I think AI art is neat and fun to play around with in what can create but what I don't like is scrolling through a timeline to see some majestic fall colors photo and all the naive people commenting on it like it was taken by a photographer.
Learning and getting good at photography takes years of learning, exploration, and refining your skills to take great photos. AI photography is hollow as it takes no learning, trial and error, and exploration. Taking 20 seconds to write down a prompt and get the perfect photo isn’t rewarding whatsoever and has no soul behind it.
Not being a full time professional photographer, the impact on the rest of us is to a degree, insignificant. But most would agree and support your concerns outlined in the video. Having said that, at the same time let’s not lose sight of the joy of photography. The travel, the hiking, the experience, being in the moment, the satisfaction of sharing your experience with others, etc. Many of us do photography for the mental and physical stimulation in retirement. Appreciate your video and sentiment/concern about AI.
Look at Boston Dynamics, Elon's robots and You will see hordes of them - COMMERCIAL "assistants" sent by "users" to take another picture or video - anywhere. So You or your kids will be in front of screens commanding, steering and nothing else - to final clicking "command to execute photo". That's the future - drones, assistants walking, climbing - instead of You. That's matter of $$ for promotion, big gamers as Elon are just now hungry another 0000 on their accounts.
@@cristibaluta I think you missed the point Kayahdog was making. Personally, I'm really only concerned about the pictures I take. In advertising I assume the photo is representative and not "factual". News photos also cannot be trusted. Unless I took it, I have doubts. I waste no time worrying about how authentic something I see on the internet is. But perhaps I've missed the point?
I agree that 100% AI images should be identified. My question on what is considered AI. Is masking AI, or content aware fill, or Topaz denoise? Will these be tagged AI in the future? Somehow I feel like there is a difference. My photos with post processing vs. computer generated images. For the record, I’m not a professional, and I do understand the concerns.
@@Kellysher it's the same conversation with computational photography and photoshop, how much is acceptable? For a long time people have debate the use of photoshop to manipulate a photo is appropriate or not, for me personally, if it doesn't lie about the execution of taking the photo, then it's fine. For example using denoise or masking should be fine, but putting a moon into the background or changing how the sky look in a photo is definitely lying about the photo you've actually taken. Sometimes adding/deleting a little part of the scene can also add more value to the photo as you have put in the effort to do the photoshop for it, but I still stand by my opinion that it is putting a lie into the art. AI generated photos on the other hand, put no effort into taking the photo or doing the photoshop. You just put a few prompt and get the result, if you trained the AI to get a better result, you're an AI engineer and not a photographer. So I would say there are 2 types of AI photos: AI generated photos are those that took 0 effort to even take the original photo, and AI assisted photoshop is just the same as photoshop, just easier and less effort. Post processing should only make changes to the photo that doesn't lie about the taking of that photo, what is considered as a lie varies from person to person
As a retired senior & a hobby photographer I have the option of not posting my photographs on social media ( & I don't) I do it for myself & challenge myself to have each outing better than my previous one. I haven't aced the theory of photography, so it's still a learning curve. As I sit here some evenings with my adult beverage and go through my library to try & cull the herd so to speak, I find that I'm culling less & less photos. I must have learned something along the way.......
Hello Simon. Very interesting contribution and good tips. I’m not earning money with photography, therefore I’m not affected in this particular context… but what’s hitting the photo branch now has rolled over my line of business already: I’m a translator! I also thought that AI would take over after my time, but 3 or 4 years were enough. Studying languages and culture, reading, communicating, acquiring knowledge in a wide variety of fields, from science to economics and from law to literature, working on mastering different writing styles - marketing, journalistic, legal, scientific… only to be replaced by AI, that’s frustrating. The AI models used today were also trained over years with the texts of professional translators, many of them digging their own grave by giving away their work in exchange for free software. Funnily, I know several photographers here in Switzerland complaining about AI in advertising photography… who translated their website with DeepL. The expression „What goes around comes around“ proves very accurate. Many people embrace AI until they are directly concerned. Only then will they understand the full ramifications. For now, both in languages and in photography, there are luckily people ready to pay for the uniqueness of what they get! Bonne continuation!
Personally, it doesn't change my philosophy of photography, because the photo taken is just a secondary result of a magical moment and really experienced in nature! and that, AI will never take away from me!
Noise reduction, removing unwanted items or distractions and I admit increasing the size of the canvas therefore saving a flying bird etc these I regularly use and love however some Ai generated pictures are just annoying 🤷🏼♂️
Simon, you are by far one of the best UA-cam photographers out there. I know UA-cam is just one of your avenues of experience, but it has helped novice photographers like me immensely. Getting better quality family photos. Thanks.
Some very good points made. I have found that people are more likely to purchase a copy of a print if they know the story behind it. I have found that giving my prints a title really helps with a potential customer's interest in the print.
This has been concerning me for awhile now, thanks Simon for taking the time to address it. I am very unsure about what this is going to bring in the future, I think its going to be more bad than good.
@@simon_dentremont At some stage before you can continue to do that you will have to comply to the globalist power structure. Make no mistake. You WILL have to comply . . . . . . . . . . . . with Satan!
I think that people will start to appreciate real photography more. To quote Ed Harris's character in Kodachrome, "No matter how good something looks, it doesn't beat the real thing"
As for my own photos ,I like to keep them honest with the lest amount of post production but the noise reduction AI has going for it is very useful. Microsoft's Co-Pilot is at it's heart is spyware I can do without it and will either remove or disable. A thought provoking video ,thanks!
Hi Simon: I am lucky with respect to my photography, in that for me is a hobby. I know what i created with my camera and my time and hart. I don't have to cell my work for a living. I just share my work with my family and friends and use photography as way to get away from the world for a while. AI while it does trouble me in some respects, I know I still get great pleasure from the work I do and share.
I see AI like social media. Had the potential to be used in such an amazing way....but instead it's doing significantly more harm than good. As a hobby I think photography will be safe. As a career, especially for people trying to make a name for themselves now? I feel things are bleak....and the sad thing is that there are many more industries/careers that will be affected far greater.
100% agree with the first line. I think the impact on professionals will depend on the genre. I don't think we are anywhere near a point where people just want to plug words into an AI prompt for their wedding photos, graduation, newborns, etc. Plenty of people that aren't photographers are just as sick of AI as we are so that's a positive. I can certainly see it destroying something like fashion photography where a business wants a cheap, instant result with AI. If AI gets good enough that they can't tell a difference, why would they pay big bucks for a photographer and a slow turnaround when a few words in a box gives the same result? Choose wisely if you want to make a career out of photography. TLDR: AI is trash.
@ko300zx the problem is mainly for professionals I fear. A wedding is an example where people can take pictures, and then improve the picture via AI, so a potential blessing for amateurs, not for professionals. I hope I'm wrong.
@@pleclere Being a good wedding photographer is about far more than being able to post process a few images. They're trusted to capture the event and all of the important moments. Amateurs are not taking that away because they can fix a few bad images with AI. And both a professional and amateur can use AI to fix images. Fixing things with AI is not a problem for anyone. It's creating something out of nothing that will take away from professionals. Creating a product photoshoot or fashion shoot using nothing but AI is possible. That is something that was previously done by professionals. Those are the people that will hurt. And I don't think I know anyone that wants their wedding photos to be an AI generated creation that never actually happened. That's not a real concern as far as I'm aware.
@ko300zx I don't mean that AI will create wedding images but improve pictures. When you see what people can do with their smartphone cameras, including composition. And other cameras become so good it is difficult to not be in focus. Now, AI can help even further, such as adding better blur to isolate the main subject better, have a certain mood,... . And pictures from all corners can be taken by anyone present. The only place for wedding photographers is where people are not allowed to walk around, such as the church. I fear photographers will have to ask less for their work. For them, I hope I'm wrong.
