It seems that the same argument is being made about computer generated art today.
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?
Thinking more about this, it's possible that the origin of what we think of as AI in the visual arts may date from Walter Benjamin's 1935 essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." In this sense, the replication of original art works inevitably alters their character and our perception of them.
These days, I often shoot my Nikon F6 in "program" mode, which means that a computer algorithm, along with auto focus, sets the parameters that create the picture. In many ways, this seems like a form of AI.
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.I expect, and kind of excited about, the prospect of AI replacing natural light with a sythesized one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 … .
Well, I’ve been retired since 2017 (in order to explore photography … another story), but off the top of my head: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.
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?
Knowledge about creativity....what does a photographer gain learning about creativity using AI?
what does a photographer gain learning about creativity using AI?
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.
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?