Perhaps, but for the record, also the Getty researchers you quoted didn't make their remark in a general context. It was very specifically about the application of photography within the study of art - not the generation of imagery. It's fine of course if you want to make that theoretical abduction into a broader scope - but that would be your own theorizing, not that of the authors you cited. Again, fine in itself as long as it's transparent. Sorry to digress.
How will AI affect "making" versus "taking" photo's?
-
- Thread starter Ron789
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
Perhaps, but for the record, also the Getty researchers you quoted didn't make their remark in a general context. It was very specifically about the application of photography within the study of art - not the generation of imagery. It's fine of course if you want to make that theoretical abduction into a broader scope - but that would be your own theorizing, not that of the authors you cited. Again, fine in itself as long as it's transparent. Sorry to digress.
Family shots will be unique, and your family will love you if you give them enlargements framed for their walls and coffee tables. My new "hobby" is to make video slide shows with background music, titles, and credits, and combine stills and short video clips from my vacations, family get-togethers, etc. Friends and family love these too. I provide them on memory cards that plug into their computers or smart TVs, or post them on Youtube with access password codes.
No one seems to care about my artsy shots of Yosemite or the Grand Canyon.
As you brought up Benjamin … you might want to read what Flusser had to say about the role of “algorithms” within photography. I believe that there’s a website that provides an overview of his thoughts (and it’s free to read).
Merriam Webster dictionary: "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)"
So by definition, AI creating an image is not 'photography', as no sensitized surface (film or plate or sensor) created that image.
So by definition, AI creating an image is not 'photography', as no sensitized surface (film or plate or sensor) created that image.
I expect, and kind of excited about, the prospect of AI replacing natural light with a sythesized one. What I mean is that at the moment of exposure a camera builds a high definition 3D model of the scene, samples and records color and light intensity of each pixel, but allows AI to discard that information and apply arbitrary lighting after an exposure was taken, similar to how light is implemented in 3D rendering software. I am now dabbling in studio photography and frankly, moving around bulky strobes, reflectors, umbrellas and supports is, basically, just dumb manual labor that has nothing to with art, I'd rather just do it post-exposure on a computer.
Last edited:
What you're describing is more along the lines of an extension of present LiDAR technology, which already has been introduced in some modern iPads. I think it's possible at least to an extent, and I can even see scenarios where LiDAR as a capture technology would be replaced by capturing the scene photographically from two or more different camera angles. So while the application may 'feel' sort of similar to AI as we're discussing it here, the technological trajectories are likely disjunct in the more significant parts.
A fair number of academic texts have been generated around the philosophical nature and the cultural role of photography … . At the end of the day, people will ignore these kinds of distinctions and pay for what they need, in the case of commercial work, and what they like, in the case of “art.”
This is not to say that such questions are useless or meaningless. As several posts on this topic have shown, “commercial” photography will be immediately impacted closely followed by “art” (for want of a better term).
For those who make photographs as art, the challenge remains: how to persevere, how to keep making images when one is unsure that anyone cares.
Within a few years generative AI will replace many forms of commercial photography. After all, why pay for product, stock, travel photography, and perhaps run-of-the-mill fashion photography, when a good prompt engineer can make something sufficiently good for a fraction of the price, perhaps with some basic snaps as a starting point? Likewise, generative AI will produce lots of pictures for people's walls, which many people will call art.
While I don't believe that generative AI will ever replace human-made art in the physical world, I'm certain that it will change that niche too. What would you call a generative AI design that was then printed using a historical process? Many people would consider that art.
We're already seeing generative AI in camera phones intended to improve the picture. This will become all pervasive in high-end cameras. It will likely become impossible to tell the difference between anything created digitally.
While I don't believe that generative AI will ever replace human-made art in the physical world, I'm certain that it will change that niche too. What would you call a generative AI design that was then printed using a historical process? Many people would consider that art.
We're already seeing generative AI in camera phones intended to improve the picture. This will become all pervasive in high-end cameras. It will likely become impossible to tell the difference between anything created digitally.
Yes, quite so. And it needn't even be printed in a 'vintage' way, either. A few months ago we had a similar discussion on the forum and I think it was @Ivo Stungo who linked to some videos of an AI artist. Setting the matter of taste aside, that for me qualified as much as 'art' as much of the entirely human-made work that has been made so far.
Personally speaking, I have no interest in pictures made by computers. But when it comes to photography, I know I'm in a niche within a niche. I expect that niche will remain, but I also expect it to get smaller. Such is progress
This is the point I made a year or so ago when AI became the hot new invention. Why get up at 4am to catch a sunrise and hike up a mountain when you can sit in your pajamas at 10am drinking a hot chocolate and create the best "photo" of one without leaving your desk? Many people will stop bothering.
Interestingly, photography might get back to just the kind where AI would play a minor role. Photographing family events and members, vacation trips, parties. and get-togethers will become the main reason people will pull out their cameras or cell phones. A picture of your Aunt Susie and Uncle Mitch really swimming in the creek will become the rage, and everyone will frame prints of these occasions and treasure them again, just like in the old days of photography. Photo albums could make a comeback with those little black photo print holders in each corner that always fall off.
At one time in the not-so-distant past, it was widely said that "the art is the idea." If this is so, it would seem that the quality of the prompts or instructions going into generative AI would be the "art," and that the quality of the output would be secondary.