I think you're right... Social media had a good beginning or good idea, but now it is having global geopolitical and health ramifications that will be difficult to go back from.
I’m a back end operations type of person and will always value an original image that is a combination of timing, location and exploring capabilities of the hardware. I appreciate that you sat with a thermos of coffee after hiking three miles at O’dark thirty, waiting for the perfect lighting moment or capturing elusive wildlife in a memorable pose. A photo is layers of stories.
Something that’s always stuck with me is a comment someone said to me in regard to our human creativity abilities: “since AI is always going to be based on stuff that’s already been done, try doing _new_ things that _haven’t_ been done yet instead. That will set you apart”. That’s always resonated with me. The human creativity aspect is where we (currently) have the edge on AI. I also agree with the story aspect you mentioned as well. That engages people on a deeper level which I think is something that AI still struggles to do. Lastly, that’s very cool to know there’s safeguards being worked on to protect against AI theft and also photo hosting sites fighting to get compensation for photographers.
Thank you Simon for a realistic and adult discussion on artificial intelligence and photography. I am so tired of seeing images being posted on social media that one can immediately tell they are computer generated and the person posting the image tries to make you think it's a real photo. One detail that many of these "fake" images possess is that the lighting (shadows and highlights) are not consistent with real world conditions. However better software will make this more difficult to detect.
If I were a professional and someone said I need to do AI images to keep up, the statement would be about as (unintentionally) insulating as when someone asks what equipment do you use as you have good images. Great discussion and surely a lot of research went into this video.
Putting more storytelling into my photos, specifically the ones I post to social media, is definitely something I should work on. I've always kept my descriptions short on the belief that the photos should speak for themselves, but when the bots are being more expressive than me, maybe it's time to change things up so that I stand out as a human being more, one that other human beings might be interested in. Thanks for your tips!
I love the idea of a story card, I collect pottery and keep an image of each piece, the person who made it and date. I often save their statements as it includes their personal reason for their art. It fits their pieces so well!
Sorry but I see it every week on flea markets in Europe - beloved medals, photo albums, cards, wwII awards of bravery(!!!) belonging to old family members - sometimes picked up from trash, mud by unknown people because beloved grandchildren threw away everything left by their passed away grandpas. In Europe it's typical - young remove everything what memorizes their elders. That means - all You will left will be brutally destroyed - by Your family or unknown new owners of Your home.
9:06 opt-out option is no good. For such sensitive things opt-in is the only acceptable option. Also do we really believe that Microsoft will obey your settings anyways?
I dont care about AI photos. I picked up Photography because I already spend alot of time in nature and wanted a hobby to combine with it and to learn a new skill. Also carrying a camera while hiking made me appreciate nature evens more. The pictures I take are for myself.
Ich bin ganz deiner Meinung. Auch ich fotografiere aus der gleichen Motivation heraus. Durch die Fotografie beschäftigen ich mich intensiv mit dem Motiv, beobachte, lerne, liebe und versuche zu schützen. KI gibt mir nichts!
2 дні тому+1
I'll try to be blunt, but hopefully in an informative way-AI will never replace 'photography.' Photography is about capturing what you see in reality, and when you press that shutter button, you’re a photographer. But after that, you become an editor, crafting an image that may look quite different from the raw shot, and that’s where artistic skills come in. AI can assist with editing, but it can also manipulate images. We’ve long used tools to remove objects and fix imperfections, so much so that at one point, media outlets had to label images as 'photo-manipulated' to clarify they didn’t represent reality. As someone who loves the ‘straight from the camera’ concept, I feel pretty safe in my role as a photographer. When I shoot JPEG or PNG (no RAW), and publish without edits, I’m embracing what the camera offers. It’s a bit like the old days of positive film-what you see is what you get. AI may be great at generating images that look like photographs, but it can’t actually take a photo. For example, you can’t ask AI to generate a real bird at a lake to study wildlife, or, in a more humorous case, request an AI to generate a girl holding 'two great tits'-trust me, it won’t give you an ornithologist holding actual birds! (Just a little joke there.) But seriously, professional photographers like you have nothing to worry about. Your ability to manage both the art of photography and editing means your images reflect reality as you saw it-and I think AI can never truly replicate that. Sure, AI will churn out tons of images for less serious media and social media, where fake images spread faster than ever. But I’m confident that the real artistry of photography, especially in documenting truth, will always stand apart. Note: I let AI correct my grammar and language, the text is close to what I wrote and it is all my opinions. But in large I agree with you that AI has stolen and illegally downloaded and used images with watermarks that is an indication that they shall not be re-used.
The unbridled use of AI, and all the fake crap distributed on the internet makes me think of the movie Total Recall. In a few years we won’t be able to tell whats real and what isn’t.
We deal with this a lot in sports photography. Lots of people are using the AI generative fill or object removal to take out imperfections (or add additional space) to their images. While the AI can help a lot of creatives generate the images needed for graphics, we still need photographers to document and freeze moments of games.
Go Simon! Your videos are always educational and inspiring. AI has been long in the making if you look at our society's attraction to technology, the hyper-visual in movies and commercials, our ongoing fascination with perfection and intensity. A huge issue that does not often come up, however, is the immense energy required to run AI programs and the destruction to our planet to procure said energy. Google is building a new nuclear plant just to run their own AI projects. Microsoft is rebooting Three Mile Island, famed for its near meltdown in 1979. This should give us all pause.
I'm new to phography and video. Been slowly learning in the past 10 years and more focussed in the last 4 years since I retired. Personally I see no value in making an AI generated image. It doesn't sit well with me and seems false. That veiwpoint might have changed however if I needed to make a living our of photography. For me thogh as a keen amatuer it has to be the real thing and the satisfaction of getting that image. I love your work Simon. It is inspirational.
My sentiment (almost) exactly. Storytelling as the essence of photography is the key here. I believe there will always be a market for the craftsmanship of real human beings although it will shrink. The most popular photographers (and storytellers) will be golden, though.
Thanks for another great video message, Simon! Thank you! I walked out one morning to see if I could get a shot of the whale, but it appears the tide took it away and I kick myself for not taking the time to get a shot of the tree… I live so close to both sites… perhaps that’s the subject of another video… don’t wait until “someday” to get that shot for it may not be there forever! Cheers!
I think you nailed it by telling a story with your photos, I can say I was afraid of "digital" photography because of PhotoShop and how photos were manipulated when it first came out, but I learned to embrace it. I feel in time, we can learn to use and embrace AI, too, as long as they (AI) play fair and pay for our images.
Review based on title and thumbnail only. I generally skip AI generated thumbnails because of the signal that they send. Thank you for addressing this Simon.
Yeah, there's the downside - much of the stuff you mentioned. But I believe the end result will be that real photos by real photographers will become more in demand. AI can fake a photo, but it can't capture a moment because it doesn't know what a moment is. The moment is too subjective for AI to ever know what it is, so it could never create it (and sometimes that capture of a moment is pure accident - I doubt any AI would ever be able to learn what a 'moment' is or how to create it by accident). Nah, I'm not worried. This is just like when e-readers came out. Everyone said it would kill books. It won a few battles but in the end books won the war.
Wer vertraut denn noch welchem Fotografen? Wer auf einem hart umkämpften Markt noch ein bisschen Geld verdienen muss, legt irgendwann seine letzten Prinzipien zur Seite.
Thank you for this video. I'm just starting my photography journey, and the situation with AI has me a little concerned that I missed the boat. This video is very encouraging and timely.
Excellent content. At the end of the day, everything is about value, and how you add it to your photography work. Is not the image itself, as the mere compound of pixels and colors, is about what lies behind the image, what it means for you and for the spectator.
As an ordinary person, retired, I have no need for AI. I like my photos to be simple recordations of what I saw - without any enhancement. I do enjoy trying to get a good composition.
I love your approach of "take photos about things, not just of things". In my photography studies days, we called it "photo journalistic approach". on a preventative note: The pocketbook is best place to make an impact. A consortium of artists banding together and filling lawsuits with an extraordinarily high dollar amount, with the intent to, shoot a round across the bow if you will, might create enough of a deterrent to future violators. Getty's lawsuit might be a step in the right direction, but why only $150k per image? why not $10mil per image? Unreasonable perhaps? Who says?
By always taking pics as you encourage, I was noticed at a hotel. The manager asked to see some of my photos on my camera which I did tell her was raw. She was so excited! I was then offered a job doing a hotels photography and postcards by her while on vacation. Getting details dialed in by tomorrow.
@@simon_dentremont Thank you so much and I credit you for all the wonderful teaching you did. I have learned so much! You also are so encouraging to all of us to put ourselves out there. I am a bit shy about my photography and now I am much more self assured.
When photography came up, many people got angry because it is just a technical process requring minimal effort and skill when compared to painting. But even today many artists make paintings and drawings while photography is (at least somewhat) recognised as an art form. Also AI can be used creatively. And as many painters of "standard" pictures lost their job because of photography many photographers will loose their jobs because of AI. What AI cannot create are unique pictures from weddings, sport or music events or documentary. So there will still be a place for photography in the future, albeit a smaller one.
Thank You "Grey Owl Master" for another enlightening video. Please keep going because we need a light in the darkness. By the way - I appreciate first Grey Owl's books. Best wishes from Poland for You and All You family and friends.
I think you have touched on some of the most salient points, regarding AI, with this video. YT kept showing me your thumbnail image for this video but my brain said it was an AI image so I ignored it. After two days I finally checked the tagline. LOL. Thanks for this Simon. Perhaps camera companies will help us. I think it's in their best interest as well as ours. Then again, they could have added safety features to help us deal with the issue of gear theft as well. Then again there is nothing better than taking personal responsibility. Cheers.
AI makes real photography rarer and therefore, more valuable. Just focus on the craft; the value will be apparent and highlighted by AI rather than deteriorated by it. This is the growing pain of AI taking its place within society. Adapt to the new technology and find the marketing edge that you have in that your photos are not generated in cyberspace, but in reality. Meta spent billions of dollars trying to create the meta-verse and it flopped hard. Reality always wins. Great video Simon. I love that you highlighted the benefits of AI, not just the drawbacks.
The most important point about AI models, whether it is images, video, or audio is that in order for future models to be improved upon they will need to be fed NEW material. You can't feed AI models with generated slob, otherwise it will not improve but degrade. This creates a loop whereas if we don't create culture, AI models won't be able to do so as well, eventually leading to cultural collapse.
Ai has helped me stay activate in photography. I have hand tremors and Topaz has helped me maintain a good quality through sharpening and denoise when I run high shutter speeds to help with camera movement.
Simon, thanks for engaging in the public discussion of AI and its impact on photography. It's an important conversation to have and all dedicated photographers have a voice on this topic. Personally, the two issues that bother me most are the uncompensated use of original photographic works as sources for an AI image and the deception of presenting an AI image as a photograph. People have a right to know the truth and to be compensated for their creative work. AI isn't going away, but where it goes and how it's used are issues we all have a voice in defining. AI images should be required to be openly identified as such. Creatives have a right to deny use of their work as source material for generative AI apps. Any photographer or creative whose original work is used with permission as a source for an AI image should be recognized and compensated for that input.
I for once must take exception to some of the language, like "theft" as opposed to copyright infringement. While the use of AI to create images could indeed result in copyright infringement of one or several works, the idea that using the images to create new ones with little to no reproduction of original elements would amount to theft reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how generative AI works, which is more similar to looking at the work of thousands of photographers and generating new (if they are new and not reproductions) images. This is the metric one should apply to assume there is copyright infringement. A different point is whether by using the pictures for training there is another violation of copyright, but this involves delicate concepts like transformative and fair use, which would require more in-depth analysis.
Thanks for the info on protecting against AI. I am with the don't use if possible group. My photos and videos are taken outdoors in beautiful natural settings. They may not be as impressive but everything including the music is a personal effort. I am so lucky and so rewarded by doing it that way, it's kind of sad that people take short cuts and miss all there is to experience.
Hi Simon, you can't beat a good old photographer, a real Human pressing the Shutter button. In the Medical field AI can be good for improving health outcomes and some Medical procedures. Really great topic Simon, many thanks 😊.
In one condition - if You will know that was made by real human. Practice shows that AI and AI companies pretend people working under false ID, surnames and there is no possibility to recognize who is real author or fake = AI. Just look at AI videos on YT created by Chinese propaganda party.
I'm glad to see you get in on the debate with this video. I would not refer to the products of generative AI image software (like Midjourney) as "photos", as you do at the beginning. Looking *like* a photo does not make something a photo anymore than a photo looking like a painting makes it a painting. So one thing that can help is by calling a spade a spade. Meta (i.e., Facebook/Instagram) is training its own generative AI using our public-facing images, without our permission and without compensation. So if we post our images to the public on Instagram or Facebook, we are fuelling the problem. This is why I've removed my own images from Meta platforms. If we want to fight a fire, we should stop adding gasoline.
@@MichaelCentofanti-l9d Hi - I have my own website, plus I use Flickr. And I realise that this does not make the images immune from scraping - but I'm looking into ways of addressing that if I can. It helps that I'm not trying to make my living from photography, so I don't have a compelling reason to pay the social media golem.
Agree, it's a strange new phase we are entering into with photography and many other aspects of life impacted by AI. I do like the assistance of the AI with my editing, but I have a line I personally do not cross.
Personally I'm quite excited for machine learning tools that speed up photo editing to hit the mainstream. Denoiseing, distortion correction, chromatic aberration correction, removal of transparent/translucent things like reflections in a persons glasses, there are so many things that ML could make easier/possible. It's generative AI that causes all the problems. Though even genAI could have a positive impact on photography if used in moderation. The problem right now is that genAI is a magic box where you click the button and it does the thing. If there is a way to give artists more control over how a genAI behaves, perhaps it too could aid in genuine photography.
(Commenting before watching the full video): My fear is for the wildlife, and landscape, and astrophotography guys. You can’t AI a personal event. Wedding photographers, event photographers, concert photographers, etc. are safe at least for now. But I really fear for a lot of other types of photography that don’t have a specified personal/client element to it.
Times change, not always for the best. I remembered when music was played by actual musicians not drum machines and samples, singers actually had to hit the correct pitches, live didnt mean miming to backing tracks, glossy shiny buffed up soulless sterile generic crap.
Nice summary of a topic, as usual. Photography for yourself and trusted friends who will believe you should stick around and still be a hobby. Business uses are in danger, as you say. Also contests, where some people will cheat. Social media cheating will be rampant, but I think it's mostly rubbish now and avoid it anyway. In the end, as usual, the real problem is people. It's what we do with the tools that determines good or bad. I like your hopeful ideas. I hope some of them work.
"About things, not of things" is a beautiful way to capture it. We have souls, we have perspective, we can give things meaning. AI can only replicate. It will never be able to convey an original human experience, or share an emotion, or appreciate the magic that a good photograph (of reality) can capture. Take, for example, that famous National Geo cover you showed. The true image - her eyes - are captivating and austere. In her you can see strength... apprehension... survival. Her eyes tell the whole story of a girl living in Afghanistan, for which 1000 words would never capture. OTOH, the AI replica of that image is honestly one of the creepiest things I have ever seen. The only thing it conveys is the uncanny.
I've been feeling rather hopeless due to the rise of AI in recent years, since it directly affects my chances of being able to work as a creative, but your video gives me a lot of hope 😊 I remember seeing a comment that really resonated with me: "AI accidentally made me believe in the concept of a human soul by showing what art looks like without it". we will always be interested in stories and people behind works of art (be it photo, video, illustration, or any form of art for that matter), which is something AI could never replicate. thank you for this encouraging video and for highlighting the importance of showcasing our stories and us as people along with our art 😊 p.s. I'm getting my very first camera very soon and your channel is an absolute treasure for a beginner like me! 💜
Sadly, when billions of dollars are at stake, tech companies are happy to crush anyone they can to get a piece of it. My greater concern are all the nefarious applications of AI in “news” and media. BUT…like my dad always said…”If you can’t get out of it, get into it!” So…I appreciate all your positive tips here as well! 📸😃
It is the end of photography in situations where an actual photograph is not necessary. For example, much advertising (magazine, web, billboards), does not require an actual photograph and an IA image can be created more cheaply than a photograph. You have to ask yourself, if a photograph is intended to entertain rather than inform, how is it better than an AI image? An image of a snowy owl landing in the snow is equally entertaining whether it is a photography or an AI image. For photography to be superior to the AI image, simply position it as capturing reality in addition to being entertaining.
Simon, all great points. I fear for the future of those who make a living from photography. I've been with Squarespace for several years now but have never used their Ai function... I will try that out. As always thank you for this. I still look forward to meeting you some day. Cheers from Texas.
Professional photographers and artists are going to go the way of TV and small appliance repairmen, shoe repair and other such trades. Some may limp along in a niche market somewhere, but most will be modernized out of existence. I can see why there is talk about a universal basic income lately, because at the rate modern mechanization, robotics, and AI are taking jobs, what are most people going to do for work?
Hi Simon, As a long time photographer (5 decades +) I've been enjoying your videos. As far as AI goes, I think it is going to be the new thing and professional photography, as a career, will no longer be viable. Unfortunately, I've seen this several times over my career and it's a change or perish scenario. As a Draftsman, my drafting board was replaced by a computer screen; as a Printed Circuit Board Designer my hand-taped layouts were replaced by digital data output by Computer Aided Design software. Throughout many industries, entire skill-sets are becoming redundant and craftsmen are disappearing. In photography, my hobby went from black & white to Cibachrome. Then I gave up my darkroom and went digital. The world is constantly changing, like it or not. I like painting landscapes and nature and use photos for reference. Some I take myself, others I'll download, more recently I've been prompting AI to compose an image with the elements that I want and find that works well. I feel for the artists, photographers and models who's livelihood is negatively impacted by AI. My daughter-in-law is a young animation-artist and her career plans are falling apart. I think that people/companies that are currently buying images will be turning to AI and without paying customers, photography is going to become a hobby. Sorry, just trying to be realistic. All the best!
As per normal absolutely spot on. I had an experience with Aftershoot. I tried the product which sorts through your images culling the out of focus and duplicates. But it didn't work it was rubbish. So I told them and the boss face timed me ( from India) asking why. After an hour of discussion he admitted that the "beast" had not been fed enough wildlife images to be able to differentiate between good and bad. The ironic part of the meeting was he wanted me to upload ALL my raw images taken over the past 5 years to help................you can imagine what I said. But as you so rightly said it's all about the "who" and the "why" with our images. Folk follow me and admire my images because they imagine me in the situation and love the story as much as the image. Will AI change that? No of course not. I do feel that camera companies are way behind the curve on this, is that because they are making money on both sides of the fence?
I am not a professional photographer, and AI is not affecting my work prospects (yet). From an enthusiast point of view, I am really tired of the endless stream of AI generated "photos" on social media. The good thing is that I am able to join online photography interest groups that don't suffer from that. There is also a trend right now where every image you see with an overcast sky is edited to make the clouds into impossibly dark foreboding storm clouds and every sunset is impossibly saturated. It's not AI, but as the raw editors and pixel editors improve, there's more of a temptation to make an image into something you would like to have seen, rather than something that you actually saw. I still really appreciate well-shot images with only moderate editing.
My personal strategy; Shoot more video! AI is not capable yet of creating a good 30 second clip. On the stock sites a creator can still earn $10 to $30 per clip. (in my experience at least)
Professional photographers who rely on being paid are largely screwed, and most photo-selling sites will become redundant. However, those who shoot photos for pleasure will always be okay, as AI can fool others but will never be able to replicate the feeling of capturing that perfect shot.
For people enjoying photography as a hobbie, I think the greatest risk is that camera's will be less fun to enjoy when the camera's ai can do most part of taking a picture. Including artistic choices and proper timing and selecting the best picture. For professionals, I think there is a parale with stock photos. They have their place, but they are also recognizable making them a bit fake.
Cool to hear you cover this, but I think you skipped over an important point. Even though some tools are focused on helping photographers work more efficiently, this ultimately reduces demand and leads to fewer working photographers. Not dissimilar to the effect of automation on manufacturing jobs.
Insightful and appreciated breakdown Simon, love the levelled take on where we are and your optimistic view on actively directing where we want to go with these new technologies.
Ideally, the best way to counter being fooled by AI is to increase people's media literacy. In cases like AI invading photography and art contests, judges should be required to inspect the original files, not just the final image. Other posts of AI generated images and videos already have people warning others that they're not real, which is always an appreciated service. These days, the one thing we can celebrate is that using AI for easy clicks is at least universally disliked. Some people have realized that AI, like every tool, can be misused, but not the true evil
AI doesn't make photos, it makes "illustrations." Illustrators and graphic artists have been creating illustrations for decades/ centuries, using various tools and media, versus photographers who have traditionally used cameras (film or digital) to create authentic images - think photojournalism. Lately photographers use software (Photoshop, etc.) to create or improve their photos, which often creates a level of fakery which I disapprove of. This could be the result of me taking film photos from 1970 to 2008, a practice which forced me to master the basics - when I shot Kodachrome slide film, my work was done once I hit the shutter . Faking things with Midjourney, etc. is about 1,000 times worse than faking things with Photoshop.
True photography, that is photography that is true to life has an element to it that no amount of A.i.mlessness can ever aspire to and that is the E.i. or Emotional Input the essence of any timeless photograph. A.i. ( Apathy Inducer ) will only be an issue in photography if we let it. A.i. is in the news feed you read and watch . To me the. A I. Goes much deeper and darker than just the essence of pure photography. Beware of strangers bearing gifts...
Too many of us actually love our craft. The small group that does AI, a lot of them I have talked to don't go outside their house. We have a camera because we like to see the world differently than others. AI completely takes that away. It is fine if you use AI. The problem is that people try to pass AI off as reality which it isn't. Lying is actually the problem.
What are your thoughts on AI and its impact on photography? Let us know!
Opened my eyes to AI Thank You 😊
Bendy water!
I think AI art is neat and fun to play around with in what can create but what I don't like is scrolling through a timeline to see some majestic fall colors photo and all the naive people commenting on it like it was taken by a photographer.
It’s going to require some serious overhauls of copyright law. I doubt the U.S. government will be motivated to do anything about it.
Learning and getting good at photography takes years of learning, exploration, and refining your skills to take great photos. AI photography is hollow as it takes no learning, trial and error, and exploration. Taking 20 seconds to write down a prompt and get the perfect photo isn’t rewarding whatsoever and has no soul behind it.
I hope AI doesn't destroy my audience of 50 on social media.
Lmao 😂
stay strong!
50! Damm stop flexing. I have 12 I think... 2 are coworkers hah.
I hope algorithms don't kill my channel during covid. Oh wait.
Half of them lightly clad women that would love for you to "reach out" for a little chat 😂 Instagram is horrendous.
"Take photos about things, not just of things" ... Absolutely nailed it! That's possibly the best advice I have ever gotten as a photographer.
It's called "journalism". ;-)
Not being a full time professional photographer, the impact on the rest of us is to a degree, insignificant. But most would agree and support your concerns outlined in the video. Having said that, at the same time let’s not lose sight of the joy of photography. The travel, the hiking, the experience, being in the moment, the satisfaction of sharing your experience with others, etc. Many of us do photography for the mental and physical stimulation in retirement. Appreciate your video and sentiment/concern about AI.
The impact is that we waste more and more time in seeing those fake pictures, eventually wasting more time blocking, instead seeing real pics.
Look at Boston Dynamics, Elon's robots and You will see hordes of them - COMMERCIAL "assistants" sent by "users" to take another picture or video - anywhere. So You or your kids will be in front of screens commanding, steering and nothing else - to final clicking "command to execute photo". That's the future - drones, assistants walking, climbing - instead of You. That's matter of $$ for promotion, big gamers as Elon are just now hungry another 0000 on their accounts.
@@cristibaluta I think you missed the point Kayahdog was making. Personally, I'm really only concerned about the pictures I take. In advertising I assume the photo is representative and not "factual". News photos also cannot be trusted. Unless I took it, I have doubts. I waste no time worrying about how authentic something I see on the internet is. But perhaps I've missed the point?
I agree that 100% AI images should be identified. My question on what is considered AI. Is masking AI, or content aware fill, or Topaz denoise? Will these be tagged AI in the future? Somehow I feel like there is a difference. My photos with post processing vs. computer generated images. For the record, I’m not a professional, and I do understand the concerns.
@@Kellysher it's the same conversation with computational photography and photoshop, how much is acceptable? For a long time people have debate the use of photoshop to manipulate a photo is appropriate or not, for me personally, if it doesn't lie about the execution of taking the photo, then it's fine. For example using denoise or masking should be fine, but putting a moon into the background or changing how the sky look in a photo is definitely lying about the photo you've actually taken. Sometimes adding/deleting a little part of the scene can also add more value to the photo as you have put in the effort to do the photoshop for it, but I still stand by my opinion that it is putting a lie into the art. AI generated photos on the other hand, put no effort into taking the photo or doing the photoshop. You just put a few prompt and get the result, if you trained the AI to get a better result, you're an AI engineer and not a photographer. So I would say there are 2 types of AI photos: AI generated photos are those that took 0 effort to even take the original photo, and AI assisted photoshop is just the same as photoshop, just easier and less effort. Post processing should only make changes to the photo that doesn't lie about the taking of that photo, what is considered as a lie varies from person to person
This is the best photography vlogger. 🎉
As a retired senior & a hobby photographer I have the option of not posting my photographs on social media ( & I don't) I do it for myself & challenge myself to have each outing better than my previous one. I haven't aced the theory of photography, so it's still a learning curve. As I sit here some evenings with my adult beverage and go through my library to try & cull the herd so to speak, I find that I'm culling less & less photos. I must have learned something along the way.......
Hello Simon.
Very interesting contribution and good tips.
I’m not earning money with photography, therefore I’m not affected in this particular context… but what’s hitting the photo branch now has rolled over my line of business already: I’m a translator!
I also thought that AI would take over after my time, but 3 or 4 years were enough. Studying languages and culture, reading, communicating, acquiring knowledge in a wide variety of fields, from science to economics and from law to literature, working on mastering different writing styles - marketing, journalistic, legal, scientific… only to be replaced by AI, that’s frustrating. The AI models used today were also trained over years with the texts of professional translators, many of them digging their own grave by giving away their work in exchange for free software.
Funnily, I know several photographers here in Switzerland complaining about AI in advertising photography… who translated their website with DeepL.
The expression „What goes around comes around“ proves very accurate.
Many people embrace AI until they are directly concerned. Only then will they understand the full ramifications.
For now, both in languages and in photography, there are luckily people ready to pay for the uniqueness of what they get!
Bonne continuation!
Personally, it doesn't change my philosophy of photography, because the photo taken is just a secondary result of a magical moment and really experienced in nature! and that, AI will never take away from me!
Noise reduction, removing unwanted items or distractions and I admit increasing the size of the canvas therefore saving a flying bird etc these I regularly use and love however some Ai generated pictures are just annoying 🤷🏼♂️
Simon, you are by far one of the best UA-cam photographers out there. I know UA-cam is just one of your avenues of experience, but it has helped novice photographers like me immensely. Getting better quality family photos. Thanks.
Some very good points made. I have found that people are more likely to purchase a copy of a print if they know the story behind it. I have found that giving my prints a title really helps with a potential customer's interest in the print.
This has been concerning me for awhile now, thanks Simon for taking the time to address it. I am very unsure about what this is going to bring in the future, I think its going to be more bad than good.
I'm not sure, but I think we'll find new ways to keep making images.
@@simon_dentremont At some stage before you can continue to do that you will have to comply to the globalist power structure. Make no mistake. You WILL have to comply . . . . . . . . . . . . with Satan!
More bad than good, 100%
I am sure we'find. The key word is "genuine" photography. People , at a cettain pointer, will open their eyes.
I think that people will start to appreciate real photography more. To quote Ed Harris's character in Kodachrome, "No matter how good something looks, it doesn't beat the real thing"
As for my own photos ,I like to keep them honest with the lest amount of post production but the noise reduction AI has going for it is very useful. Microsoft's Co-Pilot is at it's heart is spyware I can do without it and will either remove or disable. A thought provoking video ,thanks!
Hi Simon:
I am lucky with respect to my photography, in that for me is a hobby. I know what i created with my camera and my time and hart. I don't have to cell my work for a living. I just share my work with my family and friends and use photography as way to get away from the world for a while. AI while it does trouble me in some respects, I know I still get great pleasure from the work I do and share.
That's a great outlook!
I see AI like social media. Had the potential to be used in such an amazing way....but instead it's doing significantly more harm than good.
As a hobby I think photography will be safe. As a career, especially for people trying to make a name for themselves now? I feel things are bleak....and the sad thing is that there are many more industries/careers that will be affected far greater.
100% agree with the first line. I think the impact on professionals will depend on the genre. I don't think we are anywhere near a point where people just want to plug words into an AI prompt for their wedding photos, graduation, newborns, etc. Plenty of people that aren't photographers are just as sick of AI as we are so that's a positive. I can certainly see it destroying something like fashion photography where a business wants a cheap, instant result with AI. If AI gets good enough that they can't tell a difference, why would they pay big bucks for a photographer and a slow turnaround when a few words in a box gives the same result? Choose wisely if you want to make a career out of photography. TLDR: AI is trash.
@ko300zx the problem is mainly for professionals I fear. A wedding is an example where people can take pictures, and then improve the picture via AI, so a potential blessing for amateurs, not for professionals. I hope I'm wrong.
@@pleclere Being a good wedding photographer is about far more than being able to post process a few images. They're trusted to capture the event and all of the important moments. Amateurs are not taking that away because they can fix a few bad images with AI. And both a professional and amateur can use AI to fix images. Fixing things with AI is not a problem for anyone. It's creating something out of nothing that will take away from professionals. Creating a product photoshoot or fashion shoot using nothing but AI is possible. That is something that was previously done by professionals. Those are the people that will hurt. And I don't think I know anyone that wants their wedding photos to be an AI generated creation that never actually happened. That's not a real concern as far as I'm aware.
