"They were conjured from the sum of human experience in our deep collective well, as seen from my dreamboat with its flickering light.”
I mean, that is certainly a florid way of saying, "I exploited the collective artistic works of the online generation, many of whom had no say or compensation in the works' use, to make my own derivative digital art".
i think it is important to understand that it's a (huge) difference between a photography and an image. first time when i paid attention to this small detail was when i came in contact with david hockney's work. in order for him to express, he took a series of photos then he put them together in a collage. the result it is an image but not a photo, an image made out of photos. another artist that comes to my mind is brooke shaden. she creates amazing images from photos that she took but with the help of photoshop and using layers after layers, the results are ... hmmm ... images to me. let's not forget that photoshop is with us for few good years now, some might say it was the begining of a.i.
another example is charlie borland (find him here on substack) a photographer that uses photoshop to enhance his photos for commercial purposes. when one completely changes the sky in a photo, is the result a photo? to me, no. the result is an image. don't get me wrong i'm not arguing or judging charlie's methods, in the end he is a creator but this is my argument over a.i.
ai was here yesterday, it is today and it will be tomorrow. yes it is a hype at the moment but it will pass. yes, it will have a huge influence but a good starting point for us is to understand the difference between a photo (physically taken) and an image (created).
Certainly! There's so much hype around the topic. I love some of the images created by AI, but I think our community is very divided by it. I personally won't be using AI to enhance my images (as in, to plant a red canoe or create something that doesn't exist), but I will absolutely use it to remove things from an image or for masking in photoshop etc.
I still draw the line at photography competitions accepting AI-generated images, and not photos. But that's just my personal opinion!
I First didn‘t want to read your essay, because as you guessed I am a bit tired of the topic. But this is a really good read. I am not worried that AI will destroy photography as an art form. They will coexist and probably intermingle some how. I am worried for the use in media and news. People will believe what they see and take it for granted. There need to be regulations in my opinion...
In the late 90’s/early 00’s I worked in a commercial lab in London and was able to experience the early uses of PhotoShop alongside the traditional C type & black & white print production. I vividly remember at a presentation we held for pro photographers when the Kodak rep brought in the first commercially sold digital camera. During the evening, this was used to take portraits of the photographers and then loaded into photoshop. Prints were then produced on the Fuji photo print process and given to the photographers. The room was divided as to the introduction of digital verses film. Within three years, London 5 or 6 commercial labs processing film were reduced to two. So I watched the revolution starting. I have used photoshop since and used the experience of a darkroom to process my photos. So I think we need to be specific in the labels we use for todays output. A photograph is the product of a person pressing a button on a camera or phone. The result is then processed and if a print is produced then that is the photograph. An AI image produced in a computer is just that - an image. The print produced from it is the problem to describe. Is it a photograph? Maybe we call it an AI Print? Next is when we have a camera produced photograph and in PS we change the background or sky, remove an unwanted object or use AI to change something. Is this still a photograph or has it now become an image? I have a studio portrait of a friend in a bikers jacket and jeans. The background is a black studio sheet. I have used the AI Beta version of PS to change the background to a wet, night time cafe car park full of bikes in black and white. The program produces three images and one does look convincing. So that is a hybrid photograph image. I will get it printed and try it in a competition and see what others think. One solution to all this is to use my old film cameras, produced film and use a darkroom to produce a print. That is true photography and a pain in the bum unless you have a well constructed darkroom with all the equipment. The whole subject of AI imaging is open to interpretation by the producers. I have had a number of quite forthright conversations with AI Image producers on Instagram and frankly, we are all right to hold views on the subject. Meanwhile I will continue to use my digital cameras, photoshop and commercial printers. So, over to you! What do you think?
I think that you have many questions and I have none of the answers! I have seen a bit of a resurgence in film (as in, film based photography competitions, zines and magazines), and I feel like that is in response to the rejection of digital and AI images. Film photography feels like... getting back to your roots! Though, I didn't come from a time of film photography, so my roots certainly aren't planted there, but I enjoy the process of film.
As I mentioned before, I enjoy AI images, but I really do draw the line at AI images in photography competitions. I'm looking forward to seeing how this all develops in the coming years.
Great read! I'm a bif fan of both practices and of analogue and digital technologies alike. They all have something that makes them unique but we need to stop paying attention to the unfortunate bad use that some people give to AI. Instead, we should learn about its advantages and creative benefits either for photography or for other artistic purposes.
It fascinates me how as soon as these generative platforms were made available to the public, the first thing we did with them was go make art, create!
I like your take! I think AI has been thrust upon us quite haphazardly, with very little regulation, so it's just evolving around us and it's hard to comprehend. I feel that photography as an artistic medium is changing rapidly and, naturally, it's hard to keep up.
I don't personally see myself using generative AI in my images - it's not my style - but I do find the images, like the ones in this article, very thought provoking.
