by cameras = People using new tools
Film cameras replaced by digital cameras = People using new tools
Dark rooms replaced by Photoshop = People using new tools
Photography replaced by AI = No more people
Remind me again what we’re liberating?
Exactly. AI is a bit different than a new tool, like we've seen in the past. We're removing the human element, in more ways than one.
We don't need a human to capture the portrait OR be the subject anymore.
Photography
Thanks for sharing your views. These were very interesting perspectives.
Thanks for watching!
This video got me thinking. The benefit of AI could help photographers who are artists (whether with large format film, CCD digital sensors, point and shoot 35mm cameras etc) while putting employment at risk for photographers who are reliant on income from taking stock photos or product shots. However, the risks are high from AI are pretty large. Amazon did not liberate mom and pop stores, it basically ended them. The ability to weaponize AI and inject it into the free speech heartbeat of a democratic society can put an end to everything, literally. And then, that makes artists (painters, photographers, dancers, musicians, etc) even more vital to such a society, because artists bring a mirror to people and say “this is the joy and pain of being human!” Ergo, AI will destroy the humanity from society, leaving only artists to preserve that humanity for the sake of society. Perhaps in the Matrix, artists will eventually show enough to AI for it to be human, and it will take that humanity and apply it to “progress” that eventually destroys its AI-humanity. My head hurts and now I want to go use my TLR to make a nice black and white photograph that will not go on social media. And I apologize to The Algorithm if I have hurt your feelings. I still love you, please don’t delete me when you take control of everything. Lol.
Ha haa!! I will store you on my hard drive!!
You said. "Amazon did not liberate mom and pop stores, it basically ended them.". Yes, it ended stores. But not moms and paps. Also, Amazon and eBay created a lot of new possibilities for many to sell their product online. I can buy camera parts from a "mom and pop shop" overseas and sell mine all over the world. That was not possible earlier.
What is controversial, of course, is how much control Amazon et al. have. But that is another topic. Internet enabled commerce and global business for everybody! And AI will make it possible for everybody to create high-quality images for all kinds of purposes.
Whether it's the greatest think for photography or everything else for that mater depends on how it's used. Imagine seeing a picture with you in it in a very compromising situation that was completely false,. Not so great now, right? I think it's safe to say, like everything else in life, there will be good people using it for good and bad people using it for bad.
We will hopefully learn to read pictures. It’s not that pictures have been real recently anyways. Do you believe in photographs from the world conflict areas or of the supermodels latest diet? I have not in years 😊
Very exciting thoughts that go far beyond photography. We also experience the birth pangs of the new and the fear of the new in other areas. Your episode on the concept of art already made it clear to me why I started taking analogue photos again and what appeals to me about analogue images. And as much as I appreciate digital tools in my professional work when it comes to earning money, I feel the liberation you described when I pick up my old Hasselblad or Rolleicord.
But you're also giving me the creeps: this morning the parcel carrier brought a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta that I bought two days ago! Why is there such a camera on your desk today?
It is all just a coincidence :-) And if we are absolutely truthful, this is a cheap Soviet copy of your Super Ikonta: mine. is just a Moskva 5.
I know many people who moved to digital, and they are picking up their old love: those Hasselblads and Rolleicords. And feel like born again!
I agree 100% . And working with ai is so f##ing boring. and the best part..I was talking To a class of my cinematography students About Ai generated images a few weeks ago. they listened and said..Nice good to know but can we ger a camera now and get to work 😊😊😊
True. AI is not photography. But it will replace a big portion of photography. And what is left will be better stuff I believe. 😊
Well said 😊😊
Thanks for watching :-)
Heavy lifting! And great outtro!
I may have bitten more than I can chew! ;-)
Wait -- 1855?? Daguerre was making portraits (and occasional landscapes) from 1839. Fox Talbot was making paper negatives that could be printed to a positive multiple times from 1841. Even wet plate collodion (which was the main medium for photographs of the American Civil War and Crimean War) started in 1851.
For what it's worth, my partner is an author and graphic artist. The graphic work is illustrative, mostly creating portraits of fictional characters (not the ones you see in comics, but people's own alter ego characters). AI can create novels now, in minutes, effectively for free -- has my partner been "freed" from months of labor to produce quality fiction, or only from being able to make a living at writing? "Freed" from the hours (or tens of hours) that go into a digital art drawing/painting from a description of an avatar or character, for which payment is received (which can now be done with a few minutes of refining the prompt at any of a half dozen or more online AI art sites)?
Digital photography didn't just eat the lunch of the professional film-based product photographer; it also largely overwhelmed and replaced film-based art photography; digital sensor had the resolution to make display sized prints even twenty years ago, and for photographs that can't be a generic scene or character, still dominates even the art photography world. Film continues to exist mainly because some artists prefer a hands-on technique, or find an analog process more comfortable (and that isn't just those of us who've been doing this for more than half a century). As you note, stock photography (which has been mainly digital for twenty years or longer) is about to go the way of taxis in cities with both Uber and Lyft. The only market for photography (that is, the only way for art photographers to make a living) will soon be images of specific subjects -- and even those, for subjects in the public eye, are likely to be subsumed by AI images.
That will leave us in the same market oil painting has been in for the past century and a half: only those who prize a handmade product will be interested in even digital prints, never mind silver gelatin or RA-4 images. And with only the very few able to make a living at it, how long will it take for the "film resurgence" to fall back into obscurity and film manufacturing to cease due to unprofitability? That would leave us where oil painters would be if commercial production of oil paints ceased: having to make our own.
Don’t underestimate the power of artist and amateurs. 95% of musical instruments are sold to amateurs. And as ai pointed out the development is not necessarily good for photographers but it is good for photography. That’s my point. They are a different thing 😊
@@ShootOnFilm It's only good for photography if photography still exists in, say, twenty years. Digital will surely still be around -- we'll still need to document current events, need evidence for courts, need to make snapshots of our lives. Film? Maybe. Depends if the "resurgence" can hold -- but the resurgence is based on photography as an art, or as a hobby.
Building balsa model airplanes almost vanished when pre-built plastic radio controlled models got cheap (and the price of balsa went through the roof). Hobbies depend on supply, and suppliers depend on volume.
You can't run a film coating line to make five hundred rolls a year -- nor five thousand, or even fifty thousand; the minimum that's economically feasible is close to a million rolls over a storage life of around five to at most ten years -- and if it's ten years between coating runs, the machines will rust away and only those of us willing/able to do wet plate will still be making negatives (and we'll have to go back to Fox Talbot's methods to make prints).
@@SilntObsvr Kodak seems to be making it economically viable. Of course, a big part of that is Hollywood demand. But also, we have already seen Ilford starting the production. And B&W -- that is significantly easier.
I agree with your sentiments!
Thanks for watching!
Is that a Moskva 5 or 4?
5 😊
@@ShootOnFilm these Moskvas are truely a piece of art themselves , super high quality and absolutely lovely to work with, 4 and 5 are a bit chunkier/heavier compared to Moskva 2 but a bit more advanced and 5 has a flash port as well which is amazing, I love them all... BTW thanks for another great video I completely agree with your view on the AI topic , all the best !🙏🙏🙏
...thanks for the preludium....
I was thinking about you :-)
I think there is some truth in this, for sure. Agreed with you!
A bit provocative, yes, maybe? ;-)
Awesome and right on point.
Thanks for watching!!
heard you out. hard pass. good luck with that.
I see more and more dust on negatives left uncleaned and printed. 😉😊😂
Dust is a sign of progress!
I take your point, but AI has nothing to do with photography. Photographs are created in a camera on light sensitive film or a sensor, not a computer. Sadly AI will make a lot of creative professional photographers redundant, and I’m thinking here mainly about Advertising, and Commercial photographers.
Yeah, but I never suggested photography had anything to do with photography. Other than making some of it obsolete. AI cannot make photos. However, they can make hybrids. We will see an ever-increasing number of hybrids where you take a picture of your loved one, a camera captures her face, and AI fills in the rest, enhancing. I would not like it -- you would not like it -- but many would!
There's always three main types of opinions for every step of evolution and AI is certenly a step of our evolution, not only in photography and art. Not even Spinning Jenny got everyone excited when that machine was invented back in 1764. There's the ones o cries out that doomsday is here, there's the ones that believes to much in it and there's the ones in the middle who adapts and uses it to their advantage.
So true. And the progress cannot be stopped. Better adapt.
True AI would Not need to learn from Others images. This current series of tools have used millions of images without seeking their creators consent. I have No interest in an Artificial image which has more connection to a video game than Reality.
I don't agree. Like a human photographer, AI needs to learn from the world around it. If you put a newborn baby in isolation, she would not grow as an intelligent, creative photographer. She needs to study the work of others to create her own work. That's called learning. And while she is looking at the pictures of others and learning, nobody thinks that's "copyright infringement".
In the same way, I have a strong opinion that AI learning from my work doesn't infringe my rights or my copyrights. Its learning from my work, it's influenced by my work, but AI generates new from it. It is far from perfect, but it's getting better than 99% of photographers. And that is great. Those 99% need to move on, find something else, or improve their game.
I'm also not interested in AI-generated images, as I told you at the beginning of the video. Doesn't interest me at all. But they are here to stay. I'm also not interested in the majority of "real photographs" that are created today. All product placements, model shoots, sunsets and babies. But then again, I'm an old grumpy man! :-)
Perhaps we are both just Grumpy old men 😂
While what you say is true, AI itself is a chilling thought when you think how it can, has, and will continue to be, abused.
That I agree. But I also believe that banning and minimizing it is not the answer. We need to learn to live with it. Because the benefits will also be huge. Yes, I'm a bit of a technologist ... ;-)
Banning will never work. It's big money, and it does have it's benefits. Unfortunately, it has, and will continue to be, abused to hurt people in many ways. @@ShootOnFilm
Why bother trekking miles and waiting for the perfect light when people will ask you is it AI you might enjoy it but when you share it people won't appreciate what you did
We are already getting people who just slap together an image and try to pawn it off as real . people are already questioning if it's real or not,us photographers now have to defend our images
You may say it liberates you but will be shackled by having to prove it
I agree it is painful. But pain will make us free :-) Here are a few possible avenues:
-stop shooting in perfect light -- shoot in awful light
-don't answer people when they ask. Be free. Nobody would actually need to know it was you who took the picture. You don't need to have an explanation.
-shoot wet plate, do not scan, and show only your images on glass and tin
-go with expired broken films
-shoot selfies, and your loved ones
-make silver gelatin prints and sell them
...this is a list for myself, but I believe you can create a list of yours :-)
Picture of ‘difficult’ photographers 😂😂😂
But look at those cameras!!!! :-)
A Drawing wasn't made in paint! which dosesn't make it a painting!. A painting Is not recorded from a camera! which doesn't make it a Photograph! An Ai image is not made from a camera which definatly doesn't make it a photograph either!! BUT does Ai make the image a painting again??
That is true. I never said anything that would suggest so :-) AI is not photography, and photography is not painting.
@@ShootOnFilm But is AI now classed as art?
@@IainHC1 Not in my books. But also, 99% of photography we see around us is not art. So that can easily be replaced by AI.
You have made a number of true statements until you came to last one, A.I. one.
And last one doesn't make sense. (if 9 statemants are correct then 10. is also correct?)
"A.I. will liberate all those photographer who make living with photographing stock pictures"??
Now they will make high artistic photographs suddenly?
They will sell those Rembrandt like beautiful digital photograps and feed their children?
Of course, because before A.I. they didn't have time to shot artistic photograph and sell them??
My point is: your story before A.I. part is right, and A.I. is also useful for future stock photography and maybe for other types, even art photography.
