AI will be for
War
Selling crap people don't need.
Stealing
Pornography
Useful AI will be for aiding the piloting of vehicles, steadying the hand of a surgeon. Universal instantaneous translations. etc.
I expect AI will be a commercial flop. Like the Dot Com bubble.
Based on what?Still takes a lot of skill and money to make AI work. Real will be around for a long time.
Based on what?
If AI could delay the shutter until all the subjects eyes were open, that would be quite useful to some. Or merge the best faces in a sequence for a group photo.The AI in photography that would be useful is AI that as one presses the shutter, AI would as needed adjust the lighting, exposure and focus, move or rearrange objects to improve the composition, remove any trash in the field of view.
It actually does something similar on most modern smartphones. And at least tells you if people had their eyes closed.If AI could delay the shutter until all the subjects eyes were open
Auto-merging of several images has also been standard on iPhones for several years.Or merge the best faces in a sequence for a group photo.
It actually does something similar on most modern smartphones. And at least tells you if people had their eyes closed.
Auto-merging of several images has also been standard on iPhones for several years.
How does auto-merging work indoors if you need a flash?
That's not what this thread is about though.AI is NOT an art
That's not what this thread is about though.
it is a corruption of the word of 'photograph'
PPS, adding to this, I very much realize that AI would do magnificently in outputting the sort of posts that we like to make here, so perhaps it does render us superfluous:Since this website consists mostly of discussion about technical topics associated with photography, and only to a much lesser extent an image-sharing platform (although people seem to be using the Gallery a bit more recently than they have been doing in the past years), the question is not so much about AI being used as image-generating tool.
I've not really read most of that, but skimming over it, it seems to have appropriately expressed itself in agreement with me, as any self-respecting LLM app at this point in time should do to optimize market penetration.Why Amateur Photography Is Irreplaceable — And Why AI Threatens the Arts
Every few months someone declares that AI will “replace” photography, especially amateur photography. And every time I hear it, I can’t help but think: this argument completely misunderstands what photography is and why people do it.
Photography isn’t just about producing an image. If it were, then yes — AI can spit out a technically perfect picture in seconds. But amateur photography has never been about technical perfection. It’s about experience, presence, observation, and authorship. These are things no algorithm can replicate.
1. Photography is a way of being in the world
When someone goes out with a camera — whether it’s a 4×5, a Rolleiflex, or a phone — they’re not just “collecting pixels.” They’re:
• noticing light
• paying attention to their surroundings
• slowing down
• engaging with people
• learning to see
AI can generate an image of a sunset, but it can’t replace the act of standing in the cold waiting for the light to break through the clouds. It can’t replace the conversation with a stranger who becomes a portrait subject. It can’t replace the thrill of nailing a shot you didn’t think you could pull off.
Photography is a practice. AI is a shortcut. And shortcuts don’t create meaning.
2. Amateur photography is the backbone of visual culture
People forget this, but the vast majority of the world’s photographic heritage — the images that actually matter to families, communities, and history — were made by amateurs:
• parents photographing their children
• travelers documenting places that no longer exist
• hobbyists recording their neighborhoods
• students experimenting with identity
• friends photographing each other growing up
AI can fabricate a “vintage‑looking family photo,” but it can’t replace the real one. It can’t replace the emotional weight of this was us, then. It can’t replace the authenticity of lived experience.
When we lose amateur photography, we lose the raw material of collective memory.
3. AI threatens the arts by eroding authorship
Art is not just the final product — it’s the trace of a human mind. It’s the sum of:
• choices
• mistakes
• limitations
• obsessions
• personal history
AI-generated images have no authorship. They have no point of view. They have no lived experience behind them. They’re statistical hallucinations stitched together from other people’s work.
When AI floods the visual landscape with infinite, frictionless imagery, it becomes harder for human-made work — especially amateur work — to be seen, valued, or even recognized as distinct. The danger isn’t that AI will “replace” artists. The danger is that it will drown them out.
