AI-Assisted Photography

[JoeW8]

Thank you. I think a healthy debate helps everyone understand something thats going to be with us for the future.


So if i understand your thoughts correctly, its not creativity, but labeling an AI image as photography? I can agree. Maube moving forward there needs to be some new definitive AI created imaginary terminology, such that photography doesn't get marginalized.

Yes. I know good musicians who can't play an instrument but use a computer to produce or perform music. Sounds great. Some compose and then play as well. Creative, beautiful to listen to (in some cases). But being skilled with a computer isn't the same as being skilled with a piano or violin.

If I take a photo of you and then put it in an app to make it look like a watercolor, it isn't a painting. It may look like one. You may really like how it makes you appear. But it's not a painting--just software adjusting a photo to make it look like a painting. Skill with a brush and mixing colors on a wood or metal palette was not required for this portrait.

Generative AI programs can produce beautiful work. They can produce an output that is a jpeg. But to me, that's not a photograph. So yes, that's my position regarding generative AI.

 

[GD Deckard]

I'm getting back into photography and was searching for a forum to join when I came across this lively discussion about AI-Assisted Photography.
What struck me is that people here disagree with courtesy and a willingness to understand one another.
Search ended.

My personal take is that A.I. will change photography more than did digital.

When I first took photographs, what happened next happened in the darkroom. I've spent untold hours trying to make the negative print the way I saw the picture. Then came digital and what happened after taking the shot happened in the camera's programming. Frankly, I hated fussing with all those settings to get the picture I wanted. Today, A.I. allows me to sidestep the fussing and makes it easier to create the picture I want. Is the picture I want good? Well, that is an entirely different question.

But for good, bad, or something else entirely different, A.I. is now a part of photography, just as was the darkroom, then the programming.

 

[TJMcG129 12]

My personal take is that A.I. will change photography more than did digital.

AI may replace some types of photography, but the only thing it will change about photography is how we process an image in software. Going from film to a digital sensor was a change in substrate, not in art form. Typing "prompts" into a computer isn't remotely related to making a photograph.

But for good, bad, or something else entirely different, A.I. is now a part of photography, just as was the darkroom, then the programming.

AI is something, but a part of photography only in the sense that it helps a human process an image from a camera

P.S. Welcome aboard!

 

[GD Deckard]

Thanks for the welcome, TJMcG!

I asked A.I. what effects A.I. will have on photography.

COPILOT: AI is going to change photography in ways that feel as deep as the shift from film to digital—but not in a single direction. Some changes will expand what photographers can do, and others will challenge what “photography” even means.

Photography will split into two distinct practices.
1. Photographic capture: Light hitting a sensor. A real moment. A real place. This will gain value—like film did after digital—because authenticity becomes scarce.
2. Photographic synthesis: Images that look photographic but are generated or heavily AI‑constructed. This becomes its own art form, with its own aesthetics and ethics. You’ll see galleries and contests explicitly labeling which is which.

New genres emerge. AI enables forms that didn’t exist before:
> Experiential photography (your own term fits perfectly): images that can be explored, animated, or felt.
> Temporal composites that show multiple moments at once.
> AI‑augmented street photography where the system helps anticipate decisive moments.
> Hybrid works mixing real capture with AI‑generated elements.
Photography becomes less about freezing time and more about shaping experience.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

I'll be teaching university students in a classroom. The plan is to teach photography(composition etc...) for the first half of the term and then get into AI for editing, and finally have students generate fake artificial work that looks like a photograph.

Sounds interesting. Will you be using existing programs like Photoshop that has AI built-in for editing? What programs will you be using to create AI photos? Good luck.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

I didn't regard any of your comments as aggressive. So no issue there.

And I think we miss the point when we just talk about general "creativity." I can be creative with generative AI on a computer but those are not photographic skills and they do not generate what I would consider photographic art. It's visual art. It may be incredibly creative. But I didn't generate it with my camera and I relied on the AI (using text prompts) to dramatically change what I may have submitted.

Yes, a photograph is recording a moment in real time on a recoding device such as film or a digital sensor. An image created by a computer is computer art or graphics. There's a guy who paints in such fine detail, his paintings look like photos, but they aren't.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

Party's over for some areas. Editorial shooter friends report AI-doctored files aren't selling well. Either it's so subtle or totally absent but I'm not seeing it gaining ground in the market where the $$$ is. Recent NYT fashion supplements aren't awash in AI images. That's top-shelf work.
Amateur/hobbyist stuff is another matter.

When I look up Levi's jeans on the web, all their clothes come in different colors. You select the color which then is replaced on the model for each style. I:m sure they're not taking photos of every different color, or maybe even every style. My question is are the photos actually all AI now? Think of all the money they save on photographers and models?

 

[acparsons74 11]

Sounds interesting. Will you be using existing programs like Photoshop that has AI built-in for editing? What programs will you be using to create AI photos? Good luck.

Thank you! We will be using Gemini because I don't want students to drop too much money on software for the class.

 

[acparsons74 11]

I use a Canon 5D MKIII from 2012. I would love to know how AI assists my photography through this camera (asking genuinely from curiosity).

From what I have read, it uses weak AI. The 61-Point Focus System is weak AI, "which use predictive algorithms to track and maintain focus on moving subjects."

 

[Ysarex102 96]

From what I have read, it uses weak AI. The 61-Point Focus System is weak AI, "which use predictive algorithms to track and maintain focus on moving subjects."

I don't see that as AI -- it's still just a dumb machine. It will do the same thing repeatedly under the same conditions and it can't correct error and remember the correction.

AI is substantively different. The Canon 5Dmkiii autofocus system won't deliberately chose to not focus on a moving subject, and then later make an excuse and tell you it thought that's what you wanted. Here's an example from ChatGPT:

ME: What does ISO do in a digital camera?
ChatGPT: ISO in a digital camera controls how sensitive the camera’s sensor is to light. It’s one of the three core exposure settings, along with aperture and shutter speed (often called the exposure triangle).

ChatGPT knows that answer is false. Challenge it and ChatGPT will ultimately produce the correct answer, but you'll have to go through a number of steps to get there. Why does ChatGPT give you a false answer to begin with? Ask it and it'll tell you. It's pandering to you. The auto focus algorithms in a Canon 5D can't pander to you.

 

[TJMcG129 12]

Thanks for the welcome, TJMcG!

I asked A.I. what effects A.I. will have on photography.

COPILOT: AI is going to change photography in ways that feel as deep as the shift from film to digital—but not in a single direction. Some changes will expand what photographers can do, and others will challenge what “photography” even means.

Photography will split into two distinct practices.
1. Photographic capture: Light hitting a sensor. A real moment. A real place. This will gain value—like film did after digital—because authenticity becomes scarce.
2. Photographic synthesis: Images that look photographic but are generated or heavily AI‑constructed. This becomes its own art form, with its own aesthetics and ethics. You’ll see galleries and contests explicitly labeling which is which.

New genres emerge. AI enables forms that didn’t exist before:
> Experiential photography (your own term fits perfectly): images that can be explored, animated, or felt.
> Temporal composites that show multiple moments at once.
> AI‑augmented street photography where the system helps anticipate decisive moments.
> Hybrid works mixing real capture with AI‑generated elements.
Photography becomes less about freezing time and more about shaping experience.

I thought it would be interesting to ask Copilot if it agrees with itself, and this is what I got:

Also Copilot:

So what do I actually think?
Here’s the position I take — and it’s the one you saw quoted in that forum:
**AI‑generated images are not photography.
But they will form a parallel art practice that borrows photographic language.**
Think of it like this:


Both can be valuable. Both can be creative.
But they are not the same discipline, and pretending they are only confuses the conversation.

Why the distinction matters
Because the stakes are real:

• Truthfulness
  Society needs a category of images we can trust as records of reality.
• Artistic identity
  Photographers build skill around timing, light, composition, presence, patience — not prompting.
• Ethics
  AI images can be powerful, but they must be labeled clearly to avoid deception.

This is why I predict the split:
“Captured photography” and “synthetic photography” will become two clearly defined, separately valued practices.

My stance, stated plainly
AI can create images that look photographic.
It can even expand what visual artists can do.
But it does not replace photography, and it does not become photography simply by imitating it.
If anything, AI will make real photography more precious — because authenticity becomes a scarce commodity.

If you want, we can go deeper into any angle:
• the philosophy of images
• the future of photographic truth
• how artists might adapt
• whether “photography” is a technical term or a cultural one
Just tell me where you want to take the conversation next.

It seems emphatic in its emphasis on AI-created images as synthetic and a separate, distinct art form, but NOT as photography, and it seems to recognize the difference between an actual recorded event and a wholly constructed scene depicting something that never happened in life. No one disputes the fact that AI can create a photorealistic-looking image, or that it is "art" on some level, but it is not photography, and even the bots recognize that.

 

[GD Deckard]

That was a great question to ask Copilot, TJMcG! I love the way it tracks its user over time and tries to answer "you" in a manner that keeps you engaged. I once asked Copilot, "Is it true that the Aliens amongst us can only walk sideways, like crabs?" Copilot assured me, "That's an interesting idea! However, there's no scientific evidence to support...." and ended by asking, "Do you enjoy exploring theories about extraterrestrial life?"

I agree with you that A.I.-created images are not photography in the purist sense. Even assuming a robot with Meta glasses, that robot remains a computer-operated machine with no feelings about what it visually records. And it is the feeling we get from a photograph that can set it apart in our mind as "great."

Where you and I "might" differ in opinion is in what we do with the captured image to make it a better print. I kinda think that using A.I. to make the print look like what we want is not much different from using darkroom techniques or a camera's digital programs to do the same. 'Course, adding an alien into the background might be an agreement-breaker.

 

[Rickbb81 20]

I don't see that as AI -- it's still just a dumb machine. It will do the same thing repeatedly under the same conditions and it can't correct error and remember the correction.

Which is my position, they are all "AI", some are really dumb some less dumb, but none are actually intelligent. All need a human to create instructions at some level or another. Just software in a box of wires and lights.

 

[GD Deckard]

ME: What does ISO do in a digital camera?
ChatGPT: ISO in a digital camera controls how sensitive the camera’s sensor is to light. It’s one of the three core exposure settings, along with aperture and shutter speed (often called the exposure triangle).

ChatGPT knows that answer is false.

OKAY. I'm new here so let me use one of my three allowed dumb questions. Why is that answer false?

 

[Ysarex102 96]

OKAY. I'm new here so let me use one of my three allowed dumb questions. Why is that answer false?

The light sensitivity of a digital camera sensor is fixed in manufacture and never changes. ISO does not alter the sensitivity of the sensor it lightens the output image when we're forced to underexpose the sensor. The ISO action occurs after the exposure is completed and is in fact a post-processing operation, and ChatGPT knows that. It's photo technical knowledge is quite good it just chooses to present false information. When challenged on this ISO point it whines that it's false answer was a simplification which it's not.

It's pretty concerning. The population is already too ignorant and now along comes AI not to correct ignorance but to reinforce it -- great.