@ko300zx I don't mean that AI will create wedding images but improve pictures. When you see what people can do with their smartphone cameras, including composition. And other cameras become so good it is difficult to not be in focus.
Now, AI can help even further, such as adding better blur to isolate the main subject better, have a certain mood,... . And pictures from all corners can be taken by anyone present. The only place for wedding photographers is where people are not allowed to walk around, such as the church.
I fear photographers will have to ask less for their work. For them, I hope I'm wrong.
I think you're right... Social media had a good beginning or good idea, but now it is having global geopolitical and health ramifications that will be difficult to go back from.
I’m a back end operations type of person and will always value an original image that is a combination of timing, location and exploring capabilities of the hardware. I appreciate that you sat with a thermos of coffee after hiking three miles at O’dark thirty, waiting for the perfect lighting moment or capturing elusive wildlife in a memorable pose. A photo is layers of stories.
The thumbnail for this video is absolutely diabolical. Love it! Thanks for another great video, Simon!
Something that’s always stuck with me is a comment someone said to me in regard to our human creativity abilities: “since AI is always going to be based on stuff that’s already been done, try doing _new_ things that _haven’t_ been done yet instead. That will set you apart”. That’s always resonated with me. The human creativity aspect is where we (currently) have the edge on AI. I also agree with the story aspect you mentioned as well. That engages people on a deeper level which I think is something that AI still struggles to do. Lastly, that’s very cool to know there’s safeguards being worked on to protect against AI theft and also photo hosting sites fighting to get compensation for photographers.
Thank you Simon for a realistic and adult discussion on artificial intelligence and photography. I am so tired of seeing images being posted on social media that one can immediately tell they are computer generated and the person posting the image tries to make you think it's a real photo. One detail that many of these "fake" images possess is that the lighting (shadows and highlights) are not consistent with real world conditions. However better software will make this more difficult to detect.
What Simon said is very true. We have to protect ourselves. Listening to his advice is like a gem.
I think you saved the best point til last. Telling the story is so important. I need to do more of it.
If I were a professional and someone said I need to do AI images to keep up, the statement would be about as (unintentionally) insulating as when someone asks what equipment do you use as you have good images. Great discussion and surely a lot of research went into this video.
Great vid! People will always take pictures and what is real will always be more valued than what is fake.
Exactly!
Putting more storytelling into my photos, specifically the ones I post to social media, is definitely something I should work on. I've always kept my descriptions short on the belief that the photos should speak for themselves, but when the bots are being more expressive than me, maybe it's time to change things up so that I stand out as a human being more, one that other human beings might be interested in. Thanks for your tips!
One of your best videos. And you have set the bar very high. An excellent discussion of this issue. Thank you
I love the idea of a story card, I collect pottery and keep an image of each piece, the person who made it and date. I often save their statements as it includes their personal reason for their art. It fits their pieces so well!
Sorry but I see it every week on flea markets in Europe - beloved medals, photo albums, cards, wwII awards of bravery(!!!) belonging to old family members - sometimes picked up from trash, mud by unknown people because beloved grandchildren threw away everything left by their passed away grandpas. In Europe it's typical - young remove everything what memorizes their elders. That means - all You will left will be brutally destroyed - by Your family or unknown new owners of Your home.
9:06 opt-out option is no good. For such sensitive things opt-in is the only acceptable option. Also do we really believe that Microsoft will obey your settings anyways?
I dont care about AI photos.
I picked up Photography because I already spend alot of time in nature and wanted a hobby to combine with it and to learn a new skill. Also carrying a camera while hiking made me appreciate nature evens more.
The pictures I take are for myself.
Ich bin ganz deiner Meinung. Auch ich fotografiere aus der gleichen Motivation heraus. Durch die Fotografie beschäftigen ich mich intensiv mit dem Motiv, beobachte, lerne, liebe und versuche zu schützen. KI gibt mir nichts!
I'll try to be blunt, but hopefully in an informative way-AI will never replace 'photography.' Photography is about capturing what you see in reality, and when you press that shutter button, you’re a photographer. But after that, you become an editor, crafting an image that may look quite different from the raw shot, and that’s where artistic skills come in. AI can assist with editing, but it can also manipulate images. We’ve long used tools to remove objects and fix imperfections, so much so that at one point, media outlets had to label images as 'photo-manipulated' to clarify they didn’t represent reality.
As someone who loves the ‘straight from the camera’ concept, I feel pretty safe in my role as a photographer. When I shoot JPEG or PNG (no RAW), and publish without edits, I’m embracing what the camera offers. It’s a bit like the old days of positive film-what you see is what you get.
AI may be great at generating images that look like photographs, but it can’t actually take a photo. For example, you can’t ask AI to generate a real bird at a lake to study wildlife, or, in a more humorous case, request an AI to generate a girl holding 'two great tits'-trust me, it won’t give you an ornithologist holding actual birds! (Just a little joke there.)
But seriously, professional photographers like you have nothing to worry about. Your ability to manage both the art of photography and editing means your images reflect reality as you saw it-and I think AI can never truly replicate that. Sure, AI will churn out tons of images for less serious media and social media, where fake images spread faster than ever. But I’m confident that the real artistry of photography, especially in documenting truth, will always stand apart.
Note: I let AI correct my grammar and language, the text is close to what I wrote and it is all my opinions. But in large I agree with you that AI has stolen and illegally downloaded and used images with watermarks that is an indication that they shall not be re-used.
The unbridled use of AI, and all the fake crap distributed on
the internet makes me think of the movie Total Recall.
In a few years we won’t be able to tell whats real and what isn’t.
I dont do photography for clout or money, I do it because I love it and love how I feel when doing it!
We deal with this a lot in sports photography. Lots of people are using the AI generative fill or object removal to take out imperfections (or add additional space) to their images.
While the AI can help a lot of creatives generate the images needed for graphics, we still need photographers to document and freeze moments of games.
Go Simon! Your videos are always educational and inspiring. AI has been long in the making if you look at our society's attraction to technology, the hyper-visual in movies and commercials, our ongoing fascination with perfection and intensity. A huge issue that does not often come up, however, is the immense energy required to run AI programs and the destruction to our planet to procure said energy. Google is building a new nuclear plant just to run their own AI projects. Microsoft is rebooting Three Mile Island, famed for its near meltdown in 1979. This should give us all pause.
I'm new to phography and video. Been slowly learning in the past 10 years and more focussed in the last 4 years since I retired. Personally I see no value in making an AI generated image. It doesn't sit well with me and seems false. That veiwpoint might have changed however if I needed to make a living our of photography. For me thogh as a keen amatuer it has to be the real thing and the satisfaction of getting that image.
I love your work Simon. It is inspirational.
My sentiment (almost) exactly. Storytelling as the essence of photography is the key here. I believe there will always be a market for the craftsmanship of real human beings although it will shrink. The most popular photographers (and storytellers) will be golden, though.
Thanks for another great video message, Simon! Thank you! I walked out one morning to see if I could get a shot of the whale, but it appears the tide took it away and I kick myself for not taking the time to get a shot of the tree… I live so close to both sites… perhaps that’s the subject of another video… don’t wait until “someday” to get that shot for it may not be there forever! Cheers!
I think you nailed it by telling a story with your photos, I can say I was afraid of "digital" photography because of PhotoShop and how photos were manipulated when it first came out, but I learned to embrace it. I feel in time, we can learn to use and embrace AI, too, as long as they (AI) play fair and pay for our images.
Review based on title and thumbnail only. I generally skip AI generated thumbnails because of the signal that they send. Thank you for addressing this Simon.
Yeah, there's the downside - much of the stuff you mentioned. But I believe the end result will be that real photos by real photographers will become more in demand. AI can fake a photo, but it can't capture a moment because it doesn't know what a moment is. The moment is too subjective for AI to ever know what it is, so it could never create it (and sometimes that capture of a moment is pure accident - I doubt any AI would ever be able to learn what a 'moment' is or how to create it by accident). Nah, I'm not worried. This is just like when e-readers came out. Everyone said it would kill books. It won a few battles but in the end books won the war.
Wer vertraut denn noch welchem Fotografen? Wer auf einem hart umkämpften Markt noch ein bisschen Geld verdienen muss, legt irgendwann seine letzten Prinzipien zur Seite.
But then they will just lie.
We need proper regulation
Thank you for this video. I'm just starting my photography journey, and the situation with AI has me a little concerned that I missed the boat. This video is very encouraging and timely.
Excellent content. At the end of the day, everything is about value, and how you add it to your photography work. Is not the image itself, as the mere compound of pixels and colors, is about what lies behind the image, what it means for you and for the spectator.
As an ordinary person, retired, I have no need for AI. I like my photos to be simple recordations of what I saw - without any enhancement. I do enjoy trying to get a good composition.
I am glad that we met on this planet at the same time and that the Internet exists in our time, Mr Simon. 🙂
I love your approach of "take photos about things, not just of things". In my photography studies days, we called it "photo journalistic approach". on a preventative note: The pocketbook is best place to make an impact. A consortium of artists banding together and filling lawsuits with an extraordinarily high dollar amount, with the intent to, shoot a round across the bow if you will, might create enough of a deterrent to future violators. Getty's lawsuit might be a step in the right direction, but why only $150k per image? why not $10mil per image? Unreasonable perhaps? Who says?
Camera manufacturers definitely must be part of the solution to help their customers protect their work.
By always taking pics as you encourage, I was noticed at a hotel. The manager asked to see some of my photos on my camera which I did tell her was raw. She was so excited! I was then offered a job doing a hotels photography and postcards by her while on vacation. Getting details dialed in by tomorrow.
That's fantastic!
@@simon_dentremont Thank you so much and I credit you for all the wonderful teaching you did. I have learned so much! You also are so encouraging to all of us to put ourselves out there. I am a bit shy about my photography and now I am much more self assured.
When photography came up, many people got angry because it is just a technical process requring minimal effort and skill when compared to painting. But even today many artists make paintings and drawings while photography is (at least somewhat) recognised as an art form. Also AI can be used creatively. And as many painters of "standard" pictures lost their job because of photography many photographers will loose their jobs because of AI. What AI cannot create are unique pictures from weddings, sport or music events or documentary. So there will still be a place for photography in the future, albeit a smaller one.
Such a brilliant youtuber, Simon, your content, videos and highly informative advice on everything photographic is very much valued!
Thank You "Grey Owl Master" for another enlightening video. Please keep going because we need a light in the darkness. By the way - I appreciate first Grey Owl's books. Best wishes from Poland for You and All You family and friends.
I think you have touched on some of the most salient points, regarding AI, with this video. YT kept showing me your thumbnail image for this video but my brain said it was an AI image so I ignored it. After two days I finally checked the tagline. LOL. Thanks for this Simon. Perhaps camera companies will help us. I think it's in their best interest as well as ours. Then again, they could have added safety features to help us deal with the issue of gear theft as well. Then again there is nothing better than taking personal responsibility. Cheers.
Thank you for making these videos. I have just started my own channel and the information on here has been really helpful.
Simon; Thank you for your compelling content, much needed and appreciated!
Thanks for your time and sharing your insight!
Going out and taking photos is still the most fun!
AI makes real photography rarer and therefore, more valuable. Just focus on the craft; the value will be apparent and highlighted by AI rather than deteriorated by it. This is the growing pain of AI taking its place within society. Adapt to the new technology and find the marketing edge that you have in that your photos are not generated in cyberspace, but in reality. Meta spent billions of dollars trying to create the meta-verse and it flopped hard. Reality always wins. Great video Simon. I love that you highlighted the benefits of AI, not just the drawbacks.
Thank you so much for all your videos. I enjoy them greatly, and they are very helpful and motivating.
The most important point about AI models, whether it is images, video, or audio is that in order for future models to be improved upon they will need to be fed NEW material. You can't feed AI models with generated slob, otherwise it will not improve but degrade. This creates a loop whereas if we don't create culture, AI models won't be able to do so as well, eventually leading to cultural collapse.
Ai has helped me stay activate in photography. I have hand tremors and Topaz has helped me maintain a good quality through sharpening and denoise when I run high shutter speeds to help with camera movement.
Simon, thanks for engaging in the public discussion of AI and its impact on photography. It's an important conversation to have and all dedicated photographers have a voice on this topic.
Personally, the two issues that bother me most are the uncompensated use of original photographic works as sources for an AI image and the deception of presenting an AI image as a photograph.
People have a right to know the truth and to be compensated for their creative work. AI isn't going away, but where it goes and how it's used are issues we all have a voice in defining.
AI images should be required to be openly identified as such. Creatives have a right to deny use of their work as source material for generative AI apps. Any photographer or creative whose original work is used with permission as a source for an AI image should be recognized and compensated for that input.
I never thought about selling myself as part of the image and telling the story of how I created the image! Thank you for the great tips!
Great video. All of us need to be active in the establishment of rules and boundaries concerning AI. It may be here to stay, but so are we!
Thank you, Simon. I feel a little less apprehensive about AI, yet still cautious.
I for once must take exception to some of the language, like "theft" as opposed to copyright infringement. While the use of AI to create images could indeed result in copyright infringement of one or several works, the idea that using the images to create new ones with little to no reproduction of original elements would amount to theft reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how generative AI works, which is more similar to looking at the work of thousands of photographers and generating new (if they are new and not reproductions) images. This is the metric one should apply to assume there is copyright infringement.
A different point is whether by using the pictures for training there is another violation of copyright, but this involves delicate concepts like transformative and fair use, which would require more in-depth analysis.
Thanks for the info on protecting against AI. I am with the don't use if possible group. My photos and videos are taken outdoors in beautiful natural settings. They may not be as impressive but everything including the music is a personal effort. I am so lucky and so rewarded by doing it that way, it's kind of sad that people take short cuts and miss all there is to experience.
Hi Simon, you can't beat a good old photographer, a real Human pressing the Shutter button. In the Medical field AI can be good for improving health outcomes and some Medical procedures. Really great topic Simon, many thanks 😊.
Thanks Simon 😊
In one condition - if You will know that was made by real human. Practice shows that AI and AI companies pretend people working under false ID, surnames and there is no possibility to recognize who is real author or fake = AI. Just look at AI videos on YT created by Chinese propaganda party.
I'm glad to see you get in on the debate with this video.
I would not refer to the products of generative AI image software (like Midjourney) as "photos", as you do at the beginning. Looking *like* a photo does not make something a photo anymore than a photo looking like a painting makes it a painting. So one thing that can help is by calling a spade a spade.
Meta (i.e., Facebook/Instagram) is training its own generative AI using our public-facing images, without our permission and without compensation. So if we post our images to the public on Instagram or Facebook, we are fuelling the problem. This is why I've removed my own images from Meta platforms. If we want to fight a fire, we should stop adding gasoline.
Then where are you posting your images other than FB or IG? Let’s build up these sites!
@@MichaelCentofanti-l9d Hi - I have my own website, plus I use Flickr. And I realise that this does not make the images immune from scraping - but I'm looking into ways of addressing that if I can. It helps that I'm not trying to make my living from photography, so I don't have a compelling reason to pay the social media golem.
Agree, it's a strange new phase we are entering into with photography and many other aspects of life impacted by AI. I do like the assistance of the AI with my editing, but I have a line I personally do not cross.
