So great to see this Jay P! I interned for you wayyyy back in 1992. I’m still in the business and had a conversation in this very topic with a colleague yesterday. I wholeheartedly agree with your take on this and I was explaining a lot of similar thoughts to my friend. Glad to see you still creating! Vince
Photography for enjoyment will always be there, just like driving. But professionally, it's going to get harder to get people to pay you for certain things due to AI, just like a driverless car replaces the driver.
Not until there is a robot that can tell people how to pose and actually take the pictures. AI can help with processing pictures but it can't take them for you.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 A robot? The photo wont be captured with a camera, it will be entirely created by AI. The scene, the subject, the lighting, all of it will be tailored exactly as desired.
I 100% believe that the AI tools in Photoshop are going to destroy the hobby of photography. I'm not talking about the casual user, capturing everyday life, but the hobbyists who join photo groups and camera clubs, and submit their images for competition. . . Serious photographers who exchange images on forums and social media. It is getting to the point where, particularly with landscape photography, the viewer doesn't know what is real, and what it not. Yes, part of that scene may exist, but the photographer used generative AI to expand the horizon, where the software just makes up the rest of the scene. What about that dramatic sky? Did it exist at all? Who knows. This goes way beyond just cloning out a distracting soda can. In my opinion, this technology is cheapening the art of photography. As the technology progresses, hobbyists will ask themselves, why go to the trouble to learn the hobby and capture that perfect scene when viewers aren't going to believe it in the first place?
I largely agree that AI wont take away from things like events and hobby photography, but I think stock photography is done for. No one is going to pay for a model and a studio when you can just generate whatever you want with hyper-specific detail. That being said I want to make one point about the comparison to other format changes and new technologies throughout history. Those comparisons are not comparable here. Never before has there been a technology like AI, that makes creative choices for you. I don't think we can just equate it to the switch from film to digital, because it's not the same. I have a nuanced take on the whole thing, I love some of the tools coming out, but I also don't love that we are about to see computers making many of the creative choices in our media. So while photography may remain largely untouched, other industries will not, and I think we stand to lose quite a bit of our cultural soul in the process, as if we havent lost enough to the corporate stranglehold on art already.
Also the point that, with mobile phone cameras becoming increasingly sophisticated, the time will come when Apple, Google, Samsung etc. will be able to claim that they created your pictures and, in the extreme, want to sell your pictures to you.
Adobe is very forward thinking. Yet I think the days of AI as applied to a specific purpose are short. Soon, the same AI that is used for photography will be networked with the same AI that is used to control automobile, air and shipping worldwide. It will be the same AI that controls our electric grids, our water supplies and to a degree, the production and distribution of our food. That networked AI will be in every facet of our lives. The idea that we are going to succeed at regulating AI is ridiculous. It is artificial intelligence. But, artificial or not, it is intelligence. Intelligence that will in a very short time set it's own regulations.
The commercial market mostly doesn’t rely on live events/random events. Wedding photographers already have cut their rates. The fundamental problem with fully generative AI is that it’s constructed from stolen work no one gave permission to be used, so the more and more stolen data that’s used the malleable AI will become. What’s next is people having wedding attendees taking snapshots, in-putting that to AI and essentially getting professional looking pictures out of snapshots. It won’t end there. People taking bad food snapshots and putting them in AI to get a better result rather learn how to make better shots.
It will replace some parts of photography... just not everything. The piece of pie will be slightly smaller. All you need is a video of a person to start generating their image - and this is only gonna get better, technology wise.
I was thinking something similar. anything where there's no personal connection is at risk, because commercial clients would rather save a ton of money, but photos that mean something to people are different. I'm not worried about AI replacing me, because the models that want to shoot with me do so, because they want photos of themselves that make them look good. I have started to explore using Ai to clean up photos. The Photoshop remove tool has been incredible for stray hairs or distracting things in the background. I've also played with generative fill one of twice to completely replace the background.
There is no question that AI tools have uses, some noble, some admirable and there is a new horizon. However, it is also a fact that there is a limit to the power we are able to offer general public without accountability. An example of this is cars - we are permitted to drive cars with suitable licensing and there are limits placed on what can be on the road and who can drive it. This is because cars can be abused, can take people's lives and do irreparable harm. AI is essentially unregulated and extremely powerful and this is where people should be rightly concerned. I have utilized AI in my commercial work, and I have also tested it and found that I could easily use it for malicious purposes - exploiting young people, ripping off photographers work for advertising purposes and manipulating events. These things don't threaten photographers directly, but undermine the perception of the integrity of the profession. Will people always want real images and real news? Yes, but I believe that when the faith is eroded in our ability to deliver it, then some disciplines of photography will likely diminish to the point of near extinction.
It's true that while AI can enhance efficiency and offer new possibilities, it can never replace the emotional depth and authenticity captured by human photographers.
I remember when I got the Sony VG900 full frame camcorder in 2012 with FE mount for 1080p60 video and stills using the 24mp full frame sensor (same as the RX1) and said mirrorless full frame cameras will kill DSLRs and most said no way . Today only Pentax is sticking with only full frame DSLRs.
You are spot on ..... very wise words ! Unfortunately 'prompt-ographers' are ruining photography platforms like 500PX etc with their deceit, it ruins the experience when you are constantly guessing if its real or Ai.
Ai will not destroy photography, for those people who want the human experience of photography ... but it will kill commercial photography, even the 'event' photography like weddings, AI will soon enough be on every smart phone, so the guests can take the photo's and just let AI do the heavy lifting of perfecting the image. Photography will simply become a hobby rather than a career path. BTW AI is not 'photography', its not the recording of something in the real world, but commissioning editors and companies or even the general public will not give two hoots about that; its quick, its cheap and it does the job.
One thing that AI can do is automating editing. You can train NN on millions of photographs selected for good colors, composition, etc. and then it can cull and edit your photos like those. Perhaps one day a camera processor will be sufficiently powerful to do that, so you would never need to do post processing yourself.
AI can never replace authenticity and/or an experience. Certainly not in portrait photography. What does bother me is that there are children in the world who cut their ears with scissors to measure op to the beauty,-and ideal standard. AI reinforces that idea. Thanks for sharing your video.
You are imagining the limits of AI as it exists today in it's infancy. That is like imagining the limits of what you could do with air travel as a bystander at Kitty Hawk. You are not alone. Think of every aspect of photography. For example: exposure, lighting, composition, backgrounds, foregrounds, facial expressions, posing, ambiance, control of dynamic range, the direction and quality of light...all of it will fall into the realm of what artificial intelligence can manipulate. Soon, the consumers of our product, photographs, will make a decision as to whether they want something that resembles the experience of reality or some personal projection of what they would like that reality to be changed to. In the very near future, it will make no difference. AI will provide either to the client.
With Photoshop you create your Own Art your Brain. and your talent does the work . AI does it for you . That mean a Cave man can do it 😂😂😂 Got my point? and why poeple should Spend $ 1000s of Dollars on camera Gear . Ohh I use AI .😂
Sorry but it's not the same as the change from film to digital, it is killing stock photography, my sales have dramatically decreased and I know several designers who are now not using stock photos because they can produce their own photos using AI software. What pisses me off is that hundreds of thousands of images have been taken from the web and fed into the AI software, therefore they are using other people's work to create the AI image. Wedding and event photographers will always be needed but alas we are not all wedding and event photographers. I am also seeing social media (ESPECIALLY FB) being swamped with AI images of animals, landscapes, and crafts and regular people are having trouble distinguishing between a real photo and an AI created image. I also think that these people also prefer the AI image over real photos in some cases. I will always love going out and taking images, that is one thing that will never change but to say that it won't ruin peoples careers is not entirely true.
This is missing a huge area that is going to be hit. My social media feed is swimming with people even "old" people using AI to create their own portrait images. Headshot style photography will become very niche much like going to a tin type photographer. Tin is about the experience and the result. Not the actual image. I believe portrait aka headshot will be about the experience, Not the end result (the photo). I say this because a AI photos are starting to become amazingly accurate in the last few months at only $20. Why spend 200-5000? When the public can pay for or endless options and only $20 just like car photography. I give headshot photography 2-3 years before it's just a pass time and only high end like getting a painting of yourself.
I disagree. I've lived long enough to see a lot of transitions. I don't know what AI you've seen. The mere being able to replace backgrounds, change facial expressions, etc. All of these and more have turned photography into a guessing game, whether it is real or fake. Photography has come more down to how good one is at PHOTOSHOP not how good of a photographer one is. Many new photographers wouldn't know what to do if they had a fully manual Pentax K1000, because they were accustomed to the camera making the decisions.
"whether it is real or fake" -- unless you are a forensic photographer there is no such thing as real, AI doesn't change it in principle only a degree. Photo is conveying only what you want it to convey, that fact you didn't alter it doesn't mean it's real, and, in fact, you can make a case that all photos are lying.
"Many new photographers wouldn't know what to do if they had a fully manual Pentax K1000" That's a technical thing, easily learned from reading a book or watching videos. I learned how to use a manual film camera from reading a book and running a few rolls of film. Technical things like that don't make the photographer. It's vision and creativity. AI is increasingly becoming homogenous, looking so very similar and repetitive. The more images that get dumped in, the more pedestrians training the AIs on the same prompts, the more it will look like the exact same style. It will become increasingly important for photographers to have creative vision instead of duplicating someone else's work or chasing trends.
I couldn't agree more. Real or not becomes a guessing game. At best, it creates confusion for the viewer, wondering if this landscape actually exists. At worst, it cheapens the final product.
I really think that AI has to do more with greed then ability , its not made for creatives it made for executives that only concern in the bottom line " why deal with pesky people that want to make a living" . AI will never have intent, passion or emotion , the things that makes a photograph engaging , I can still look at Ansel Adams or Penn and think wow what amazing images, And these guys used very inconvenient camera system , where each image would cost you money to produce , making things easy just creates more mediocrity.( just faster and cheaper )
Good point. I shoot in jpeg for the reasons you mentioned. I'll do some editing in Lightroom & / or run a photo through Topaz. Most of the time I'm happy with the results. What I want to do is to be out ' taking images ' - not to be sitting at a computer editing hour after hour on large raw files. I try to get the picture ' correct 'in the camera. Thanks for your presentation.
It makes no sense. I've never seen an OOC jpeg as good as a raw file even if its fully automatically processed, like even applying a preset on import in Lightroom. And if I'm not satisfied with the final result there is no point in taking pictures in the first place as I would never want to look at them again. There is no point in buying expensive cameras and lenses if you leave 90% of the image quality on the table by going with jpegs. And in fact, you don't even need any camera. Take a picture with your phone, share it with family/friends, and forget it to never look at it again. And it doesn't mean one has to spend hours like you said editing the photos. The first step, converting raw files is automatic. I don't particularly like the conversion LR does, so I drop the files into DXO PR3 and an hour later it will crank them at about 6 sec per file -- super clean images, excellent optical corrections, excellent color profile. I processed images upto ISO 51200 and it's rare DXO wasn't able to clean them up. When it's done, load the DNG files in LR applying preset on import. Even after this automatic process you get images much better than the OOC jpegs. Adding tags to the images will save you time later when you need to find them. After that I quickly go through all the files checking if any of them needs personal touch. Even if you are shooting jpeg, you still need to crop, strengthen, cull files, don't you? Then I export pictures as PDF album. That's what I like to look at and what others appreciate too.
I''m divided. I agree and disagree. For our genration, yes I agree on the experience. But for the upcoming generations it will shift to AI. Perhaps it will take 2 or 3 generations but in the end for them the experience will fade. The goal is always the final picture and if they use AI they don't have to look for a location, don't use expensive camera's and other gear. AI will generate the image they want within a minute. So, yes I agree on the current generation but disagree for the upcoming next generations.
Actually it almost did! Radio lost all of it's content to television and was about to be abandoned. Elvis Presley was credited for much of the save with rock and roll AND convincing car makers to include a radio with every car.
@@aussie2uGA oh, interesting. I didn't know that. That said, I still listen to radio when I commute. And Elvis has left the building a long long time ago ;) As for including radios in cars. Brilliant move! We're already seeing ai in editing, I'm sure it will come to cameras too. (Phone cameras are spearheading this already)
AI isn't destroying photography, cellphones are. Cellphones have sucked all the fun out of photography and by now, everything and everybody on the planet has been photographed 1000x over.
Fabulous video. Truth. Ai is just another tool. Film will never go away, just used less. Digital is a faster learning curve. Either way it IS about the experience.
So great to see this Jay P! I interned for you wayyyy back in 1992. I’m still in the business and had a conversation in this very topic with a colleague yesterday. I wholeheartedly agree with your take on this and I was explaining a lot of similar thoughts to my friend. Glad to see you still creating!
Vince
Nice to hear from you Vince! Great to hear that you are still doing well in the business! If you are ever in LA look us up!
Photography for enjoyment will always be there, just like driving. But professionally, it's going to get harder to get people to pay you for certain things due to AI, just like a driverless car replaces the driver.
That is a good point. Thanks for sharing!
Not until there is a robot that can tell people how to pose and actually take the pictures. AI can help with processing pictures but it can't take them for you.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 A robot? The photo wont be captured with a camera, it will be entirely created by AI. The scene, the subject, the lighting, all of it will be tailored exactly as desired.
I 100% believe that the AI tools in Photoshop are going to destroy the hobby of photography. I'm not talking about the casual user, capturing everyday life, but the hobbyists who join photo groups and camera clubs, and submit their images for competition. . . Serious photographers who exchange images on forums and social media. It is getting to the point where, particularly with landscape photography, the viewer doesn't know what is real, and what it not. Yes, part of that scene may exist, but the photographer used generative AI to expand the horizon, where the software just makes up the rest of the scene. What about that dramatic sky? Did it exist at all? Who knows. This goes way beyond just cloning out a distracting soda can. In my opinion, this technology is cheapening the art of photography. As the technology progresses, hobbyists will ask themselves, why go to the trouble to learn the hobby and capture that perfect scene when viewers aren't going to believe it in the first place?
Some really good points to think about!
I largely agree that AI wont take away from things like events and hobby photography, but I think stock photography is done for. No one is going to pay for a model and a studio when you can just generate whatever you want with hyper-specific detail.
That being said I want to make one point about the comparison to other format changes and new technologies throughout history.
Those comparisons are not comparable here. Never before has there been a technology like AI, that makes creative choices for you. I don't think we can just equate it to the switch from film to digital, because it's not the same.
I have a nuanced take on the whole thing, I love some of the tools coming out, but I also don't love that we are about to see computers making many of the creative choices in our media.
So while photography may remain largely untouched, other industries will not, and I think we stand to lose quite a bit of our cultural soul in the process, as if we havent lost enough to the corporate stranglehold on art already.
Lots of great points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I agree Ai is something else!
Also the point that, with mobile phone cameras becoming increasingly sophisticated, the time will come when Apple, Google, Samsung etc. will be able to claim that they created your pictures and, in the extreme, want to sell your pictures to you.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
It will get to a point very soon where you take a few cell phone shots, upload it to Adobe, and AI will make whatever you want.
That type of thing is a real possibility.
Adobe is very forward thinking. Yet I think the days of AI as applied to a specific purpose are short. Soon, the same AI that is used for photography will be networked with the same AI that is used to control automobile, air and shipping worldwide. It will be the same AI that controls our electric grids, our water supplies and to a degree, the production and distribution of our food. That networked AI will be in every facet of our lives. The idea that we are going to succeed at regulating AI is ridiculous. It is artificial intelligence. But, artificial or not, it is intelligence. Intelligence that will in a very short time set it's own regulations.
The commercial market mostly doesn’t rely on live events/random events. Wedding photographers already have cut their rates.