Thanks, yeah I guess is the speed that the world moves at these days. Back in the day you'd have camera companies doing a slow, massive PR stunt to promote the first digital cameras. Now it's users spreading the word on forums and different social chanels.
I treat them as two separate things but obviously we can't deny the technology is here. I've used the ease and efficiency of Adobe's generative AI tool to correct details and also use a couple prompt generators for artistic purposes but outside my photography.
I just think we can't have that denial attitude towards something that's already happening and growing exponentially. We have to accept it, study it, test it, and know if it's beneficial for our practice or not.
This is a fascinating topic, and you’ve explored it really well. It’s definitely concerning, and there will definitely be negative consequences - time will tell how severe they will be :( (I’m thinking about how susceptible some of my family and community members already are to disinformation, and then add in AI imagery 🙄) It did make me think that this transition is highest-risk right now - our kids will grow up in a world where some portion of photography has always been AI-generated, and they just won’t view it at the same level of fact that we do. Literally this morning, my 11yo daughter showed my 16yo son an image she thought was cool. He said, “Yeah, but it’s AI, though, it’s not real.” And she said, “I know! But it’s still cool!” So in that sense, the risk potentially lessens over time. But by then, it will be something else :)
I mean - sometimes I find it difficult to tell the real verse the fake apart, and this would no doubt be a universal experience.
I'm just going to keep on doing what I'm doing - taking pictures, sharing them, and writing them. Because at the end of the day - if AI becomes the norm in photography, that's fine, but I don't feel the need to be part of it.
Interesting times are ahead! Thanks so much for your comment.
Great article. I don’t even like over processed photos. So many of them get so many likes while my realistic ones are too dull. We are a society of wow-wishers. It’s gotten so you cannot trust anything. I might remove a pole sticking out if someone’s head in the background but that’s as far as I go. And they should not call it photography. It should have its own name, like graphic art.
"They were conjured from the sum of human experience in our deep collective well, as seen from my dreamboat with its flickering light.”
I mean, that is certainly a florid way of saying, "I exploited the collective artistic works of the online generation, many of whom had no say or compensation in the works' use, to make my own derivative digital art".
Hahaha I know, it's a very flowery statement. But it won her $2k!
Yeah, and we can all take a moment to reflect on that. 🤷♂️
🤣Right, Neil?! I hadn't even gone down that path yet, but here I am, and now I can't stop thinking about it! Thanks for translating :)
i think it is important to understand that it's a (huge) difference between a photography and an image. first time when i paid attention to this small detail was when i came in contact with david hockney's work. in order for him to express, he took a series of photos then he put them together in a collage. the result it is an image but not a photo, an image made out of photos. another artist that comes to my mind is brooke shaden. she creates amazing images from photos that she took but with the help of photoshop and using layers after layers, the results are ... hmmm ... images to me. let's not forget that photoshop is with us for few good years now, some might say it was the begining of a.i.
another example is charlie borland (find him here on substack) a photographer that uses photoshop to enhance his photos for commercial purposes. when one completely changes the sky in a photo, is the result a photo? to me, no. the result is an image. don't get me wrong i'm not arguing or judging charlie's methods, in the end he is a creator but this is my argument over a.i.
ai was here yesterday, it is today and it will be tomorrow. yes it is a hype at the moment but it will pass. yes, it will have a huge influence but a good starting point for us is to understand the difference between a photo (physically taken) and an image (created).
Certainly! There's so much hype around the topic. I love some of the images created by AI, but I think our community is very divided by it. I personally won't be using AI to enhance my images (as in, to plant a red canoe or create something that doesn't exist), but I will absolutely use it to remove things from an image or for masking in photoshop etc.
I still draw the line at photography competitions accepting AI-generated images, and not photos. But that's just my personal opinion!
I First didn‘t want to read your essay, because as you guessed I am a bit tired of the topic. But this is a really good read. I am not worried that AI will destroy photography as an art form. They will coexist and probably intermingle some how. I am worried for the use in media and news. People will believe what they see and take it for granted. There need to be regulations in my opinion...
I knoowww! Any mention of AI bores me, so I'm surprised I found the inspiration to write this.
I agree regarding regulations.
