A.I. Photography - Are we doomed?

[Don Fischer]

Don't worry about it. Pretty soon AI is going to take over the world and eliminate all of us.

I can't figure out what A.I. is? But sort of sounds like you'll be using your camera to keep time before long!

 

[webestang64]

This is a really good episode of Black Mirror dealing with A.I.

Black Mirror: Season 6, Episode 1

Synopsis:An average woman is stunned to discover a global streaming platform has launched a prestige TV drama adaptation of her life — in which she is portrayed by Hollywood A-lister Salma Hayek Pinault.

www.rottentomatoes.com

 

[AlanKlein]

I know we've been at odds at variuos times in the past. If you have an opinion to express then I'd welcome the opportunity to debate either in the open forums or by PM, but cheap shots from the shadows are not very becoming on you.

You;re advancing the notion that photography doesn't need a camera to justify that photos can be created with just a computer. Sorry, but it sounds like Alice in Wonderland.

 

[smoke665]

You;re advancing the notion that photography doesn't need a camera to justify that photos can be created with just a computer

And you're restricting yourself to a very narrow definition of what photography actually is. Wikipedia says photography is "the art, application, and practice of creating durable images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film". IMMA says it's "the process of recording an image – a photograph – on lightsensitive film or, in the case of digital photography, via a digital electronic or magnetic memory". If you search other definitions you find similar things, none of which refer to a camera being necessary to complete the process. However, most do include terms like "art" and "create".

The camera is a tool in the creative process, but there are other tools that have been around since the beginning of creating an image on a light sensitive surface. We have some members here on TPF that create photos with alternative processes. Photograms and Cyanotype are a couple that come to mind, I'm sure there's others. Today CGI and laser mapping can create amazing images."Photograpy"and the creative process of,/ encomposes so much more than just a "camera".

Computer generated art requires just as much skill and creativity as the person behind a camera, maybe more, just a different skill set. As I said in the previous post, the act of "creating" isn't "in the camera", it begins and ends with the person "behind the camera". I don't believe cameras will go away anytime soon as a creative tool, like the cell phone did, I believe AI might have an effect on the camera market and market share. Possibly more slimming of the lower end models, and expansion of the higher end. I think the biggest change/use of AI will come in cell phones.

 

[limr]

Keep it civil, folks, or step away from the computer and go take a nap or something.

That includes impugning anyone's opinion or command of the English language.

 

[Warfarin]

Well when people see my negatives they will know my photos are not A.I.

 

[AlanKlein]

And you're restricting yourself to a very narrow definition of what photography actually is. Wikipedia says photography is "the art, application, and practice of creating durable images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film". IMMA says it's "the process of recording an image – a photograph – on lightsensitive film or, in the case of digital photography, via a digital electronic or magnetic memory". If you search other definitions you find similar things, none of which refer to a camera being necessary to complete the process. However, most do include terms like "art" and "create".

The camera is a tool in the creative process, but there are other tools that have been around since the beginning of creating an image on a light sensitive surface. We have some members here on TPF that create photos with alternative processes. Photograms and Cyanotype are a couple that come to mind, I'm sure there's others. Today CGI and laser mapping can create amazing images."Photograpy"and the creative process of,/ encomposes so much more than just a "camera".

Computer generated art requires just as much skill and creativity as the person behind a camera, maybe more, just a different skill set. As I said in the previous post, the act of "creating" isn't "in the camera", it begins and ends with the person "behind the camera". I don't believe cameras will go away anytime soon as a creative tool, like the cell phone did, I believe AI might have an effect on the camera market and market share. Possibly more slimming of the lower end models, and expansion of the higher end. I think the biggest change/use of AI will come in cell phones.

By your definition above, a computer doesn't record light, whether using AI or something else. It creates images from a program or uses other photographer's recoded images. But it doesn't record light in the first place. It is not photography.

Even if you're not using a camera, you're still recording the light created in a moment in time in real life. Computers don't record light. It isn't photography. It can be a tool to create artificial images or develop or edit recorded light in much the same way that Lightroom or Photoshop is a tool that edits. But they too don't record light and are not photography by themselves. You need a camera or some other device to capture light. Then it's photography.

 

[smoke665]

You need a camera or some other device to capture light. Then it's photography.

First of all thank you for putting forth your opinions and comments, ultimately we all benefit by healthy discussions.

As to your premise I think you are again limiting yourself in definitions. In it's simplest form, quantum theory describes light as consisting of discrete packets of energy, called photons. The visible light seen by the human eye is a very narrow range, usually defined as having wavelengths in the range of 400–700 nanometres, but just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside that range. Actual light perse is not captured, it is the energy of the light acting on something that is recorded which in turn goes through a conversion process that allows us to see that snapshot of energy. In the film days it was light on film acting on sensitive crystals which can change their structure when excited by light (photons). In the digital world photons acting on the sensor create analog signals, that are collected and converted to digital by a computer in the camera. So in reality everytime you snap a shot with your cell phone or digital camera it's a computer that's generating the image based on the inputs it received.

So many of the advancements in technology today are nothing more than improvements on the conversion process and expansion of the energy forms that can be converted. They are all converting some form of energy (visible or not), into an image. I had an MRI on my back a couple months ago, when I went back to the Dr for followup, there was my spine and inner body displayed on a screen in "image form". I can assure you no light was reflecting off the parts I was looking at. LOL

I would agree that I'd be hard pressed to classify some of the new AI art generators like Midjouney as photography because they don't convert reflected energy, they bypass the recording part by generating an image strictly from code. This is some of the reason I said earlier that I believe AI will eventually settle in a new category of medium or maybe in the existing category of digital art.

 

[webestang64]

Well when people see my negatives they will know my photos are not A.I.

You and me both............

 

[AlanKlein]

First of all thank you for putting forth your opinions and comments, ultimately we all benefit by healthy discussions.

As to your premise I think you are again limiting yourself in definitions. In it's simplest form, quantum theory describes light as consisting of discrete packets of energy, called photons. The visible light seen by the human eye is a very narrow range, usually defined as having wavelengths in the range of 400–700 nanometres, but just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside that range. Actual light perse is not captured, it is the energy of the light acting on something that is recorded which in turn goes through a conversion process that allows us to see that snapshot of energy. In the film days it was light on film acting on sensitive crystals which can change their structure when excited by light (photons). In the digital world photons acting on the sensor create analog signals, that are collected and converted to digital by a computer in the camera. So in reality everytime you snap a shot with your cell phone or digital camera it's a computer that's generating the image based on the inputs it received.

So many of the advancements in technology today are nothing more than improvements on the conversion process and expansion of the energy forms that can be converted. They are all converting some form of energy (visible or not), into an image. I had an MRI on my back a couple months ago, when I went back to the Dr for followup, there was my spine and inner body displayed on a screen in "image form". I can assure you no light was reflecting off the parts I was looking at. LOL

I would agree that I'd be hard pressed to classify some of the new AI art generators like Midjouney as photography because they don't convert reflected energy, they bypass the recording part by generating an image strictly from code. This is some of the reason I said earlier that I believe AI will eventually settle in a new category of medium or maybe in the existing category of digital art.

That's the point I have been making. AI doesn't record light so it's not photography. Thanks.

 

[thecoastallens]

For me A.I imagery is a new toy that everyone is getting excited about but once the novelty wears off people will move on to something else. It may have its uses in certain contexts, but ultimately it cant replace real photographs of real stuff.

 

[SunriseAvenue]

I agree with the comment above: AI is a brand new toy, so it's only reasonable for everyone to get excited about it and try and make it do stuff they used to do themselves. However, the novelty of it will pass, and I've already seen plenty of opinions about how tiresome the hype about AI images is. I think it will stay as another photo editing tool, a really helpful one at that, but it's not like it's going to replace photographers. I'd love to see program like Photoglory integrating more of AI tools, though, a realistic auto-colorization is never a con.

 

[JoeW]

Some people in this thread have argued that AI is just a fad and it will pass. I think that's naive. Let me give you some practical instances.
1. Generating headshots. You've taken a new job. Or you want to put a profile up on a dating service. And your last headshot is 5 years old. There are a wide range of AI programs out there were you can submit a photo of you and say "add 2 pounds, age 5 years, make hair shorter" and it will produce a result that looks like you. Except you don't need a photographer to do it--just software.
2. Porn. There is already a pretty big discussion in the industry among the actors that AI will eliminate the need for most of them. So the point earlier in this thread about "as long as it doesn't replace sex"--it's too late. It's in the process of doing so.
3. Documentation. Why get up to shoot a beautiful sunrise when you can manipulate it yourself with AI and never leave bed in doing so? Think about this--how many of you have shot pictures of a Bald Eagle in flight in the wilderness? Now with AI all of you can claim to have done so. Photos as a means of saying "I was there, I saw this, here is proof" lose most of their credibility with AI.
4. Theft. AI programs "scrub" other sites (I wouldn't be surprised if TPF has been scrubbed covertly by a couple of programs already). How would you feel about a photo of your's being used without your approval to create something totally different--maybe something you find offensive. Someone takes your picture of a big fire and then uses AI so it's a big pile of Qorans being burned. Someone takes a picture you made at the beach of your 14 year old niece and uses AI to make her nude and in the middle of an orgy. All AI starts with work that was initially generated by someone else.
5. Finally, TPF raised the issue of including EXIF data on all photos. That (for now) could be one way of identifying what is AI. Lots of us like the idea of EXIF data displayed or don't care. But some absolutely do. Well, the direction we're going is one in which that will probably be mandatory for all contests, exhibitions, and public displays of photos (to verify it's a real photo).

 

[Grandpa Ron]

As a person who likes tinkering with a turn of the century view camera. AI or many of the current post processing programs have little or no appeal to me. "Old time photography will remain a niche hobby."

I am and photographer who likes to see how perfect of a picture I can squeeze of of the camera, not how much electronic artistic flare I can add to my photo art.

I have seen some excellent photographic master pieces; but I like the feel of twisting dials and pushing knobs, as opposed sitting in front of a monitor with a mouse.

I do use the many features my digital camera for taking "creative" photos, not easily attained with older gear, but it just lacks the same sense of accomplishment.

 

[ClintLloyd]

I think pretty much everything is doomed with this fourth industrial AI revolution. Most people think it just means robots, they don't realise it will literally destroy everything, even human biology...