How will AI affect "making" versus "taking" photo's?

[Ron789]

AI is rapidly getting better at "making" photo's. But AI is not capable of "taking" photo's. Well.... for now. Maybe one day there will be AI driven robots, drones etc. that autonomously go out to "take" great photo's in the real world based on their own (artificial) intelligence and interest, just like photographers do today... who knows.....
Is there still a future for photographers "making" photo's? What route should they take to distinguish themselves from AI generated photography?
Or should photographers from now on focus on "taking" photo's (documentary, sports, journalism etc.) and leave the "making" to AI?
Personally, I mostly "take" photo's and only occasionally "make" photo's, just for the fun of it. But for those who make a living from photography for sure AI will be a game changer. Your thoughts?

 

[retina_restoration]

AI does not make photographs. It can make photorealistic simulations of photographs but by definition, what AI makes is not photography. Many are referring to this kind of illustration as "Promptography".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

AI does not make photographs. It can make photorealistic simulations of photographs but by definition, what AI makes is not photography. Many are referring to this kind of illustration as "Promptography".

grat term and it may be an art by itself.

 

[retina_restoration]

grat term and it may be an art by itself.

I see no reason why it can’t be regarded as its own category of art. But many people refer to it as photography, which it is not.

 

[koraks]

Is there still a future for photographers "making" photo's? What route should they take to distinguish themselves from AI generated photography?

Sure, there's a future for human photographers. Keep in mind that the majority of landscape etc. photography hasn't been very innovative for the past 80 years or so to begin with, so the question may have played around in the background much longer than many of us had realized. Apparently most of us who practice photography in less-than-innovative fashion (which is the vast majority of amateur & pro photographers) haven't been bothered too much by the notion that "it's been done before". I doubt we will bother much by a similar "it's being done by something else as well".

From an artistic viewpoint, in my view the processes of conceptualization and embedding human meaning into a work of art (as it's made as well as when it's being 'consumed' by the public) are essential. These cannot be substituted by AI as we presently know it, as AI is not sentient, does not actually understand or feel anything and therefore isn't capable of sensemaking. In this sense, AI hasn't even put as much as a dent into artistic photography.

The whole problem is much less of an issue than people seem to realize, and arguably doesn't even exist.

 

[Don_ih]

AI does not make photographs. It can make photorealistic simulations of photographs but by definition, what AI makes is not photography. Many are referring to this kind of illustration as "Promptography".

That, however, is a distinction in sentiment only. In terms of practicality, if what AI generates is used as a photo, that's all that matters. It eliminates the search for an "actual" photo by generating an image based on what is desired. That's all it needs to be because that's all commercial photography has ever striven to be.

From an artistic viewpoint, in my view the processes of conceptualization and embedding human meaning into a work of art (as it's made as well as when it's being 'consumed' by the public) are essential. These cannot be substituted by AI as we presently know it, as AI is not sentient, does not actually understand or feel anything and therefore isn't capable of sensemaking. In this sense, AI hasn't even put as much as a dent into artistic photography.

Similarly, meaning in art is what can be understood from the piece by whoever views it. So, that can take place without an identified author/creator (artist) -- it doesn't need the hard and fast confirmed ascription to a real human being for someone to "appreciate" the artwork. Such appreciation tends to induce a creator with a mind and a desire to communicate through the art object, but that has always been a convenient fiction. You can get along just fine pretending there is a creator who imbibed the work with meaning - even if the piece is a product of AI.

 

[Hassasin]

Ai is not nor will ever be, in true sense of the word, a category of art, but eventually it will be called that, and will sell as such, and there will be opportunists who will take advantage of it, faking it up even further.

But there is a very simple solution - stay away from it, make your own images as you know how, and don't bother thinking of Ai as being a competitor. If you bring yourself down to that level, you don't respect your own work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My imagination is better than AI.

 

[MattKing]

We probably won't be able to answer the question posed until we have at least 40 years to look back on how things evolved.
One thing for sure though - AI will transform the industry, and everything supporting photography.
It is already making big differences in how things are maintained/kept working - including websites like Photrio!

 

[cliveh]

I would like to think that the making of photographs will elevate the taking of photographs to its own unique status in the photographic genre.