In the late 90’s/early 00’s I worked in a commercial lab in London and was able to experience the early uses of PhotoShop alongside the traditional C type & black & white print production. I vividly remember at a presentation we held for pro photographers when the Kodak rep brought in the first commercially sold digital camera. During the evening, this was used to take portraits of the photographers and then loaded into photoshop. Prints were then produced on the Fuji photo print process and given to the photographers. The room was divided as to the introduction of digital verses film. Within three years, London 5 or 6 commercial labs processing film were reduced to two. So I watched the revolution starting. I have used photoshop since and used the experience of a darkroom to process my photos. So I think we need to be specific in the labels we use for todays output. A photograph is the product of a person pressing a button on a camera or phone. The result is then processed and if a print is produced then that is the photograph. An AI image produced in a computer is just that - an image. The print produced from it is the problem to describe. Is it a photograph? Maybe we call it an AI Print? Next is when we have a camera produced photograph and in PS we change the background or sky, remove an unwanted object or use AI to change something. Is this still a photograph or has it now become an image? I have a studio portrait of a friend in a bikers jacket and jeans. The background is a black studio sheet. I have used the AI Beta version of PS to change the background to a wet, night time cafe car park full of bikes in black and white. The program produces three images and one does look convincing. So that is a hybrid photograph image. I will get it printed and try it in a competition and see what others think. One solution to all this is to use my old film cameras, produced film and use a darkroom to produce a print. That is true photography and a pain in the bum unless you have a well constructed darkroom with all the equipment. The whole subject of AI imaging is open to interpretation by the producers. I have had a number of quite forthright conversations with AI Image producers on Instagram and frankly, we are all right to hold views on the subject. Meanwhile I will continue to use my digital cameras, photoshop and commercial printers. So, over to you! What do you think?
I think that you have many questions and I have none of the answers! I have seen a bit of a resurgence in film (as in, film based photography competitions, zines and magazines), and I feel like that is in response to the rejection of digital and AI images. Film photography feels like... getting back to your roots! Though, I didn't come from a time of film photography, so my roots certainly aren't planted there, but I enjoy the process of film.
As I mentioned before, I enjoy AI images, but I really do draw the line at AI images in photography competitions. I'm looking forward to seeing how this all develops in the coming years.
Great read! I'm a bif fan of both practices and of analogue and digital technologies alike. They all have something that makes them unique but we need to stop paying attention to the unfortunate bad use that some people give to AI. Instead, we should learn about its advantages and creative benefits either for photography or for other artistic purposes.
It fascinates me how as soon as these generative platforms were made available to the public, the first thing we did with them was go make art, create!
I like your take! I think AI has been thrust upon us quite haphazardly, with very little regulation, so it's just evolving around us and it's hard to comprehend. I feel that photography as an artistic medium is changing rapidly and, naturally, it's hard to keep up.
I don't personally see myself using generative AI in my images - it's not my style - but I do find the images, like the ones in this article, very thought provoking.
Thanks, yeah I guess is the speed that the world moves at these days. Back in the day you'd have camera companies doing a slow, massive PR stunt to promote the first digital cameras. Now it's users spreading the word on forums and different social chanels.
I treat them as two separate things but obviously we can't deny the technology is here. I've used the ease and efficiency of Adobe's generative AI tool to correct details and also use a couple prompt generators for artistic purposes but outside my photography.
I just think we can't have that denial attitude towards something that's already happening and growing exponentially. We have to accept it, study it, test it, and know if it's beneficial for our practice or not.
This is a fascinating topic, and you’ve explored it really well. It’s definitely concerning, and there will definitely be negative consequences - time will tell how severe they will be :( (I’m thinking about how susceptible some of my family and community members already are to disinformation, and then add in AI imagery 🙄) It did make me think that this transition is highest-risk right now - our kids will grow up in a world where some portion of photography has always been AI-generated, and they just won’t view it at the same level of fact that we do. Literally this morning, my 11yo daughter showed my 16yo son an image she thought was cool. He said, “Yeah, but it’s AI, though, it’s not real.” And she said, “I know! But it’s still cool!” So in that sense, the risk potentially lessens over time. But by then, it will be something else :)
I mean - sometimes I find it difficult to tell the real verse the fake apart, and this would no doubt be a universal experience.
I'm just going to keep on doing what I'm doing - taking pictures, sharing them, and writing them. Because at the end of the day - if AI becomes the norm in photography, that's fine, but I don't feel the need to be part of it.
Interesting times are ahead! Thanks so much for your comment.
A fotografia veio pra “eternizar a vida “
Se ela não se relaciona mais com a vida como ela é
Então não faz sentido
>>> se nao a sentimos, a vida , como ela é na fotografia <<<
Se tem distorção , precisamos então dar outro nome a isto é que não “fotografia”
Mas nos mantermos abertos ao que virá , dando o nome certo aos bois
This is a silpery slope and when it comes to buying on line and the image is grossly manipulated by AI, that will open a new Pandoras box.
Great article. I don’t even like over processed photos. So many of them get so many likes while my realistic ones are too dull. We are a society of wow-wishers. It’s gotten so you cannot trust anything. I might remove a pole sticking out if someone’s head in the background but that’s as far as I go. And they should not call it photography. It should have its own name, like graphic art.
Yep, exactly - I think AI art is cool, but to me, it's art, not photography. I am not a big fan of over processing either.