The fundamental problem with fully generative AI is that it’s constructed from stolen work no one gave permission to be used, so the more and more stolen data that’s used the malleable AI will become.
What’s next is people having wedding attendees taking snapshots, in-putting that to AI and essentially getting professional looking pictures out of snapshots. It won’t end there. People taking bad food snapshots and putting them in AI to get a better result rather learn how to make better shots.
True, there are a lot of things to be concerned about.
It will replace some parts of photography... just not everything. The piece of pie will be slightly smaller.
All you need is a video of a person to start generating their image - and this is only gonna get better, technology wise.
Very true. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for the moment of clarity.
Any time! Thanks for watching!
I was thinking something similar. anything where there's no personal connection is at risk, because commercial clients would rather save a ton of money, but photos that mean something to people are different.
I'm not worried about AI replacing me, because the models that want to shoot with me do so, because they want photos of themselves that make them look good.
I have started to explore using Ai to clean up photos. The Photoshop remove tool has been incredible for stray hairs or distracting things in the background. I've also played with generative fill one of twice to completely replace the background.
Those are great tools and awesome time savers!
There is no question that AI tools have uses, some noble, some admirable and there is a new horizon. However, it is also a fact that there is a limit to the power we are able to offer general public without accountability. An example of this is cars - we are permitted to drive cars with suitable licensing and there are limits placed on what can be on the road and who can drive it. This is because cars can be abused, can take people's lives and do irreparable harm. AI is essentially unregulated and extremely powerful and this is where people should be rightly concerned. I have utilized AI in my commercial work, and I have also tested it and found that I could easily use it for malicious purposes - exploiting young people, ripping off photographers work for advertising purposes and manipulating events. These things don't threaten photographers directly, but undermine the perception of the integrity of the profession. Will people always want real images and real news? Yes, but I believe that when the faith is eroded in our ability to deliver it, then some disciplines of photography will likely diminish to the point of near extinction.
Lots of great thoughts. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Love your channel
Thank you! I appreciate your support!
Well commercial photography is dead for sure, but each day Iove to go out and take photos along the day.
I think commercial photographers will have to learn to use AI in their projects to stay competitive.
It's true that while AI can enhance efficiency and offer new possibilities, it can never replace the emotional depth and authenticity captured by human photographers.
Great statement. Thanks for sharing!
I remember when I got the Sony VG900 full frame camcorder in 2012 with FE mount for 1080p60 video and stills using the 24mp full frame sensor (same as the RX1) and said mirrorless full frame cameras will kill DSLRs and most said no way . Today only Pentax is sticking with only full frame DSLRs.
Yes, things are continuing to evolve. Thanks for watching!
You are spot on ..... very wise words ! Unfortunately 'prompt-ographers' are ruining photography platforms like 500PX etc with their deceit, it ruins the experience when you are constantly guessing if its real or Ai.
Ai will not destroy photography, for those people who want the human experience of photography
... but it will kill commercial photography, even the 'event' photography like weddings, AI will soon enough be on every smart phone, so the guests can take the photo's and just let AI do the heavy lifting of perfecting the image.
Photography will simply become a hobby rather than a career path.
BTW AI is not 'photography', its not the recording of something in the real world, but commissioning editors and companies or even the general public will not give two hoots about that; its quick, its cheap and it does the job.
Very well said. Thanks for your comment!
"Learn from the past, work for the future, and don't be a slave to no computer." - Grandmaster Melle Mel
Good advice! Thanks for sharing!
One thing that AI can do is automating editing. You can train NN on millions of photographs selected for good colors, composition, etc. and then it can cull and edit your photos like those. Perhaps one day a camera processor will be sufficiently powerful to do that, so you would never need to do post processing yourself.
It is amazing the way things are changing so much!
AI can never replace authenticity and/or an experience. Certainly not in portrait photography. What does bother me is that there are children in the world who cut their ears with scissors to measure op to the beauty,-and ideal standard. AI reinforces that idea. Thanks for sharing your video.
Yeah, I can see that it may have an affect on self image.
Long time ago my grandpa told me these editing tools like PS, LR, list goes on killed photography, because I'm just image editing.
It is different than just capturing an image without any editing.
You are imagining the limits of AI as it exists today in it's infancy. That is like imagining the limits of what you could do with air travel as a bystander at Kitty Hawk. You are not alone. Think of every aspect of photography. For example: exposure, lighting, composition, backgrounds, foregrounds, facial expressions, posing, ambiance, control of dynamic range, the direction and quality of light...all of it will fall into the realm of what artificial intelligence can manipulate. Soon, the consumers of our product, photographs, will make a decision as to whether they want something that resembles the experience of reality or some personal projection of what they would like that reality to be changed to. In the very near future, it will make no difference. AI will provide either to the client.
Good points. Thanks for sharing.
It will change the advertising industry for sure. Jobs will be lost. Time will tell the extent to which the degree of change. Budgets will be smaller.
That is where is seems like it is heading.
With Photoshop
you create your Own Art your Brain. and your talent does the work . AI does it for you . That mean a Cave man can do it 😂😂😂 Got my point? and why poeple should Spend $ 1000s of Dollars on camera Gear . Ohh I use AI .😂
Sorry but it's not the same as the change from film to digital, it is killing stock photography, my sales have dramatically decreased and I know several designers who are now not using stock photos because they can produce their own photos using AI software. What pisses me off is that hundreds of thousands of images have been taken from the web and fed into the AI software, therefore they are using other people's work to create the AI image. Wedding and event photographers will always be needed but alas we are not all wedding and event photographers. I am also seeing social media (ESPECIALLY FB) being swamped with AI images of animals, landscapes, and crafts and regular people are having trouble distinguishing between a real photo and an AI created image. I also think that these people also prefer the AI image over real photos in some cases. I will always love going out and taking images, that is one thing that will never change but to say that it won't ruin peoples careers is not entirely true.
Beautiful 👍👍👍📸👍📸👍👍👍
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed the video!
I realllllly hope this video ages well 🤞🤞
Thanks for watching and commenting!
It won't.
This is missing a huge area that is going to be hit. My social media feed is swimming with people even "old" people using AI to create their own portrait images. Headshot style photography will become very niche much like going to a tin type photographer. Tin is about the experience and the result. Not the actual image. I believe portrait aka headshot will be about the experience, Not the end result (the photo). I say this because a AI photos are starting to become amazingly accurate in the last few months at only $20. Why spend 200-5000? When the public can pay for or endless options and only $20 just like car photography.
I give headshot photography 2-3 years before it's just a pass time and only high end like getting a painting of yourself.
I hope that is not the case. But very possible.
I disagree. I've lived long enough to see a lot of transitions. I don't know what AI you've seen. The mere being able to replace backgrounds, change facial expressions, etc. All of these and more have turned photography into a guessing game, whether it is real or fake. Photography has come more down to how good one is at PHOTOSHOP not how good of a photographer one is. Many new photographers wouldn't know what to do if they had a fully manual Pentax K1000, because they were accustomed to the camera making the decisions.
True, that not knowing if am image is real or not is a little disturbing.
If you're an avid AI user, you can kind of tell if someone is using it.
"whether it is real or fake" -- unless you are a forensic photographer there is no such thing as real, AI doesn't change it in principle only a degree. Photo is conveying only what you want it to convey, that fact you didn't alter it doesn't mean it's real, and, in fact, you can make a case that all photos are lying.
"Many new photographers wouldn't know what to do if they had a fully manual Pentax K1000"
That's a technical thing, easily learned from reading a book or watching videos. I learned how to use a manual film camera from reading a book and running a few rolls of film. Technical things like that don't make the photographer. It's vision and creativity. AI is increasingly becoming homogenous, looking so very similar and repetitive. The more images that get dumped in, the more pedestrians training the AIs on the same prompts, the more it will look like the exact same style. It will become increasingly important for photographers to have creative vision instead of duplicating someone else's work or chasing trends.
I couldn't agree more. Real or not becomes a guessing game. At best, it creates confusion for the viewer, wondering if this landscape actually exists. At worst, it cheapens the final product.
I really think that AI has to do more with greed then ability , its not made for creatives it made for executives that only concern in the bottom line " why deal with pesky people that want to make a living" . AI will never have intent, passion or emotion , the things that makes a photograph engaging , I can still look at Ansel Adams or Penn and think wow what amazing images, And these guys used very inconvenient camera system , where each image would cost you money to produce , making things easy just creates more mediocrity.( just faster and cheaper )
Some things to really think about!
ai will kill stock photography. It will not kill off 'personalised' and real photo shoots.
Yes, it will probably put a big dent in the stock photo world.
Good point. I shoot in jpeg for the reasons you mentioned. I'll do some editing in Lightroom & / or run a photo through Topaz. Most of the time I'm happy with the results. What I want to do is to be out ' taking images ' - not to be sitting at a computer editing hour after hour on large raw files. I try to get the picture ' correct 'in the camera. Thanks for your presentation.
True, some people love the editing part. But some of us prefer to be out and about.
It makes no sense. I've never seen an OOC jpeg as good as a raw file even if its fully automatically processed, like even applying a preset on import in Lightroom. And if I'm not satisfied with the final result there is no point in taking pictures in the first place as I would never want to look at them again. There is no point in buying expensive cameras and lenses if you leave 90% of the image quality on the table by going with jpegs. And in fact, you don't even need any camera. Take a picture with your phone, share it with family/friends, and forget it to never look at it again.
And it doesn't mean one has to spend hours like you said editing the photos. The first step, converting raw files is automatic. I don't particularly like the conversion LR does, so I drop the files into DXO PR3 and an hour later it will crank them at about 6 sec per file -- super clean images, excellent optical corrections, excellent color profile. I processed images upto ISO 51200 and it's rare DXO wasn't able to clean them up. When it's done, load the DNG files in LR applying preset on import. Even after this automatic process you get images much better than the OOC jpegs. Adding tags to the images will save you time later when you need to find them. After that I quickly go through all the files checking if any of them needs personal touch. Even if you are shooting jpeg, you still need to crop, strengthen, cull files, don't you? Then I export pictures as PDF album. That's what I like to look at and what others appreciate too.
I''m divided. I agree and disagree. For our genration, yes I agree on the experience. But for the upcoming generations it will shift to AI. Perhaps it will take 2 or 3 generations but in the end for them the experience will fade. The goal is always the final picture and if they use AI they don't have to look for a location, don't use expensive camera's and other gear. AI will generate the image they want within a minute. So, yes I agree on the current generation but disagree for the upcoming next generations.
I believe future generations will have the same desire to record life's experiences that AI cannot replace.
Nope, I embrace it! And I'm 70 years young...
Love your attitude! Thanks for your comment!
What a nice positive and realistic perspective
Thank you, I appreciate that!
Whoo,
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
100% agree here man. Just like the tv didn't kill the radio
That's another one I hadn't thought about. Thanks for sharing!
Actually it almost did! Radio lost all of it's content to television and was about to be abandoned. Elvis Presley was credited for much of the save with rock and roll AND convincing car makers to include a radio with every car.
@@aussie2uGA oh, interesting. I didn't know that. That said, I still listen to radio when I commute. And Elvis has left the building a long long time ago ;)
As for including radios in cars. Brilliant move! We're already seeing ai in editing, I'm sure it will come to cameras too. (Phone cameras are spearheading this already)
AI isn't destroying photography, cellphones are.
Cellphones have sucked all the fun out of photography and by now, everything and everybody on the planet has been photographed 1000x over.
With a world obsessed with selfies!
"AI": clickbait headline.
No one cares.
When "AI" gives us cheaper fuel, less taxes, and the actual definition of what "woman" means, give us a call.
Some of us care.
AI is like photoshop...tool helping photographer
And it is a great tool when used honestly.
Fabulous video. Truth. Ai is just another tool. Film will never go away, just used less. Digital is a faster learning curve. Either way it IS about the experience.
Well said! And the experience can be very rewarding!
AI Playboy Magazine