4. Amateur photography is irreplaceable because it is personal
AI can generate a “perfect” portrait of a fictional person. But it cannot generate:
• the awkward smile of someone you love
• the way your child looked at age six
• the exact light in your grandmother’s kitchen
• the feeling of being there
Photography is a record of your life, your relationships, your perspective. AI can imitate aesthetics, but it cannot imitate you.
5. The arts need friction — AI removes it
Every meaningful creative discipline involves:
• effort
• uncertainty
• failure
• discovery
These are not obstacles; they are the engine of creativity. They’re what make the result matter.
AI removes friction. It removes the struggle. It removes the need to learn, to practice, to grow. And when you remove those things, you don’t get “better art.” You get content — endless, interchangeable, disposable content.
The arts cannot survive if everything becomes content.
In the end, amateur photography survives because it is human
AI can generate images. But it cannot generate:
• intention
• memory
• presence
• connection
• authorship
• meaning
Amateur photography is irreplaceable because it is not about the image — it is about the photographer.
And that is something no machine can ever be.
That's also not what this thread is about - or at least not what it started off as, or not in my understanding in any case. The central question asked is whether it would make this website superfluous. Since this website consists mostly of discussion about technical topics associated with photography, and only to a much lesser extent an image-sharing platform (although people seem to be using the Gallery a bit more recently than they have been doing in the past years), the question is not so much about AI being used as image-generating tool.
In your example concerning snooker, the matter at hand here is whether AI could have a role in, say, summarizing the results of a snooker match, or whether it could be used to find characteristics of snooker apparel used by successful players. Not whether AI would be a good snooker player. That's a different matter.
What is telling, in my view, is that despite that this thread didn't ask a question that pertains to AI as potentially taking the place of photography, this is what people seem to want to discuss. This strikes me as odd, because the people who spin it in this direction generally are very explicitly negative or critical about it. Then why put it central to a discussion, time and again, even if it doesn't need to be? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like walking into a bakery yelling that poop should never be used as an ingredient for a cake. Well, it wouldn't have to be, but if you bring it up, then we'll have to talk about it. Did we need to talk about it? Definitely not. So why go there?
I don't understand. If someone has a technical question that AI could easily answer, what's wrong with that?Exactly that is why it should have no place on the forum.
I don't think anyone has claimed that AI is photography. It s a tool, like a camera or digital illustration program. Get over it.Strewth, give me strength. I give up!
When will you come to accept that AI created images and photography whether it be film based with chemicals and a darkroom with actual negatives or using a digital camera (which I realise will have some AI input,) because those images will have been be seen by the photographer, not created by plagiarising ideas from others from whatever source. They are simply and bluntly NOT photography!
The very word 'photography' came from the Greek language and was understood to mean Writing With Light
AI images are no more like writing with light, which has about as much resemblance as a steak sandwich being the same as a vegetarian one.
When digital photography became reasonably useful the use by police forensic teams were at first unable to use it until software became available where it could be proved that an image to be used in a court of law was original and had not been materially altered to change evidence which could have been presented to incriminate someone.
Yes DI has it uses in the field of medicine, and other research, but that is not stealing others peoples work, but pushing forward technology and research, nor is it pretending to be something else. In the right hands it is fine but not when it is compared to pure photography. Where will it end? Already scammers are having a field day with the possibilities.
AI can be used for immoral purposes. So can many other forms of communication. I am not condoning such use, but many art forms have a long history of being the employed for the purpose of lies and propaganda. AI will continue to be used by many that way. It puts an additional burden on an already uneducated and unsophisticated audience to determine if what they are seeing is in fact what some would have them believe it is. As if many care to begin with. They drink the Kool-Aid.I cannot get over what is tantamount to dishonesty and the ability to use it for that purpose is. You may have a lax attitude to that standard of morals, but I haven't.
If Koraks reads this, then will you please delete my details from this forum, I do not want anything more to do with it.
As to the latter request - I can't, and if you're serious, please reach out to @Sean instead.I cannot get over what is tantamount to dishonesty and the ability to use it for that purpose is. You may have a lax attitude to that standard of morals, but I haven't.
If Koraks reads this, then will you please delete my details from this forum, I do not want anything more to do with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?