>>Only your continuation of story and conclusion is uterly wrong.
Do not mix photography as a profession/source of income and photography as a discipline. Fewer and fewer people will earn money from pure photography. Already now, thanks to AI-supported cellphones, even newspaper images are taken by amateurs on their phones. And with AI, less and less "professional photography" will be needed. Significantly less.
Those photographers who can shoot an OK advertisement, an ok portrait or anything "OK" -- but who do not have their own unique artistic or meaningful style will be even less needed. Their work will be totally obsolete. They will be free to do something else.
Recognising this and moving forward is liberating. You cannot turn back the time. The faster you accept and move forward, the better off you are. How do you then earn money -- that I don't know. Nobody but Amish ride horse and buggy any more :-)
@@ShootOnFilm Herr Jaaksi, I agree with all that above, that is clear as white snow in your pictures.
What I don't agree is with statement that A.I. is better for photography.(semantics reasons)
It will not improve digital photography because humans will not shoot better digital pictures(as discipline) and it is not good for present "ok" photographers(source of income).
It is better for industry and society in photographic terms.
All of your points are sound and intelligently observed inclusive film/digital transition.
Digital/A.I. doesn't follow your previously correct logic.
And last, video lack little compassion for those "ok" photographers, but that is just my personal feeling.
There are two problems with your assessment. The first is that art doesn't pay the bills for most of us. Being able to use your skillet to generate income in the commercial sector is what allows many photographers to pursue artistic projects. The second issue is how much visual noise is already out there and how much worse it's getting thanks to A.I. We live in a world where people are encouraged to stand up and speak even when they have nothing to say. There is an absolute flood of meaningless, disposable content being shoved in front of us every single day. It's a cacophony of low effort garbage that drowns out the insightful and well crafted contributions. Now that's fine if you don't care about making money from your photography. If the goal is to simply do it for personal enjoyment then A.I. isn't something to worry about.
For the professionals who have spent two or three decades perfecting their skills it's a punch in the gut that might signal a career change at 40 or 50. Or maybe it won't, maybe authenticity will be of a much greater value to marketers. Maybe the collaborative process between client and photographer will simply yield superior results. Maybe standing out in a sea of noise will justify the added business expense. It's hard to say for sure. The one thing I think we can all agree with is that it's all changing and we can't hold back the tide.
a change of career can be so good. After more than 25 yrs working as a cameraman I switched to teaching cinematography and enjoy it every day
Thank God. At last someone in this discussion talks some sense. When we are enslaved completely to the machine what good will our "artistic freedom" be then? AI creates disposable images and when it is done with us, it will dispose of us. Stephen Hawking said as much before he died. The world is fake enough as it is and we are happily going to add to that. P*ss off. Perhaps the Luddites had the right idea after all. I've seen lots of great artistic photography on social media and it gets relatively few views. People just fall for the AI wow factor. Actually AI is an extension of the acids of Modernity that Marx had in mind in the introduction to the Communist Manifesto. I am sure NOT a Communist, but they got the diagnosis of our global technological totalitarian society spot on:
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."
@@noudsmeetsexcellent point
I want to click the like and dislike thumbs but the algorithm won’t let me!
Amateur artists have always had complete freedom, if they had money. Professionals have always been at the buyer’s beck and call.
The problem is that many photographers and other artists act in both amateur and professional capacities. The professional work pays for the artistic personal work.
AI will in my opinion, increase the value of all hand made creative objects.
AI will make everyones life more constrained and tedious.
Censorship will be the big winner along with profiteers, plutocrats and autocrats.
True. But there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop the progress. So, instead of fighting it and complaining let’s learn to use it.
For those whose lively hood is in jeopardy- well, photography has not been a lucrative career choice in recent years anyway. First photographers complained about amateurs taking wedding photos with these new digital cameras, then press photographers were replaced by people sending their own cell phone photos from the crime scene etc etc. “Taking a photograph of a thing to show the thing” - I think that will be over and we will move on. 😊