Good point. It’s been several years since I retired from teaching, but I understand that many educators have integrated AI into their lesson plans. If I were still working, I’d certainly do this. I would consider assignments that (1) have students use the technology, (2) critique its results, (3) repeat the process with modifications and evaluate the outcomes. And we could likewise envision a variety of educational tasks. The “big” idea is to have students acquire the knowledge to utilize the technology and not the other way around.
But all of this likely belongs in a different forum.
Educator's hat off, Photographer’s hat back on … .
What do students or photographers learn if AI is creating the end product? Do you grade the AI program?
Well, I’ve been retired since 2017 (in order to explore photography … another story), but off the top of my head:
Content Area: Undergraduate Computer Science.
Assignment summary: Given a problem statement (a specification?) the student will create a document that:
(1) Identifies the criteria for determining if the product is “correct"
(2) Identifies the AI program that will be used;
(3) Provides the student’s Plan for Assessing the AI’s product—which objectives, etc., will the student expect from the AI’s product, etc.
(4) Provides a copy of the prompts provided to the AI
(5) Contains the Students “grade” for what the AI produced—optionally justifying the grade given.
[If appropriate, students may have several iterations of steps 2 through 5, above. If so, these are likewise to be submitted.]
A variation of this type of assignment is: After step 1, above, students write their own solution to the problem. (Call this step 1*) In this variation, the student has an additional step (5*) Critically compare the AI product with the student’s solution.
Group assignment variation: Another variation is to have students exchange their Plans for Assessing the AI along with the solutions provided by the respective AI sessions. (Note students DO NOT exchange their own solutions or evaluations of the AI’s performance). Each student then performs a evaluation of both their and their partner’s sessions: such evaluation to compare and contrast (by some concrete criteria) both sessions/products and recommendations for the next “problem set” to be assessed by the class.
I could envision adapting and enlarging this assignment for a more advanced class in mathematics, theory, etc., to have students identify a theoretical point or—better— identify a known “hard” problem (expecting the program to either fail or hallucinate) and create their own evaluation criteria, annotated with justifications. The idea here is to determine when to trust AI solutions to human solutions given difficult settings.
As to whether I grade the AI program depends upon the course level/setting and my particular educational objective. This example would be for an intermediate undergraduate class looking at Software Engineering practices, etc. For an introductory level course (similar content), I would grade the program and submit my results to the class *after* students had completed the assignment.
I apologize for the length and any missing details in the description above. It’s been a while … .
I'm observing similar backlash to AI generated images as there has been to heavily "photoshopped" images. Although there's an underlying curiosity with created images (which I think is born out of a human propensity to create), the public in general does not like to be fooled.
When you see an image, the first question you will probably ask yourself is "Is it real?" It's an important question to answer because we don't want to propagate an image that may not represent reality, giving the impression that we were fooled into thinking it was.
This is not to say AI generated images are not valid. I think it is already an art form, inspiring imaginations to create. But it is a different art form to photography.
When you see an image, the first question you will probably ask yourself is "Is it real?" It's an important question to answer because we don't want to propagate an image that may not represent reality, giving the impression that we were fooled into thinking it was.
This is not to say AI generated images are not valid. I think it is already an art form, inspiring imaginations to create. But it is a different art form to photography.
I'm referring to photographers not computer science students. Sure, the computer science student has to know this AI stuff, but what does a photographer gain learning about creativity using AI?
"Is it real" is the next new question after "Did you PhotoShop it?"
I apologize; I misunderstood your question. I cannot speak for all “photographers,” but in my case I have experimented with some of the AI technologies that work with images. One application (and I don’t recall its name at this moment) accepts a JPEG image and “annotates” it; it writes several “candidate” captions. I don’t use the captions, instead I compare the AI generated captions to those I might have written or would write. Lacking a full-time audience, those auto-generated captions give me a sense of how these images might be perceived/decoded by the “general public.”
Another application (not sure if it’s an “AI” based thing), is called “TinEye Reverse Image Search.” I use this to get an idea of how (1) an algorithm might decode a photograph, e.g., how might it determine its “subject,” and (2) How many images are “similar” (at least as far as the algorithm is concerned) in general circulation.
As a general rule, I am happiest with images that defeat these kinds of programs. But I am interested in different aspects of photography than a commercial photographer, or a journalist. I’m pretty sure ‘working’ photographers would use these tools differently than someone who is interested in the philosophical (for want of a better term) implications of recording images on film and its attendant workflow. Working photographers have schedules, editors, and clients to please; whereas, what time I have remaining, I choose to investigate questions about the nature and possible meaning of film images recorded by a human with a camera.
I think this Andrej Tarkowsky quote about art was more suitable for this forum 
"The particular function of art is not, as often claimed, to propagate ideas, to transmit thoughts, to serve as an example. The purpose of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and cultivate his soul, turning it towards the good."
"The particular function of art is not, as often claimed, to propagate ideas, to transmit thoughts, to serve as an example. The purpose of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and cultivate his soul, turning it towards the good."
MattKing
Moderator
Whatever it is that results - just as with any other form of exploration into a new personal frontier.
Surely, AI is going to change photography in all areas. I:m sure people will use it to express themselves artistically.
Paraphrasing from Steinbeck's East of Eden....Individual creativity is the most valuable thing in the world and should be protected from forces that would stifle it. While groups can build upon and extend creative ideas, the initial spark and invention are solitary. AI, is like the group, which, can help individuals build upon their ideas but I don't think AI is yet able to create art as defined by Nietzsche... a powerful force that helps humans cope with the harsh realities of life. But if art is defined cheaply then AI can do that.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |