AI Editing Will Ruin Photography As We Know It
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Whilst enjoying some landscape photography and photographing the seasonal delight of autumn colour, I discuss some of my concerns with Skylum Luminar AI photo editing software. After seeing a video about Luminar AI editing software I went out in to the field with my camera. I was looking for compositions and thinking about each and every image, how the light was falling on the subject, the colour, the shapes, the weather - all things which need considering when practicing landscape photography. It occurred to me that the future of AI editing might negatively impact how people practice landscape photography.
10% off your first Squarespace website or domain: www.squarespac...
𝐁𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐲 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 '𝐎𝐧 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧' 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞: • Binge Watch EVERYTHING...
𝐌𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟏 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫: thomasheaton.c...
𝐌𝐲 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤: thomasheaton.c...
Nick Carver's Video: • BGWG #9: TLRs and Glen...
The AI Video: • World's First Fully AI...
𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐌𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞:
Online Photography Course: f4roadtrip.com
My Instagram: / heatonthomas
My Website: www.thomasheat...
My E-Book: geni.us/onlocation
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 & 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐕𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴.
Main Video Camera: geni.us/for-video
Tripod: geni.us/ELJmb3x
𝗠𝘆 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗞𝗶𝘁 L𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗹𝗼𝗴: bit.ly/tomsgear
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐕𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨
Into the Forest - Jakob Ahlbom
Our Secret Universe - Alan Ellis
Taking Me High Taking Me Low (Instrumental Version) - Johan Glossner
𝘼𝙡𝙡 𝘿𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙃𝙚𝙧𝙚: share.epidemics...
#LandscapePhotography #LuminarAI
Think you will be buying loads of beers as who wouldnt stay to the end given the collection of images you have shared today. A cracking set Thomas and you definitely made the most of the conditions
In terms of the AI debate, I would imagine there will be an argument by some people against any changes to an image that dosent replicate what was seen on the day. I love fine art architecture photography and use Photoshop to achieve a look that in reality dosent exist, so is this different to AI software. You called it when you spoke about integrity and I think it is how you are trying to promote/present yourself if you are sharing your images that is the key here.
While how much editing one does (dodging/burning vs lightroom editing vs orton effects vs sky replacements) is a line in the sand that is different for most people, there is perhaps a second argument here.
It's about human vs AI editing - the problem with AI editing is that the editing choices aren't even yours. They're picked by some algorithm.
Having said that, I suppose one could make the argument that you're still picking and choosing which 'AI edited image' to share to the public but that feels flimsy to me.
EDIT: I just realised that AI editing is almost indistinguishable from lightroom presets. So if you're using it as a starting point, I guess I can see legitimate uses for it for some people. I personally don't use presets etc but I stand corrected.
The Luminar AI for sky replacements comes in handy if you are blending two images and the masking just dont work in PS. Think about a lot of trees etc. Than it comes in handy to have a program like that. On the other hand, everyone knows the luminar skies by now, so when you use one, you will get called on it :)
AI has been out for years...with stuff like "Vue 5 esprit"..."Daz"...mainly backdrops for movies etc.... Ok but soul less.
@@SasidharPamganamamula Just one thing, the AI edit can be altered just like LR & PS You can let the AI edit the photograph, but you can then change it to suit you, ie:- if you feel that what it has done does not suit then tame it.
@@grahambarnett6107 Yeah, as I said in my edit at the bottom of my comment yesterday: I can see the use case of using the AI edit similar to how many people use presets nowadays - as sort of a starting point.
Hi Tom, I have traditionally used just Lightroom and a bit of Photoshop. I recently purchased Luminary's 4.........i was initially blown away, and spent hours re-editing a lot of old images, adding in new skys, sun rays you name it i did it and created
some amazing looking images. But, later, weeks later the images leave me some what hollow......they don't feel like my images, I'm not proud of them in the same way as i am when i capture an amazing sunrise in camera. So i think you right, there is a natural temptation to use the AI software to get that instant gratification, but long term its not the answer......it will not make you a better photographer, in my opinion.
That’s exactly it. Short term gratification. But a dead feeling afterwards
Spot on James!!
Almost All Photographers are Image makers today, Especially if you shoot in Raw, Now the first slider you use, commits you to imaging, not photography. Other wise, shoot jpegs in camera and leave them alone. See how many shots you get that you truly like.
If your a purist, It's not to your liking. and that's ok. There is a reason Most cameras shoot Raw images, so you can edit them to your liking.
There is also a reason that there are so many different Software Image development programs, With Photoshop being the King. When I go out for a Photo Shoot, and I know where I'm going, I visualize the shot I want, in my head. Regardless of what the conditions of the subject and the weather may dictate, and I can do that because I know my post imaging programs well.
Because for me, I believe that the photography world is now a very creative process that includes not just getting the perfect picture in camera, but also your ability to use the tools to Create the image that You like, with your imagination, and abilities to use the tools you have in a creative way. If you believe that taking photos needs to be done all in camera, then you are limiting your creativity, and don't bother to purchase any tools for raw conversion. just shoot in camera Jpeg's. In regards to what you are calling the natural look, It's almost impossible with out doing Post Production creativity. Why, because you can't expose for super high lights, and the foreground in the same shot. That's why so many cameras offer things like bracketing, and HDR. I actually try to achieve a look that is between HDR and the Flat looking Image out of camera. I try to create my shots to have depth and lighting that invites you to look into the image not just at it. AI is nothing more than a lazy man's tool, you still have to make a choice, and you can still manually edit that choice.
@@LeonKolenda Hi Leon... I get your point but I think that there is one thing that you're missing in your comment about just shooting JPEGs and that is that the software that is IN THE CAMERA with settings PRE-chosen by the camera manufacturers is, by its very nature, already "photoshopping" (or "lightrooming"?) your image... hoping that it will grab a new consumer to its camera line. Even raw does that to some, smaller, degree. So, if I wanted to just choose to get what the camera images, I would chose raw over JPEGs and choose my own very basic LR presets. BUT ULTIMATELY, I don't think that Thomas is disagreeing with you. But what I think he IS saying is that people are addicted to severely amped up images and because of that addiction, many have lost "the art of seeing" and have also lost the appreciation of nature.
Wow, well said. No one can put it better 👌🏻
I'm a novice photographer and photo editor. I truly feel that once my photos are out of the camera and onto the computer, the software's job is to help me reproduce the conditions that I experienced while taking the photo. I like my pictures to represent the moment. I will admit that I sometimes push beyond, just to see something different, to have a bit of fun, or to even create something artistic. But why would anyone want to give up that control? Why would we relinquish our images to algorithms?
Watch the videos on the software. You still have control over everything using the sliders. You can just use the ai as a suggestion, kinda like the auto button in lightroom, but using an algorithm.
The labour of sitting 10 evenings straight to watch a goopy cloud cover and on the 11th you get that sunset.
That's the joy of landscape photography, not getting some mediocre image and allowing AI to make it into something it's not in the first evenings shoot.
"photography is about those moments in time you capture and you remember forever". Totally agreed..!
I think sky replacement works really well for real estate photography or for making fantasy composites and stuff. But I personally think that sky replacements take all the fun out of landscape photography because it takes all the purpose out of chasing good skies or conditions.
My background is, firstly, a professional Rock musician since the late 60's and now, an enthusiastic amateur photographer who actually uses Luminar 4 as a plugin within Lightroom and Photoshop. I see many similarities with, for example, the introduction of samplers and drum machines to the music-making process. After a relatively short while, those with seasoned ears could easily detect commonly-used drum and other samples, as well as orchestral hits, loops and other artificial devices. For those who can remember, the 80's in particular were notorious for the over use of drum machines and the awful, sterile sounds of digital drums such as the infamous Simmons pad kits. This unimaginative use of samplers, drum machines and digital keyboards was a significant reason why so much of the music of that period, and beyond, was so stultifyingly simple and similar.
The next big innovation - and this probably mirrors much more closely the likes of Luminar AI - was the introduction of music production software which essentially allowed any acne-ridden teenager with no talent whatsoever to produce an entire song with a keyboard and one finger! This software has now become so sophisticated that it has completely pervaded the entire Music Industry, especially in the genre of so-called 'dance music', Techno and Electronica, Hip-Hop and many others - which is why we have a veritable plague of 'Producers' and 'D.J's' outputting monotonous, repetitive dirges, all seemingly at the industry-standard 120 bpm!
Already I am beginning to recognize multiple examples of the same Luminar skies, the same Luminar astro shots, the same Luminar lightning strikes, rainbows, sunsets. mists and Orton effects!
Whilst I am personally ok with the occasional replacement of a bland, midday cloudless sky with something a bit more complimentary to the overall subject matter, I have a feeling that too much AI will ultimately remove the sheer serendipity of that one moment when all one's hard work and effort produces a shot one can be proud of. If perfection were to be available on tap, why bother with the long trudges on crappy days any more?
You sir are Satan, a drum machine will never take my photos!
I happen to love a lot of 80s music. Sorry 'bout it!
Good points.
I live on the west coast of Scotland and have seen those amazing sunsets that AI produces. Honestly those evenings live long in the memory.
you just sounds like someone who hates electronic music. You certainly need a lot of talent to make great music in that genre. You cant compare it to inserting a fake sunset into a picture lol.
PiXimperfect is by far the best Photoshop channel out there. The amount you learn from Unmesh to use Photoshop to achieve amazing realistic results is just amazing. His recent AI videos are mainly looking into doing the same work, but faster. AI doesn't mean going all fake by default. AI just means getting help from the computer to get where you want to get faster. Just like what photoshop and lightroom are adding to their software to have faster results.
Not to mention his hair is truly inspiring lol
Hands down he’s the best photoshop tutor anywhere
Agreed
Definitely. Unmesh is a great retoucher, and if anybody should be worried about AI taking over, it should be him ;)
Unmesh is so smart he should be curing Covid or something. And his teaching skills are amazing. It's impossible not to like the guy.
I agree with everything you say.
One other thing. I don't use Luminar's skies, but I'll use my own, GUILT FREE. This isn't journalism.
I was wondering when this topic would surface. Not surprised at Thomas's perspective. He puts his entire being: physically, intellectually and creatively into capturing the world in its naked form, and does it beautifully. He's truly inspiring. It would be hard to watch someone achieve the same or similar results from their office. However, no where does the manual on art have limitations on what tools you can use to create it. Nor is their constraints on how far you can go in the use of the tools you have. I could argue that I dont have a Hasselblad medium format camera so I have to make due. I may not know how to use Lightroom, so my images are uncorrected, unmanipulated and raw. As an old film photographer who shot 4x5 sheet film, with equipment that required a sherpa to carry, I was turned off by the digital world. Film was so pure and authentic. Ansel Adams taught me that my craft didnt stop at getting the image. It extended into the darkroom. He used to say the darkroom was to make the image into what he saw in his "minds eye." I originally believed he meant critically making it match what he saw when he was there. But a black sky with Halfdome is only accomplished with a deep red filter. Hmmm. Could the master have meant what he saw in his minds eye included the choices of light, film, exposure, filter AND darkroom processing? I understand the resistance. We all struggle within our craft. But, I have come to peace with photography as a creative process, using whatever means and talents you have to produce art. It is limited only by your genius, intent and passion, and how that, manifested in pixels and print, is received in the world. Tastes will change over time, both theirs and yours. Both flawless and fake will have a place. Its up to us to determine where our heart is and what the future holds with regards to the result of our efforts.
AA was not stranger to manipulation, just look at an early and late version of "Moonrise...", you'd hardly think they were the same photo. Or the spotting out of the Lone Pine letters on the hill. I think you can use whatever technology is available at the time, but at some point you cross over from photography to photo illustration. As long at there's no deception involved it's OK. It seems to be acceptable now to remove a branch or some rubbish in a shot and it's still considered a "straight" shot. I do that but draw the line at adding a sky for example. That said I also use Topaz to create images from my photos, but there's no way you would mistake the results for a genuine photo, it's just another creative outlet for me.
@@GRAYnomad Thanks for sharing that. I really liked the deception comment, but thinking about it more, only to a point. For example, if you make someone look thin to sell a diet pill. We can do that, but its wrong in my opinion. But changing a sky? Its much easier than hiking day after day to get the right clouds, but why is that wrong if that's my vision for the picture and I have the skill to do it? Removing a branch COULD also be considered deceptive. That branch was there and you or I didnt want to take the picture while standing in the creek. But any of these examples are only deception if YOU or I are not authentic in presenting them. If you tell people you made the model look thinner to sell the pill, you are not deceiving. Of course the client would never do that, so you dont take the job, or refuse to change the photo. But in landscape photography, say Thomas's beautiful images, I appreciate, but dont really care, if he drove at 2am for 3 hours and froze his ass off to get a sunrise. If he manufactured the image in Photoshop and it appealed TO ME, why would I care? I feel like Im ranting but dont mean to. Any thoughts?
@@jamesgerboc The issue is that when someone views an image the automatic implication is that they are in fact looking at a real scene that the photographer captures. Of course there is nothing wrong with creating digital art, and if someone wants to do that then more power to them. The issue is that it is a very different craft than photography yet there is almost no distinction to the view as digital manipulation is rarely disclosed. Nature photography is inherently about capturing nature, and when the scene is no longer reality than it is no longer nature photography and a photo is fraudulent if presented as such. I know for me photography is about more than just what the image is in an abstract sense, and it very much matters to me weather or not an image I was viewing was real or not. For example, If I saw an image of an amazing moment of a bear fighting a mountain lion, and then later found out it was fake, I would be extremely disappointed and no longer have any kind of connection or enjoyment from the image.
@@tobiasyoder Thanks for your kind comments and consideration. I am going to continue to absorb other perspectives like yours. I am not far away in terms of intention. I think we share that. It’s limiting the authors pen that has me thinking.
Well said. I am sure the famous landscape painters of the past manipulated colors to add vibrancy, painted in clouds that didn't exist that day, added flowers that were not bloomed yet. It is art and keep creating.@thomasheaton
For me, the point of a photo is to get me to think "I wish I had been there to see that happen." When it turns out that it was something that never happened, it leaves me feeling empty, and it leaves me wondering how much lying I am supposed to accept because "AI is just another tool like a polarizer."
YES! This is the same in my eye...I want to remember the feeling of the light breaking, or the fog rolling through...where is the joy in just creating it.
Watch more "editing tutorial" from youtube photographers and you will feel the emptiness in a lot of them. A true photographer will find AI software as a tool, not a replacement. This grumbling about AI reminds me of the days when digital cameras came along. At the time it was said that this meant the end of photography. But look at us today.
@@berghauss In the future people will complain about their droid photos and how we have lost the way when we stopped making photos ourselves instead of clicking through the best 10 of the day your AI buddy made for you while he ran errands.
@@berghauss 100% on the nail. Atmospheric exaggeration has been a welcomed staple amongst editors. But when we see it so easily achieved in 2 clicks that's when there's a problem... even though it looks the exact same. It has always been a conscious choice whether or not to enhance our captured experiences, and AI isn't pioneering that concept. It is simply making it more accessible. So really, you do you whether you want to be a puritan and don't want to 'feel empty', or if you think a few extra mountains is your cup of tea. People will resonate with the content you make if they feel the same way, and it's up to the artist to evoke connection no matter what tools are at their disposal
I watched this same video today, and even though I am a compositing artist I believe that this could potential change landscape forever, and not for the better. Part of the allure of Landscape for me is going out and finding the light, going back and putting in the time. Getting the shot and appreciating the story that went into getting it.
I would never use AI editing personally but if it makes shooting funner and will get people out to shoot then I’m all for it. My dad is in his 70s and is hooked on shooting and editing with luminar, I am proud of him and it makes me happy that he still gets out to take photos.
Thomas
Please can you explain: How many hand and arms do you have to handle
- two tripods
- 2+ cameras
- 1 umbrella
- 1 backpack
- fence gates, ....
BTW: A great tree at the place the umbrella was blown away!
I'm fine with digital art (when honestly represented). I'm certainly okay with manipulating time, heck I actually think this is a huge part of digital photography. I'm even okay with masking for focus or exposure blends.... I'm not personally okay with AI editing. I feel it robs from the whole experience that makes landscape photography special for both the photographer and viewer.
it takes the human element out of it. some of the best photos took a day standing in place why do that if its a one button filter
@Foto4Max Is straight photography art?
@Foto4Max In my opinion It could be art depending on how you use it... but obviously not a photograph.
@@warrenswales5693 This is really a difficult philosophical question. In my opinion it depends on the photographers intent and not the image itself, because if we look at the objective fact every photo could be made accidentally by a simple machine randomly moving, orienting and shooting images. Or is it because the viewer perceives it as art?
@@markoposavec9240 Indeed, a pholosophical question. The mere act of taking a photograph is definitely not art, but then the mere act of dropping a single spot of paint onto a canvas, framing and displaying it in a gallery, is also not art! ;-) Or is it!?
If I wanted my photos to look like a clown got run over by a steamroller, I would just try to find some old HDR software....
lol made me laugh , great comment
Hey Thomas, firstly love your videos! You know this is just progress which you cannot stop. The AI just makes what people do in photoshoot accessible to more people. I agree, making things fake and airbrushed is here. You know our parents would say digital is cheating too as we can take lots of pics and focus stack and HDR pics. I think people will eventually want to see real pics. We need a mark you can add to pics which lets people know no parts of the pics have been replaced. Love your videos! Thanks mate! Nick
The issue with arguing for some kind of 'authenticity' is that much of what has been done WITHOUT AI breaks that already. At first one needs to define some bounds of what is authentic. Is it a single exposure? Is it related to how one perceived the scene at the time? Would it be some scientific measurement of the light and color in the scene?
Assuming that we go with how the scene was perceived, immediately long exposures, composites, color saturation, desaturation, vignettes and the like already break that. And photographers have been doing that for years - even back when one might choose one film over another for vibrancy or some color reproduction. Or maybe even just shooting B&W.
So along this merry path of edits and style choices there are an infinite number of stopping points. It's not like one goes from saturating colors and the next stop is full-blown sky replacements. We have a very complex mix including bracketing, compositing, copying pixels from one part of an image to another... then for composites there how similar the photos making up the composite are in terms of location, time, shutter duration, exposure.
I have to then ask myself: if someone takes two exposures - one for the sky and the other for the scenery, is that okay? I think so. If they edited the sky to remove a cloud which was distracting, is that okay? Maybe. What if they *added* cloud, but using data from the same image... is that okay? What if they did not add or remove cloud, but simply waited half an hour and THEN took the exposure for the sky when the cloud was in a different position. Is that okay? What if they did not wait - taking the two exposures close chronologically, but pointed the camera in a different direction because "the sky over there looks better". And then used that sky?
What about the photographer who uses a polarizer and pushes the clarity slider so I can see rocks beneath the surface which otherwise may be hard to see? Or via good use of a wide angle, makes me think an object is larger that it is?
Some of these things one learns to spot as a photographer. But most people do not spot there is a distortion of reality in effect and what gear might have been used to cause it. I can't always tell even. Could some rocks really have such vibrant layers and defined texture? Maybe! Or maybe it was accentuated in editing a fair bit past what I may observe were I to have been there at the time.
The onus COULD be on the photographer to provide some description alongside the image. But thats probably not going to happen. Half the time people just dont care for the "how this was made", only that it is. Even for your group (the F4!) Thomas, I think there is an emphasis on making the prettiest pictures of landscapes. It starts with good composition and lighting, but many more tricks are employed. None of you guys are at the point of replacing skies, but you're all at different points along the path between authentic (whatver that means) and completely fabricated.
I don't think any of you are at risk of ever making fabricated images. You all love the process of photography too much to do it all on a computer! And that is why I watch your channels.
But the point I am making is that when one tries to draw a line dividing what is acceptable and what is not. It inevitably becomes a very curvy line which allows some things and disallows others seemingly with no consistency as one tries to include all the things one is already accepting of, but exclude anything new.
This was a very well written comment and explains the issue at hand nicely. Exactly how I feel. Thank you.
I think that as long as it's one exposure, nothing needs to be mentioned. If it is instead created from multiple images or exposures in camera or in edit, that is not just photography, it is a composite. This needs to be mentioned to the viewer in my opinion. Or if you don't, why would you do it and hide it?
All the examples you mentioned are deliberate choices by the photographer, to which you could add the cloning out of unwanted items. The AI programme TH mentions is another level of manipulation akin to passing someone else the RAW file to manipulate in Photoshop as they see fit, so it is no longer your image. I can see this being used by microstock photographers as such sites are awash with oversaturated unrealistic images and with such low returns now processing speed is of the essence.
But BEFORE AI there was a human applying those tasks. A living feeling person, maybe a master of his art. And the result is the result of his expression, of his vision - best when achieved which might be seldom.
AI "retouching" means "picking" what the AI - programmed and trained by another person or even worse in this context: machine - has to offer.
It would be different if YOU would train your personal AI. THEN AI would just be another tool. But at the moment this is not the case.
At the moment the user is the tool of the AI.
@@robertlavers1121 I think every question - whether its about authenticity, or 'cheating' or choice - still leads to the same dilemma. For each you still to clarify what you are distinguishing. For 'authenticity' it may be "when is it no longer a photograph" - in which an attempt is made to distinguish between a photograph and a derivative artwork based on a photograph.
If one rephrases the question to be about deliberate choice on the part of the photographer, what is being distinguished here?
Mobile phones do a lot of smart processing including AI-driven subject recognition to inform those choices. How does a picture on 'auto' from my phone fit into the question of deliberate choice?
I think its worth considering that even for replacing a sky, one still needs to select a suitable replacement and do some color correction, exposure, dodging/burning to have the scenery match the newly replaced sky.
Thomas, you’re a genuine photographer. It shows in your personality, insights, and work. And that’s why we watch. I’ll pass on the autotune 👍
As the great Ansel Adams said : "The most important part of the camera is the twelve inches behind it", and of course creative editing is an integral part of the process. We constantly read of "saving time"........"speeding workflow" , of editing being a chore, as if one is making sausages, for that is what AI produces. There will always be more grains of sand than diamonds. And so the creative photographer will continue to use human artistic skill to create diamonds. For most want quick and easy, with no effort or skill required, and so it is that what is produced on their behalf, a shiny, soon to be forgotten drop in a sea of the mundane.....it can never be claimed as their own creation, because it isn’t. The satisfaction of finding the location, the lighting, the mood, and completing the work with creative editing is a true joy and will remain so. I was introduced to photography when I was twelve years old, some seventy two years ago, from bellows cameras and glass plates to this digital world. To sum it up the artistic photographer will continue to be just that.
Perfectly put!
Well said.
Adams made that statement at a time when computer imaging did not exist. He was still living and working in an era where decision making was the sole privilege and responsibility of the guy 12" behind the camera. The situation is completely different now. I can assure you that had he lived to today, he would not have been amused. We have totally lost our artistic integrity and compass with reliance on digital imagery. This type of photography is done mostly by computers not the photographer. This photography of today is nothing but virtual and not real in any sense of the word. This is unfortunately an inescapable fact no matter how we try and dress it up differently.
@@lensman5762 Nailed it, you did!!
One more vote for a great post, no meat guy!
You made a video not long ago where you discussed WHY you take photos and how there are two different types of photographers 1) photographers chasing likes on social media 2) photographers that take photos because they love doing it. AI software feels like it falls very much in line with the 1st type of photographer. Always appreciate that you’re the 2nd type of photographer 👊🏻
You forgot the other type of photographer, professionals like my Dad who has made a living at photography for 5 decades. He has excelled at both worlds, analog and digital.
I am obsessed with photography, it's complexities, the knowledge I have taken years to gather and the pride I feel looking at a final image. I don't see how anyone could develop a passion for this art form we call photography by clicking a button, with no idea of what's taking place in front of them, to produce something that is not their creation. I would not use this software nor would be interested in viewing work created by it. Grumpy old man and proud of it ☺
What drew me back into photography after a twenty year hiatus was some of the HDR images of Trey Ratcliffe - striking colours and subject matter but rather unnatural. I tried my hand at it for a while but soon grew tired of the overdone, unsubtle images I was encountering in various online communities. I subsequently gave up (no more Photomatics for me!) and concentrated on macros instead. The auto-enhanced images of which you speak tend to leave me cold now as well. Give me subtle every time.
My journey has been almost identical to yours! Today I would rather heaton, Fototripper or Adam Gibbs than HDR, which now leaves me feeling utterly cold.
500px was full of this sort of thing 7-8 yrs ago. After a brief obsession with the technical brilliance of some of these photographers it soon became apparent that it was all being pushed through the same set of tools/filter. Boring.
It’s for the Instagrammers. We live in a time where there are millions of images added daily, to have a chance of standing out using these presets are detrimental to your long term. There will be a handful that will be able to utilise it and produce something unique, but for the masses it will just make their work disappear into the sameness pool.
not that I like AI but you could say the same for regular photography.
I feel that every day !
As if the platform was the problem? In my Instagram bubble I follow the most amazing analogue photographers one could think of. - the web, social media, ai are all just tools. Use them to your benefit. Take what works for you. Discover the amazing. Leave the rest. ;) We live in amazing times. The whole world at our fingertips and any content we can think of. In all the abundance we just tend to forget that we have choice 99% of the time.
Interesting comments on AI Tom. When Luminar first came out I got hooked on it and used it a lot. After awhile though, I thought that the images I was producing were not "real", not what I saw through the lens of my camera. Now, I no longer use it. I go for realism and try to replicate the scene as I saw it when I snapped the picture. You're right, you cannot always have those wonderful sunsets etc. Best be true to yourself.
The problem we're running into is that most people are more familiar with smartphone photography than anything else these days. AI is how smartphones process low-quality images into something passable, usually for online sharing. That's the only purpose people really have for their photos, so they don't think about print quality, etc. The ability to look at photos on your phone and see them pop like something otherworldly is what counts. That's what gets the Instagram views and makes people famous. So you've got people who are traditionalists wanting to maintain some level of integrity to their photography, and then the majority who just want something to look astonishing on a small screen. Whenever I point out over-processing or how gradients are banding due to this in comments to people's photos, I get backlash. I'd love for there to be more appreciation for the understated, simple photos that look like what you saw when you took them. I wonder if that will ever garner the same level of interest again.
I am an amateur enthusiast photographer and I own, use and love Luminar 4. I balk at using their silly options but have dropped in a sky once or twice to save a photo. It's cheaper than Adobe Photoshop Lightroom with a far easier learning curve. I understand and agree with your AI reservations but have seen far more significant manipulation of photographs with the Adobe products than I could possibly achieve with Luminar. Luminar has been a great product for someone like me who doesn't have the time in the field and the time in front of a computer to create the masterful and stunning products that you true experts produce. Luminar gives us amateurs an affordable and accessible tool to up our game a bit and keep us loving the challenges of photography. Thanks for your thoughts on this. As always they were appropriately spot-on. I love the photos you produce but what keeps me coming back to your RUclips offerings is your most engaging personality. It elevates you from all the rest. Keep it coming.
Hello from the Midwest USA! Landscape photography is a sort of therapy to me. I follow a lot of photographers on Instagram, but you and Joe McNally (yes, different cup of tea) are two of my favorite guys to look to for inspiration in your respective areas of photography. As far as AI??? There comes a point when photography ends and photo-manipulation begins and, at that level-being able to change your sky and lighting so easily-is sad to me and I think you covered it 100% in this video and I agree. Negativity aside, I think it’s awesome that we still have photographers, like yourself, that go out and give it a go-creating photographs by being at the right place and knowing how to use your camera at the time of capture. I’m sure most of us watching your videos are inspired by your passion for photography as it is. Thanks for keeping it real! Cheers.
I've no problems with your long videos Tom ... never struggled to stay to the end ... keep them coming :-)
On the AI front, i guess it's all a matter of avoiding extreme and the user's integrity; similar to photoshopping an image. Your camera is full of AI already (e.g.: matrix metering, auto focus) but most of us have accepted these, even though in the 'good old days' we would use a hand held meter and focus every shot manually. i appreciate manual focus is still crucial to get pin sharp results, but we don't dismiss a camera as gimmicky because it has autofocus.
So for me, I'm with you, i didn't like the examples of Luminar that you showed ... most of which looked like another planet. However each to their own ... I'd rather spend 2hrs outside with my Olympus OM1n from 1980, than 2hrs behind a screen creating a virtual AI enhanced world !
Another twist to the existence of this software is when you’re accused of using it when you haven’t. I was fortunate in being able to grab a shot of sun rays through mist in a woodland a few weeks ago. Not a great shot, but a quickly grabbed one and nice enough. A few people who’ve seen the image have said, ‘I see you’ve used an app that adds sun beams to your photos. Looks realistic doesn’t it.’ I think I’ll start carrying copies of my raw files around.
Ignore the haters John X Peace x
Yeah, For a number of years many people would say that looks very nice, you photo-shopped it right?. Now that's heard less and less, because people are doing the same thing in there smart phones, so now they are excepting it more., and PS and LR is a very well respected and accepted process in the world of image creation. If you like your image, who cares what some one says, unless your creating it for some one other than your self.
Gotta pay the cos to be the boss
People posting photos in the Skylum photography group have to specifically say, "Original sky, real sunrays." That's kind of sad. :(
I own Luminar 3 and 4. I caught myself using the last version I'd purchased less and less. The reason is that I am a photographer and I was there when I took the photo, and what that AI filter does is simply converting the image into something I did not take. I get that they are trying to sell it as a one click solution but the end result is just way off usually which makes me go back, tune down the result and waste time reducing the AI filter effects to make it more believable. This sort of computational, AI, machine learning or whatever you want to call it is just a sales pitch for the untrained and people who are always trying to find a short cut. There are no short cuts in art.
Totally agree! Specially landscape photography, which is to be there, facing whatever conditions are present and try to make the most out of it, while enjoying the journey.
Thomas - first, this is the definitely best video you've done is a while. I really like that you've gone back to the "live" down to earth style rather than the "definitely not you" documentary style. There's no need to change the winning formula you've had for such a long time that makes your videos such a pleasure to watch. In this one, the images just kept getting better and the last one was just beautiful. I agree with you about the AI software. I think the purpose of photography is to attempt to make a record of what's in front of the camera. Over use of processing software, whether Photoshop or Luminar destroys the purpose of the taking the original image. To me, it turns the image into a different form of art that's more akin to digital art than photography. By the way - mine's a pint of Theakston Old Peculier. Cheers mate!
It's the human take on these wonderful scenes that makes photography as an art interesting. AI editing seems to take the life out of the art.
Great video of a beautiful location: I especially love the last 2 pics - the brown heather takes on such a rich colour in the rain.
Also it's about experience...let us say..while taking that image outdoor experiencing that location..and ur back to Lightroom..and while you edit you feel the same experience ..when Ur going through the image in post-processing..u start remembering all behind the scenes stories...I hardly doubt..using AI will feel the same 🤔
“Oh it’s so wet” Thomas Heaton - 2020
Wet a** photography.
@@geoff650r Haha! Good one!
I was more reactiing to "vibrant red bush".
Jokes aside the content is absolutely great,.
As another somewhat famous photographer would say.... "Juicy!" ;-)
Hi Thomas, I totally agree with you, get it as right as possible in camera rather than relying on software.
I have used Luminar for a while, but not for this kind of sky replacement manipulation. It is a pretty good and easy editing software if you don’t want to use Adobe products. I use it for colour adjustment, cropping, sharpening etc, works well for that. Also supports the whole LUTs thing if that is your bag. Anyway, for me the main issue is that all online photography ends up looking the same, the Insta look, I guess it is what gets clicks but everything ends up being so samey regardless of what software they use.
I think the real shame is that a generation will grow up not appreciating real art when they see it.
You're right. And they've already missed growing up with the Beatles.
I don't have an issue with AI editing, so long as the person making those images ia 100% clear about it. I look at it the same way as I look at heavily editing- it's all in the pursuit of making art.
I agree. The right or wrong of it is dependent on each photographer and his style. For me, AI is a big help. I don't like masking and layering, and am one of those who loves creating images with effects lenses such as Lensbabies and some Lomography lenses (I have one that replicates Daguerre's original lens). My background is in Fine Art. Topaz Studio and Plugins along with the new Luminar and some other pieces of software are just tools to manipulate my photos for the results I envision. I really don't think there is any all encompassing right or wrong of it. It all depends on each one of us to determine whether AI is right for us.
I think AI could be an interesting tool, artistically, but there's absolutely the danger of people relying on it too much.
I don’t think it would be that dangerous. Lol
Does it not resemble so called PRESETS to some extent?
@@marioplus321 yes and the amount of presets getting generated the now is outrageous and to be honest a lot are pretty pathetic
@@colinbamford9380 true!
Is it still the artists work if the computer does the art for you
I don't care about the AI discussion. I enjoyed your video about shooting in the rain. It made me smile. Getting good video and audio in rainy and windy condition is a fantastic experience. Your shots were totally worth the hours spent in the rain.
I think it will make real photos more expensive, more sought after. I am almost thinking that as the camera was invented artists of great paintings may have had the same fears. Keep making videos and show all that goes into photography, vans builds, traveling, overnights.etc.
When you said "I feel like I don't have a photography style..." Trust me-- you do. But Nick's way of looking at it is really interesting. Much like how you cannot achieve enlightenment if you desire to achieve enlightenment.
Are you a grumpy old man regarding ai? Yes and no. This AI stuff is like autotune for photography-- and yea, it's probably going to ruin some bad photography the way autotune has ruined some bad music. Those who have integrity in the art wont use it, and thus the art will still hold integrity.
I have said more then once that "reality is overrated." In my opinion, photography is an art which is open to some license by the creator. I don't see myself as a journalist-- though I don't do sky replacements or significantly alter the colors / mood of the scene... my goal is to enhance the photons that my camera turned into pixels and rebuild and what I feel like I remember seeing when I was there-- not create a new image from nothing. The colors and details I bring out were always there-- just maybe not always visible to the eye. This is especially true when I do astrophotography, or landscapes in false color infrared. I think it is important to capture some things you *can't* see for a lot of the same reasons you would capture things that you can.
Though I also completely understand what you mean about integrity for landscape photography. Landscape photographers were critical in the process of getting some amazing areas of land permanently protected in the US National Parks system. These places still exist for people like me to go photograph because a few individuals wanted to share their awe at the natural world-- and made the immense effort to do so because they KNEW how important it was. So I get that there is a degree of journalistic integrity needed there, and I feel that need to uphold it because when people know about places, they are more likely to advocate for their continued existence.
Anyway-- lovely images as always, and thank you for sharing.
Both Tom and Nick are over-thinking it-- the scenes you like to photograph, the compositions you prefer, the way you expose the images... That IS your style, whether you understand it or not. :)
One of the most important things I've learned from 20 years as a musician is don't blame the tools, blame the workflow. Some of the most incredible music ever made, with the most wonderfully intimate moments, amazing sparks of spontaneous creativity, or incredible, jaw-dropping virtuosity, were recorded digitally in the last 15 years using all the same software and plugins as all the generic shite that everyone else makes and that everyone complains about. The difference is that the great music was recorded and edited with a *completely* different workflow and process that used the technology to emphasise the creativity rather than replace it. I think the same thing will be true of AI in photography. As a tool to intelligently tweak an image, it's no more dishonest than any other editing techniques. It's the really blatant stuff like replacing the entire sky with one that was never there but is probably the same template one everyone else uses that'll lead to bland, mediocre art. It's going to happen, and it's going to suck, but it's not going to kill the artform any more than Pro Tools has "killed" music.
Sky replacement is where I draw the line, at that point you're just making cgi
I kinda agree. For artistic purposes at least. For commercial purposes I'm ok with it, but yeah, for an art portfolio, it's plain weird. Unless the art portfolio is simply "landscape composites" or something.
In the pro world its what sells, not how you got there ... Though CGI is an added expense commercially its used all the time.
What if the photographer used the same sky?
I took a photo of a dry lakebed that had dramatic clouds in the sky. The problem was that they didn't fill the sky enough to balance the composition (there was a large portion of blank sky to one side that couldn't be addressed by simply panning the camera - it would have ruined the composition in which the lakebed itself was the subject). So, in post, I separated the sky and the ground, put the ground on a layer above the layer with the sky, and then expanded the size of the sky layer (expanding it downward - this kept the top edge of the sky at the top of the image - and to one side - so that the clouds both expanded in size as they move across the image) enough for the re-sized cloud formations to nearly fill the sky, thereby balancing the image. Was it true to what I saw? No. Was that the sky I saw above the lakebed? Yes. What do you call that? Is it acceptable? Unacceptable? Is it photography?
After writing the above and thinking about it for a few hours, here's what I think: I think if your purpose is to record, that is to make a record of the scene like a photojournalist, the most you can do to a photo in post is crop it, and modify the tones and colors to get the most detail and information of your display method, whether that is print or screen. In such photography, you can get in trouble for darkening an image too much (e.g., the infamous O.J. Simpson magazine cover) or by moving a pyramid for a better composition (as did a National Geographic photographer, who took considerable heat for it, and which as condemned by the NGS Itself). However, if you're using photography as a means of self-expression, you're an artist and not just a photographer, recorder, or technician. Who can tell an artist what the can't and can do? Only the artist (or, if he's working commercially, the art director) controls the methods and techniques he might bring to bear, and how.
@@davegrenier1160 Good example: I guess it depends on ones priorities. I want to capture 'nature'. If nature doesn't give, then I don't get. Often this means revisiting locations many times, and that is all part of the appeal. For myself, the photography is really just a means to an end - being 'in' the landscape. For others, it might be different.
Edit (after thinking about it a bit more): I might be a bit different. I don't often go out searching for 'photographs'. I go searching for beautiful, interesting or stunning places, and then try and capture that experience. My camera sits in its bag for weeks in between my adventures.
you mean like Ansel Adams did?
When you said this is when people will click off, this is when I pressed the like button... Digital art is no doubt a skill but when you pony up with the truth 😊
I guess i really love RUclips for the options it create... But who ever put the thumbs down option there, is a big NO NO for me... We have enough negativity everywhere. If someone wants to say something, they should take their time, and explain in a positive constructing way, what they whould have seen different. Great content!
When Digital cameras came out this sort of concerns were voiced, the truth is, no amount of AI or camera's that can take thousands of shots, which are instantly reviewable will replace the ability of a good photographer.
No, but it will cause lots of mediocre photographers to rant and rave because their work is easily surpassed by pressing a button.
Oh yes AI can. AI doesn't work like the old chess computers where thousands of moves were implemented. In this case they can be connected to the internet and review and learn from images that are liked by people.
imagine an infinite MP camera.
Everything in the image is sharp. No focus.
AI selects and edits the photo based on learning.
It's not a real photo. But it's like talking to a robot instead of a person. If the person on the other side doesn't know the difference... does it matter. ?
(for me personally it does... we really need to get outside and learn ourselves)
@@mavfan1 So? did Ansel Adams give up when auto exposure arrived?
Yes it can. I will calculate best possible composition based on hundreds and hundreds of psychological tests, edit and churn out images that maximal amount of people will find pleasing. We are not there yet, but we are 5-6 years close where button "Make a good picture" will be a thing. Will it devalue images? Yes, a lot of commercial photographers will be replaced by cgi, stock images and ai manipulation. But is it the end of the world? Nah, 100% not, that's like moaning about "digital will never beat film"
Playing with colors and shadows is one thing. You’re trying to show people what you’re seeing with your own eye and highlight the parts that brings the scene to life. But when you use software to completely change sky’s and whole landscapes, then, in my opinion, perverts the art of Landscape Photography. There is something in the grit, planning, hiking, and searching for the perfect shot rather than just taking a picture and blasting what you want on it and calling it natural or what you see all the time on the field. As you’ve said multiple times, you’re not always going to get a shot but that adds the value of when you finally do. AI editing has its place but I believe it’s not in landscape photography. At least not for me and how I View landscape photography to be.
Spot on mate.
Snap a smartphone shot first as a composition test first. Quick, efficient, and let’s you know if it’s worth pulling out the camera
Nothing better than going out there and taking the shot yourself. I really hate seeing those highly edited photos with AI software, which basically makes any person a "Photographer" behind the keyboard, but in person has no skills developed other than a software. Enjoy your nature people, you don't know how much you are missing out on!
My first ever comment on your video because I believe this one is maybe on my point of view , the most important you ever made on the subject of the photography . The world is always moving on , and whatsoever we believe or wish ,photography will evaluate with the technology , and most important those changes will certainly be embraced by the new generation in the quest of a renewal in the style .
But as any art , the old way of learning and editing has it still be done now , will always be a reference to understand and to appreciate , what was the initial purpose of being a photographer .
I truly think now in those day we must accept and understand the evolution of the way people want to create new form of digital art .
Surely the same conversation used to happened on the subject of film and digital photography , and actually your are a good example of what the old way become after almost disappearing .... it just reborn after few years because people finally always miss the original essence of an art . Two world can still be living together side by side , but the truth is that there is always one at the origin of the creation
Instagram "influencers" are going to love that software.
@@superjet2771 Adobe needs to hurry up and bring out their own AI sky replacement update. They need more likes :)
Sadly the next Photoshop update in October will include sky replacement AI 😩
We have been heading down this road for some time. In fact it is just round the corner from Ansel Adams darkroom work. Nevertheless, at this time, I agree that it is not for me. Manipulation of image elements is, in my mind, significantly different than replacement or introduction of new elements moves more in the direction of graphic art rather than photographic art
I sort of agree but also disagree, I think the point of Luminar is to get people to be creative and I honestly don’t see any issue with that, the more we can get people interested in photography the better as this will then encourage them to get out on soaking wet days like this one was. Sky replacement may just be a starting point for someone and as they grow in confidence and their skills improve they may well grow out of it, I look back at some of my own photos on Instagram and early ones look awful now but at the time I loved the high contrast hdr look. All photos are manipulated in some way so you need to draw your own line at the end of the day as long as you like the image you create, then who cares what others think. I myself use Luminar and have used the sky replacement tool but have only really replaced it with the sky from the same photo, just exposed correctly as I don’t have grad filters and don’t have any other editing software. The sky that I have used is the same sky that I saw on the day so do you feel this is wrong or okay? No idea if you read these comments especially as this one is rambling on for almost as long as the video (which I did watch and yes you can buy me a beer 😉), great video and love the book cheers and look forward to future content and photos! 👍
There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating digital art and just making the photos that you want to make. If that's what someone wants to do than more power to them. The issue is that these photos are presented as reality and that is always the implication when someone views a photo if not stated otherwise.
@@tobiasyoder This is exactly the point. Photography is a picture of reality. We expect a photograph to be a representation of what one saw when one pressed the shutter. The artfulness of photography (to me) is the use of camera techniques such as depth of field, focal length, composition, choice of subject matter, film stock (color or B&W) and either filters or digital techniques to nail exposure (get the image to represent what your eyes see as cameras can't keep up).
Adding in skies, boosting color, removing objects/adding them in....might be digital art but it sure as shit isn't photography. Personally I've grown sick of the over processed landscape look that many of my friends and fellow photographers go for. In fact I rarely shoot landscapes any more, preferring to capture reality on the streets or portraits.
What has "altering an image by pressing a button" has to do with creativity. It's actually the complete opposite of creativity. Its generic in the lowest possible form.
Sorry but you will never grow. My career started over 40 years ago. I started as a printer. One wedding photographer under exposed by at least one stop. In the for pros only darkroom we always had to work very hard to get decent prints. He thought he was great. I set up my own studio. But staying friends with my old studio. 20 years later they still hated him when he came in and all laughed. Because he had no knowledge and never improved.
@@jimmason8502 Yeah i think people often overlooked that much of postprocessing is trying to bridge the gap between the way our eyes and brains process scenes to what the raw file looks like.
My take on it is when you start changing an image to meet something in your head. That goes from photography to artistry. There’s no hard rule. Sometimes I take a great photograph sometimes I see something more that is not there. I am a photographer and artist.
You're right. A few years ago when our village seemed blessed with more and more spectcaclar sunsets, one day there was a sunset so colourful it was unbelievable even while stading in it - above, in front of and behind you. Turning off the sunset feature on my cheapo little Fuji and Samsung phone didn't help much nor did using the video functions. But at least they were closer. Fnally only by aiming away from it, to the north, did I manage to get some shot that accurately reflected the colours in the sky - and I almost cried when I looked at them later. But, btw, our fall colours here are way wilder than the ones you're showing us, but I can appreciate their beauty and your enthusiasm.
“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.” - Ansel Adams
Ansel Adams never replaced skies.
@@GeirReiulfsen he did drastically change the scenes he captured during development and printing. He used the newest tech and most cutting edge processing. I have no doubt he would have tried it.
@@grantmichael7229 Even if you have no doubt, it's still just your opinion.
@@gordonvanbiljon5517 obviously. But my opinion is based on historical facts and his ling career of pushing the boundaries on tech.
Nah bro, you cannot generalise the creative tool he used with the current one. In darkroom everything you do is intimate with most of efforts made by the artist and today’s creative tool are too much automatic having very subtle control over it. Idk if he would have used it or not but I definitely know that Ansel would not wanted his intimacy for photography to be snatched by a two step tech tool.
Best promo for Luminar ever.
I watched this and bought it.
@@WIDGI I mean: Do you want great photos with no effort? Do you like to stay warm and still get great moody shots of a storm? Yes, please!
@@zeluisbelo Also, think of the number of landscapes you didn't shoot because it had four cars and an ugly house in. Now you can take the shot, spend two minutes erasing those elements and you've got a shot you would never have taken.
The real truth imho is that the only thing AI editing will hurt is the ego of photographers that can create the same without it. Most care more about what others think of their work or if people will judge them because they didn't follow pointless rules about what editing you can or can't do and still be a "photographer". Software only does what you tell it to do. If your upset that tools like this will exist and will dilute the market with to many great photos you'll have to compete with than I'd recommend focusing more on the experience of YOUR photography and what you create instead of all the other bs I described above. You'll be much happier.
Bravo!
I love these rainy autumn videos. This is great for my soul. I can relax and calm down with these. Thank you!
I am a little jealous of your umbrella. It looks so stable in the wind. The ones I use always invert with the lightest breath of wind.
I definitely prefer to capture the images myself even if they are bad. Actually when i see photos that look too good to be true i simply don't like them. Sometimes maybe they are even real.
Totally agree! I've had pictures where the color is so juicy and saturated that I had to take it down!
Makes perfect sense. It's why film photography is just better even if things aren't composed properly, or the focus isn't tack-sharp, it just has that special something. Music on vinyl records has the same special something.
Thomas you really need to see how outstanding unmesh’s tutorials are .
I agree. I have learned a lot from him.
First, digital photo editing has a steep learning curve for most people (see all the RUclips on the subject and cottage industry it’s created). But with that said it creates a mob mentality (meaning less tolerance toward difference in styles) that removes the nuance and creativity forced by thinking through an edit.
For myself I enjoy the editing process. I try to accentuate colors, correct the color balance and reproduce what I saw in my head. I’m an amateur working in film and digital. For professionals I understand the need for speed.
Finally I’m very (respectfully) honest when asked my opinion of others work. If it looks like AI (if obvious), I’ll say so.
It certainly doesn’t hurt wedding photos or portraits, especially if on a deadline). For me I don’t use it (mostly NIK) and limit my edits to my dodge, burn, and crop). My ethos; not another persons idea. Vive le difference!
I love your photographs Thomas and i like the idea of not having a style. I have your book and your photographs create a body of work that anyone would be proud of. I am a beginner so thinking about a body of work you are proud of rather than a style is far more helpful to me. Thank you. I started photography to record our holidays so I too want my body of work that reflects the reality of the world around me. Thank you for the offer of a beer, I will enjoy one this afternoon and maybe get your book out again. Haven’t thumbed through it with a beer, only with coffee so far! BTW we are having an amazing spring! Lots of rain!!!!! 👏🙏💕
Absolutely great photos. Glad to see you getting out in the rain and enjoying yourself. Agree that the last photo may have been your best of the group.
Those superstunning landscapephotographs of those famous locations have become uninteresting anyways. I think ai processing only makes even more place for fine art photography/composition and individual colourgrading. Some shots would even suffer from having insane burning skies. However, ai will make grabbing instagramfame even more dofficult. As an enthusiastic hobbyphotographer fortunately this changes nothing about photography for me.
I used Luminar and its "AI" tools and I can say it's nothing magical, nothing a proficient in creative digital editing can't do. And yes, all "AI" enhanced photos have a similar style but the fact is that it is very easy and quick to manipulate photos with these tools. I think LR presets offer a much wider selection of recipes for photo manipulation. I understand that the AI moniker scares a lot of people particularly when it is associated with your profession, knowledge & capabilities. To take it a bit further, your sponsor Squarespace offers just a limited number of creative options for building a site. People should instead use individual web creatives like me to build their sites :)
very well put, exactly what I needed to "hear" ;)
I personally often get frustrated by my personal lack of skill / patience in working with darktable (I think it's great btw, thank you, darktable-devs, for all your effort!). I want to use software as little as possible, but sometimes when reviewing I find pictures on my cards that make me sad because there is just a little something that other people probably can "fix" while I cannot (yet?), rendering them "unusable" to me. This is why I am currently looking into whether to buy Luminar (it's currently on HumbleBundle) and what, in my opinion, astonishingly talented people like Thomas think about it. I do get his opinion and I do support the sentiment behind it. But nooby me doesn't want to make sky replacements, just "fixing" things like pros do with LR all the time (Luminar AI Image Enhancer: 50% - 70%). Still, at the very least it's an important reminder to think about what you want to accomplish concerning your photography as a whole.
i like your last two sentences :)
We as a society continue the trek of replacing real things with imitations: fake meat, internet "friends", reality television, fake photography, etc.
Don't forget fake virtues, which many signal ad naseum, lacking the real thing.
Fake meat actually does have some virtue (for the environment), but I agree with the other three.
Photography is an art form and all art forms are fake. The creation of art from cave drawings to a digital printer is still art - and therefore still fake
@@nelsonclub7722 Art is an imitation of reality. So does this make 'fake photography,' as how @flashhog01 phrased it, an imitation of an imitation?
@@jordanlin4437 Art is not just limited to an imitation of reality though. and photography is of course used in many forms. Documentary = archive, evidence, etc
Art = Everything else and can even include the above.
What is also interesting is the modern usage of two pieces of terminology which I think are both underused and overused at the same time
Professional - belonging to a profession.
Fine Art - that which the artists sees
Both of these phrases have skewed ones thinking into what constitutes art. Allow me
If I, as a professional photographer take a series of abstract pictures of my cat say all of them out of focus and place them in an art gallery am I now a Fine Artist'?
If I then sold one am I now a professional?
The fact that there are zillions of out of focus pictures of cats taken by anyone who has ever tried to take a photo of a cat is neither here nor there. What does or does not constitute art is a matter of long standing debate of course. Now lets say I had some software which corrected my out of focus to super sharp and I then hung the pictures? Is it still an art form?
We all heard about PETA arguing that the rights to the 'selfie' of the Chimpanzee should in fact not go to the photographer but to the chimpanzee because it was the ape who took it. Not sure how that worked out in the end, but I ill give you another puzzle to ponder
A few days ago a wildlife photgprajer won a prestigious award for 'Tigress Hugging A Tree' . And I have to say it is a tremendous picture worthy of such an award until you find out that it was taken on a trail cam with a remote infra red trigger, so in fact it was the Togress who took it and the photographer who edited it.
Heres one more. I live very near to a famous factory in Stroud who creates all of the art for Damien Hirst. Love him or loathe him you can't ignore the fat that he designs a piece of art and then gets others to make it. Are those pieces stil art?
Surely the answer is that every photographer who ever takes a picture in whatever form is therefore not just an artist, but a Fine Artist and anyone who makes money from that - even if it is just one picture is therefore a professional ?
Interesting debate.
Your comment about style rings true. I used to think about this alot, but realize there is no reason not to be totally eclectic in one's approach. Thanks good vid.
One of my favorite parts of photography is going out without my camera and seeing images. Once I have an idea for an image I can turn my focus to what I want it to look like - shooting position, focal length, time of day, depth of field... There is an excitement to creating an image, from the first concept to getting down to pushing the button. It's the process of sharing your view of the world with others - that's what photography is about. None of that process has anything to do with AI editing.
That software would completely rob me of any creative satisfaction I derive from the process. Ansel Adams would probably have adored PS & Lightroom, he would never have endorsed this.
I think Ansel Adams would remain adore his darkroom where he created all his masterpieces. He would not have time paying for rented Adobe softwares like other Adobe fanboys do, and then mock other people for not having Photoshop.
@@MrStink2009 I strongly suspect he would have used both Lightroom and his darkroom as many of the worlds professionals do today.
@@dreamcatcher3622 Professionals? More like snobs dominated by corporate loving males who are ruining photography.
In my experience, I'm not convinced Luminar does anything that people haven't been doing for years with photoshop already. Perhaps the real issue is the idea of using simple sliders (sky replacement or not) to do simultaneous color, contrast, light adjustments - makes some people feel salty, especially those who have developed this skill over years of experience, which i agree with to some degree. On the other hand I think Luminar is fine as an editor, it does allow room for freedom of post-procesing, and its not as though you have to do a sky replacement lol. I sometimes use Luminar as a plugin, and it has value to some of my workflow - I completely agree that understanding what you want to do with your images and understanding the fundamentals is most important, and maybe it feels like Luminar creates a way to bypass that
Like anything, be it your camera, lens, software - they are tools..the more important question to me is what are you making with these tools and why? Integrity, aesthetic, vision, purpose - I think these all are characteristics and qualities that dictate how and what tools you use, that is the starting point for me :) Thanks for the vid!
A photograph never tells the truth. Never. Part of the act of making an image is deciding which part of the scene to include, which part to focus on, how to expose the image, all of those things. These things are directly under the control of the photographer, and will vary according to how he feels on that day, his style, his abilities, all of it.
Some here have referenced Adams - a study of his work will show that many of his most famous photographs evolved over time, as he learned more of his craft and as his tastes and his ability to describe the changes that he wanted to his printer increased. He was probably one of the earliest proponents of serious, in-depth image manipulation. Digital manipulation just makes it easier for more people to do it, with less effort.
Photographs NEVER tell the truth.
I disagree. Photographers have always manipulated their images, sometimes trying to recreate what they originally saw in their mind, sometimes combining images to create something they see in their mind. My experience is creative people are creative in whatever medium they work in. A rare few are creative, the rest not so much. AI will not make anybody Jimmie Chin or Ami Vitale. To my mind, it is who created the image and what it is meant to invoke, not how it was made.
@Jay Telaysin I have to disagree too, every photo have to be processed, even in JPEG, and every professional does, if not they are lying, Thomas is not a exception, he does minor editings, so the photo is manipulated, but very little, but it is fake, and even in this format, the photo does not come close to what the human eye captured at that time, and a photo of nature either of us we can do it, just with the technical basics, without needing to have a lot of knowledge. But sometimes it is not enough to have a beautiful nature photo, it can be very boring with time to look at, having the art to edit photos in an artistic way is not for everyone, but dedication is enough to make a boring image , in a very interesting image without ever damaging the image's original identity. I think that there are many experts in photography commenting, I speak like this because I learned if I want to enjoy nature, I will go hiking, but i dont like to stare some boring photos, on computer, or in a frame or canvas, but this man does this beacause its a profession, for me, he is professional, but hes not betther that some amateurs, the technical part, its not everything, the equipment does not do an photographer better than the others. Finally, I do all kinds of photography, digital paintings, Landscape, Macro, Abstract, the most important thing, is that we have to like what we do in life, even like an hobby. Greetings.
One thing matter. Having artist continuing to create pure and real photographs and educate about the differences and why it matters.
Started out in B&W film, been hearing this argument ever since. I have always tried to create what I saw when I looked through the lens. That includes how I display it. When I first started it was gallery=8x10 L&P black frame. My first showing was triangles and squares and polygons, and yes 8x10. I started out cutting and pasting, dodging and burning, sepia, whatever I needed to create my image, the way I saw it. As long as I am controlling whatever the process is and not being controlled by it, I'm being true to the image I originally saw. I start out composing and exposing to get as close to what I am seeing in my mind. Most of the work, but not always all is done before the image leaves the camera. I shoot raw for the same reason, I decide the image parameters, not the camera. Everything that has come along has changed photography as we know it. Film, Color, Slides, Digital, Software. Are we Photographers, Artists, Technicians, Recorders, All, None?
Regarding AI or not, I feel very strongly about it, both ways.
My theory is that eventually all AI images will start looking alike. And people will start losing interest in AI generated images. It's almost like we will get overstimulated. And that will desensitize us.
A bit like HDR
I think we're already getting there... I just created an instagram account a month ago for my photos and over that month I've been inundated with mediocre, overedited photos. I'm only a beginner so I don't judge but I notice that I become very impatient now whenever I see that oversaturated AI edited photo... I admit that I have done that as well, I think it's a rite of passage for anyone new to this, after all these toys are shiny and exciting! But yeah, I'm definitely desensitised now....
The whole AI software thing is a problem in my eye...it takes out the effort and patience needed to actually capture good light or good photographs.
only if composition and direction of light etc is left out at the time of exposure. Of course the ability to add a rainbow to a side or backlit image is not a good idea many photographers in different fields add s sky or other items in creating composites.
What about the people who can't be there for the special lighting or weather? Should they give up on there photographic creative process because it does not meet your approval? This whole digital world of photography is Now premised on Creativity! Not some boring standard created only in camera!
@@LeonKolenda if that is fine with you...go for it. I don't think anyone is entitled to special light...but it is something some of us work toward capturing...because I much prefer genuine photographs. I am not into faking it. Just my opinion...I respect that others don't share that viewpoint.
@@phlotographer creating composites is the key phrase here...composites are no longer, in my eye, photography. Composites are elements from different places and times blended into a new image, or digital art. And that is fine, I have no problem with digital art, but present it as such, don't' try to pass it off as a photograph.
@@LeonKolenda Exactly, thanks to digital software, we can put our creativity in game to create and achive some amazing pictures but preserving the identity of the image itself, as i say before, nature is beautiful, but sometimes some images are very boring, to look at, and any photographer edit their images some more than others, and if they told us they not editing, they are truly lying. Every picture straight out of a camera is not wath we really see in live, and 50 years ago all images are fake in B&W, is fake, but it as an artistic effect and concept, but many people like it...
Hi Thomas. I've been following your channel for several years now, and I absolutely love it. I really apreciate your talks and your honesty in your dialogues.
Great video as always. All the pictures in it are beautiful, stunning colours and very nice mood. I specially love the last one. Like you say, it doesn't look real, absolutely stunning colors and the light is beautiful.
About the AI software, I agree with you Thomas. It may be a good tool for digital artists and digital compositions, but not for lansdcape photography. The magic of landscape photography is to explore, to be patient and waiting for the right conditions for your subject, understanding the light and so on. Grabbing just any shoot and later in post add a dramatic sky and change the image drastically in any way true to the real conditions doesn't have any sense to me (unless you are clearly making a digital art composition and you are clearly letting people know that) Of course, this is just my opinion.
Best Regards Thomas! And keep up this beautiful work. Thanks for sharing it.
Pd: I love film photography, so you can imagine how happy I am seeing you with that hasselblad film camera out in the field.
In one of Ansel Adams books (print, negative, camera), or somewhere else, he talked about the early days of photography where photographers would mask over a second negative of clouds over a negative of clear skies. He said after awhile you'd see the same clouds in multiple images. Sometimes they were lit by sunlight coming from the wrong direction.
I've never understood why people spend so much money on expensive lens's then use similar software to enhance the images, complete waste of money.
I understand your point somewhat, but to understand what makes a lens good and expensive is its better glass it is expensive and has less vignetting, less chromatic aberration(hard to remove in post) and so on than cheeper glass. But yeah the super expensive ones I dont really get too, just paying for the name I guess
This program could make a dog shit look fantastic.
I have a photog mate who bangs on endlessly about the quality of his files and lenses and then over-processes the hell out of his images with just about every filter suite known to man for likes on social media. Not shy with sky replacements either. As I say, might as well stick half a coke bottle on the front of his camera ...
@@stevemckenzie4731 yeah I know what you mean, I think this video holds a very valid point, the next generation growing into photography are going to be ruined by filters and editing suites, who needs an expensive lens when they can just take shit quality via smartphone then enhance the whole image beyond recognition , camera company's and lens makers future are very questionable.
@@Inabiff That sounds like a good thing.
I'd say AI is bad for photography industry just like Squarespace is bad for web development and hosting industry ;)
Completely agree with your comment!
Well, so, so... You're changing a photography completely which is okay, but I think is more like digital art than photography itself. Squarespace is just helping out some people to build a website and a business but you know where is coming from unlike AI editing. I dont really Squarespace and Luminar are bad for the industry; there's many people earning a lot of money with photo and web design.
Can't you make the argument that the more that the masses (like me) use a platform like SquareSpace (I use a competitor), there will ultimately be more of a need for those skills?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
So clever ...
@@heyalexjota changing photography didn't begin with Luminar, it's just becoming easy
I wonder if Michael Kenna would have the same opinion about his Hasselblad's, I am sure he does not wait go out when its dry and warm, digital is all about convenience, quick, clean and very easily manipulated, focus stacking, stitching, colour and perspective adjustments, its a digital era that we capture maybe does not represent what we see, food for thought
I agree with you completely, While I do clean up my photography with photoshop, I never add to it.
Hey Thomas,
Thanks for sharing your work!
Just wanted to tell you that you opened up my eyes regarding AI.
I’m a landscape photographer and your video made me realized that Lightroom or other software can be very useful but also, can make you lose the essence (the basic feelings) of photography.
Thanks
It's computer generated virtual reality. There's a place for it, but it needs it's own category. It must sit aside purist photography as it's own art form, and can have it's own artists and lovers. Purists will become more rare and more valued. You can blame Instagram and their "filters" for starting this.
Are purists allowed to use a darkroom or is that cheating too? Filters? Wide angles - its all tools in the toolbox - a hand saw vs an electric one that is all
@@nelsonclub7722 Agreed, but Lum AI takes it too far, imo..... in its ability to create an image that was simply impossible. That said, read my comment just a minute or two ago....
@@rogerbarnett8412 Well I see your point - but what is taking things too far? In the old days of darkroom I would spend hours perfecting the blacks for tonality and contrast - replace skies? We did that all the time dodging and burning - its been done since the dawn of photography sandwiching glass plates together. As for creating the impossible - I do this everyday - we remove wires and props - in the old days we did it with fishing line and sometimes even dipped those in white paint to make them invisible - jewelry is just 1 example. My fashion photography work has gone through auto skin tone software for the past twenty years without so much a s hoo ha - I really do not see why this AI thing which isn't AI at all BTW is so different? - Also it absolutely cannot do anything which you cannot do yourself - it will just take more time. Selfie software has been a thing since Instgram came along - its more fun they say - its more fashiony say others - is it good or bad - I don't have a view as I am too involved digitally restructuring my own images.But to say 'hey stop thats enough now' isn't a good enough or sound argument just because a machine has come along which can do something better than you can. Now to be fair I did agree with your point which is still very much valid AKA 'artificially' created. If we were landscape photographers and nothing more we still manipulate an image for artistic reasons and to ensure a pleasing result at the end - so 'artificial' would be in my opinion if we say erased a tree, or a building or indeed put in a sunset when there wasn't one. But then what is the difference between all of that and say blending exposures, focus stack, HDR or a thousand other process which are accepted as the norm? All photography with the possible exception of archive is fake, and therefore artificial but more importantly it should be at least artistic - as thats kind of the point. If anyone ever uses a polariser, an ND filter to blur exposure, or indeed an ND grad or heavens above a graduated colour filter - then we have already crossed the line of what was 'real'. The machine is just giving us more ability to blur those lines ever further. I for one welcome them and so does my staff. More please. For instance wouldn't it be great if the stitching tech could be added into the cameras we use so we can see if got it right before we got home? Or is that a step too far?
@@nelsonclub7722 It's very, very easy to draw the line in the sand, actually. "Taking it too far" is, of course, altering key elements such as scale, juxtaposition, and timing.
People have always understood that a negative needs to be developed, so they inherently wrap their brains around whatever tonality you come up with, in the darkroom or in Lightroom.
However, people have also always understood that if an image is called "a photograph", then they could have, in fact, stood in the exact same spot at the exact same time, and all the elements around them would have appeared with the scale, juxtaposition, and timing as the photograph represents them.
Using a telephoto lens to compress things, and make a rising moon look "huge" against a backdrop? What about an ultra-wide angle close-up shot, that renders a tiny flower the same size as a distant mountain, a true "optical illusion"???
...None of these "issues" matter, because although they're tools used for creatively interpreting the scene, they're still being true to the exact position of the viewer's eye. If you jam your own eyeballs down in the flowers, they look big. If you focus on the horizon, you see the moon's scale against the distant mountain peaks.
Once you attach this philosophy to your thinking, literally anything and everything you can think of will easily fall into place, either on one "side" or another of this "line in the sand."
@@MatthewSaville No I am sorry that argument simply doesn't work - for me at least - I think you are with the greatest respect - using your own values against mine and trying to come up with a solution that fits your own thinking. Art does not work that way and photography never has and never will. However I am willing to concede an end to the argument as one would do in Chess - a stalemate with no clear winner on either side - since I feel prolonging the debate is not going to achieve very much at all. If nothing else it has highlighted, as new technology often has done, an interesting debate. I wish you a very good day, a very happy life and I genuinely thank you for your time. Simon J Miller
I think it stops being photography at that point, and starts being more like graphic design but not even your own design. Not a fan.
“Old Man Yells At Clouds!”
It’s amazing to see how people will go through “art is only what I say it is” at some point.
We’ve all said some variation of:
Dodging and burning is ruining photography! filters are ruining photography! double exposures are only possible in a photograph! Did you just HSL! NOT REAL PHOTOGRAPHY!
I’ll just clone in this one bird. I’ll clone out this one annoying tourist. HDR IS THE WORST!
It doesn’t have to be a real picture to be art. And art is whatever you want it to be.
Art maybe, not photography.
You are totally letting someone or thing controlling the outcome the image. The image/Art is not your work.
@@harisshakeel3822 I’ll let all those animators at Laika and Pixar know how you feel about their work.
@@chrisw5444 So photography isn’t art? Got it.
Photography encompasses a real scene. Maybe the lighting is controlled, maybe there is a costume/hair/makeup, but it's true reflection of that scene in the photograph. In particular, a landscape photograph that is altered with a new sky, a different dynamic range, added or removed elements is now a composite or digital art, and isn't pure photography anymore. The photographer didn't find that scene, they manufactured it. This isn't about dodging and burning, this isn't color tweaking for the photographers preference. This is altering the reality. Landscape photography, in particular, is as much about the work the person puts in to earning that photograph, by going to a place, finding the right light, the weather cooperating, etc. If I can just build an amazing picture of the Half Dome sitting in my room, on my computer, that isn't photography.
Couldn't agree with you more on Luminar. To me it's "digital art" not "digital photography." I try to do as little as possible in post-production on my photography. Does that limit a lot of my photos on how I want them to look? Absolutely. But for me it's about the chase. Being at the right place, at the right time, and knowing how to take the photo. I feel so great when I get "the shot" because I feel like I earned it. That's why I enjoy your artistry and creative direction. Keep it up.
You are spot on. The AI stuff is fun to play with sometimes as well as LUTS, filters apps, etc but you need to make your images YOUR own. Learn from your mentors but then take it to the next step and make it yours. Great food for thought. I grew up in the days of slides and negatives and 16mm processing ad nauseum and you did a lot of making an image yours with filters on your lenses and lots of darkroom time. Now it is a different world but there is still a lot of room to establish your own style and then perfect it.
I agree with you, for the most part. But have you never used Adobe's healing or clone tool? That's AI as well.
Thats basically fixing minor issues. This new AI is full on faking a shot as when changing out a sky for a different one.
People have been automating many things, and machines can do a better job then most people.
I think there will be an influx of 'AI beautified' pictures, and most people won't be able to recognise the difference.
A question:
How do landscape photo buyers choose? - What do they want from an image? - It's probably different from the photographers.
When I walk in the hardware store and I see those big photo's for wallpaper or framed, I know what the store thinks most people want. It's simple pop music, not refined classic music.
Don't be afraid of AI: Throw some foreign great lyrics into Google translate: a three year old boy is better in putting words to art.
Same with pictures, AI pictures will never transfer the mood, will never touch the heart as a real human/man made picture does.
And the very most important: there is no joy to be harvested in the process of creation by walking in the rain!
I am also a painter and completely agree with you. As far as style is concerned I know many artists on whom it weighs heavily as it actually inhibits freedom, however you should be able to stand behind and be responsible for every image you decide to share.
Don't care how long the video is, you're a pleasure to watch
As a Software Engineer i really think that this tool is a masterpiece, but at the same time, as amateur photographer im against. Im against even if sometimes, when travelling (on holiday) i only have a chance to do landscape photo at ie 1 pm, and i know that it wont be that pretty as golden hour landscape photo, but its my picture, picture i made at 1 pm. Yes i edit it, Yes i tweak color, Yes sometimes im jealous that others have a chance to be in the same location in the morning, sunrise or sunset, but attaching such sky by AI is just cheating :(
Totally agree
You answered your own conundrum. Yes i edit it, Yes i tweak color. You use AI then?
@@nelsonclub7722 difference between adjusting white balance and contrast of a raw file to capture what you saw that day and dropping skies, fog and snow.
@@tobiasyoder Still uses AI though
@@nelsonclub7722 What do you think AI is? basic sliders that adjust color value and luminosity of pixels isn't AI lol
Perhaps you think computer = AI or something?
I think it would make everyone's images much less unique
If you see a great sky you can photograph it and then use it later on another image you’ve taken. It’s still very unique. But always avoid sunsets in the east.
it is as unique as you let the software make it, you are not limited to letting it totally take over, as you can add or change at anytime, just like PS & LR has been doing for years. It just makes it quicker and easy to edit, plus some people find PS & LR difficult to use. I use Luminar to create a good quick starter base and then edit as required, just the same as I would do in PS 0r LR. As for changing the sky, yes I do sometimes, but I have my own collections of sky's that I have taken and do not use anybody else's.
It will make everyone's photos more unique in my opinion, everyone's who doesn't use these softwares.
@@LP-kr4gb Exactly. Assuming that it will make everyone's work look the same is a stretch to begin with. And even if it does, then this is a real advantage to the true creatives who decide not to use it.
Struggling to see the difference between AI software and Lightroom/Photoshop. In those two programmes you can manipulate skies/foregrounds, with the use of Radial Filters, Grad Filters, Adjustment brushes etc., to alter them completely. You can turn a grey sky blue in Lightroom. How is it OK to use Lightroom but not Luminar? Where do you draw the line between AI and editing? I don't know. But very interesting argument. Thanks Thomas.
I agree about Luminar, I have tried Luminar 4's sky replacement for very mild replacements but the times were so few that it is not worth upgrading or using at all. Photoshop will soon have a sky replacement feature so I am afraid that we cannot escape from this kind of thing, but at least it is a piece of software that is not relying so heavily on AI. Good video!
Shot film for 30+ years, so most effects were added in camera. I’ve been shooting digital for about 15, I still feel the dynamic range of film is better than digital. So for me the editing process, is more about restoring detail to things I saw when I took the image. Sometimes I’ll tame some highlights, lift some shadows, otherwise I like to keep editing to a minimum.
@Jesse Petrone I always used VPS 120 in 6 x 7 format. Not sure what the dynamic range is, but I know the images looked heaps better than anything I've seen out of a digital camera. And if you print mono on multi grade paper, you can change contrast grades as you dodge and burn, this gives a ridiculously high dynamic range.
@Jesse Petrone Since you raised the point, I just did a bit of a search and found more than one reference to Portra 400, having a dynamic range of 17 stops.
@Jesse Petrone I guess it comes down to what you like the look of, when you print or scan the outcome of your shooting efforts. I always used Pro labs, and usually overexposed by a full f stop and used incident light meter readings, to ensure a nice dense negative. Shooting on 6 x 7 format, I always preffered the look of the images over anything that came out of a digital camera. Just personal preference I guess. I don't shoot film lately, as the cost is prohibitive, but the thing that disappoints me about shooting digital, is the ammount of pulling and pushing I have to do in post to get something that resembles my old film photos. cheers!