A refreshing and practical take on the subject. Thank you very much👍
Personally I'm quite excited for machine learning tools that speed up photo editing to hit the mainstream. Denoiseing, distortion correction, chromatic aberration correction, removal of transparent/translucent things like reflections in a persons glasses, there are so many things that ML could make easier/possible.
It's generative AI that causes all the problems. Though even genAI could have a positive impact on photography if used in moderation. The problem right now is that genAI is a magic box where you click the button and it does the thing. If there is a way to give artists more control over how a genAI behaves, perhaps it too could aid in genuine photography.
(Commenting before watching the full video): My fear is for the wildlife, and landscape, and astrophotography guys. You can’t AI a personal event. Wedding photographers, event photographers, concert photographers, etc. are safe at least for now. But I really fear for a lot of other types of photography that don’t have a specified personal/client element to it.
Times change, not always for the best. I remembered when music was played by actual musicians not drum machines and samples, singers actually had to hit the correct pitches, live didnt mean miming to backing tracks, glossy shiny buffed up soulless sterile generic crap.
Nice summary of a topic, as usual. Photography for yourself and trusted friends who will believe you should stick around and still be a hobby. Business uses are in danger, as you say. Also contests, where some people will cheat. Social media cheating will be rampant, but I think it's mostly rubbish now and avoid it anyway. In the end, as usual, the real problem is people. It's what we do with the tools that determines good or bad. I like your hopeful ideas. I hope some of them work.
Positive ending, fantastic.
"About things, not of things" is a beautiful way to capture it. We have souls, we have perspective, we can give things meaning. AI can only replicate. It will never be able to convey an original human experience, or share an emotion, or appreciate the magic that a good photograph (of reality) can capture.
Take, for example, that famous National Geo cover you showed. The true image - her eyes - are captivating and austere. In her you can see strength... apprehension... survival. Her eyes tell the whole story of a girl living in Afghanistan, for which 1000 words would never capture. OTOH, the AI replica of that image is honestly one of the creepiest things I have ever seen. The only thing it conveys is the uncanny.
I've been feeling rather hopeless due to the rise of AI in recent years, since it directly affects my chances of being able to work as a creative, but your video gives me a lot of hope 😊 I remember seeing a comment that really resonated with me: "AI accidentally made me believe in the concept of a human soul by showing what art looks like without it". we will always be interested in stories and people behind works of art (be it photo, video, illustration, or any form of art for that matter), which is something AI could never replicate. thank you for this encouraging video and for highlighting the importance of showcasing our stories and us as people along with our art 😊
p.s. I'm getting my very first camera very soon and your channel is an absolute treasure for a beginner like me! 💜
I think A.I would be great for photo restoration, especially fixing vintage images from the 1970s, but that is about it.
Sadly, when billions of dollars are at stake, tech companies are happy to crush anyone they can to get a piece of it. My greater concern are all the nefarious applications of AI in “news” and media. BUT…like my dad always said…”If you can’t get out of it, get into it!” So…I appreciate all your positive tips here as well! 📸😃
It is the end of photography in situations where an actual photograph is not necessary. For example, much advertising (magazine, web, billboards), does not require an actual photograph and an IA image can be created more cheaply than a photograph.
You have to ask yourself, if a photograph is intended to entertain rather than inform, how is it better than an AI image? An image of a snowy owl landing in the snow is equally entertaining whether it is a photography or an AI image. For photography to be superior to the AI image, simply position it as capturing reality in addition to being entertaining.
Simon, all great points. I fear for the future of those who make a living from photography. I've been with Squarespace for several years now but have never used their Ai function... I will try that out. As always thank you for this. I still look forward to meeting you some day. Cheers from Texas.
I think there are still lots of opportunities out there.
Professional photographers and artists are going to go the way of TV and small appliance repairmen, shoe repair and other such trades. Some may limp along in a niche market somewhere, but most will be modernized out of existence. I can see why there is talk about a universal basic income lately, because at the rate modern mechanization, robotics, and AI are taking jobs, what are most people going to do for work?
Hi Simon, As a long time photographer (5 decades +) I've been enjoying your videos.
As far as AI goes, I think it is going to be the new thing and professional photography, as a career, will no longer be viable.
Unfortunately, I've seen this several times over my career and it's a change or perish scenario. As a Draftsman, my drafting board was replaced by a computer screen; as a Printed Circuit Board Designer my hand-taped layouts were replaced by digital data output by Computer Aided Design software. Throughout many industries, entire skill-sets are becoming redundant and craftsmen are disappearing.
In photography, my hobby went from black & white to Cibachrome. Then I gave up my darkroom and went digital. The world is constantly changing, like it or not.
I like painting landscapes and nature and use photos for reference. Some I take myself, others I'll download, more recently I've been prompting AI to compose an image with the elements that I want and find that works well.
I feel for the artists, photographers and models who's livelihood is negatively impacted by AI. My daughter-in-law is a young animation-artist and her career plans are falling apart.
I think that people/companies that are currently buying images will be turning to AI and without paying customers, photography is going to become a hobby.
Sorry, just trying to be realistic.
All the best!
As per normal absolutely spot on. I had an experience with Aftershoot. I tried the product which sorts through your images culling the out of focus and duplicates. But it didn't work it was rubbish. So I told them and the boss face timed me ( from India) asking why. After an hour of discussion he admitted that the "beast" had not been fed enough wildlife images to be able to differentiate between good and bad. The ironic part of the meeting was he wanted me to upload ALL my raw images taken over the past 5 years to help................you can imagine what I said. But as you so rightly said it's all about the "who" and the "why" with our images. Folk follow me and admire my images because they imagine me in the situation and love the story as much as the image. Will AI change that? No of course not. I do feel that camera companies are way behind the curve on this, is that because they are making money on both sides of the fence?
9:30 I fully agree with this. I want a toggle switch that lets me turn off all fully AI-generated media and only see non-AI media.
Regarding the use of the © symbol, I would still recommend consulting an attorney specialized in intellectual property law, specifically TM & copyright law, as is not simple as mentioned in the video. Don't want anyone to lose rights.
I am not a professional photographer, and AI is not affecting my work prospects (yet). From an enthusiast point of view, I am really tired of the endless stream of AI generated "photos" on social media. The good thing is that I am able to join online photography interest groups that don't suffer from that. There is also a trend right now where every image you see with an overcast sky is edited to make the clouds into impossibly dark foreboding storm clouds and every sunset is impossibly saturated. It's not AI, but as the raw editors and pixel editors improve, there's more of a temptation to make an image into something you would like to have seen, rather than something that you actually saw. I still really appreciate well-shot images with only moderate editing.
My personal strategy; Shoot more video! AI is not capable yet of creating a good 30 second clip. On the stock sites a creator can still earn $10 to $30 per clip. (in my experience at least)
Professional photographers who rely on being paid are largely screwed, and most photo-selling sites will become redundant. However, those who shoot photos for pleasure will always be okay, as AI can fool others but will never be able to replicate the feeling of capturing that perfect shot.
For people enjoying photography as a hobbie, I think the greatest risk is that camera's will be less fun to enjoy when the camera's ai can do most part of taking a picture. Including artistic choices and proper timing and selecting the best picture.
For professionals, I think there is a parale with stock photos. They have their place, but they are also recognizable making them a bit fake.
Cool to hear you cover this, but I think you skipped over an important point. Even though some tools are focused on helping photographers work more efficiently, this ultimately reduces demand and leads to fewer working photographers. Not dissimilar to the effect of automation on manufacturing jobs.
Thank you, Simon - Your knowledge base and insights are amazing and I appreciate your sharing!
Insightful and appreciated breakdown Simon, love the levelled take on where we are and your optimistic view on actively directing where we want to go with these new technologies.
Simon, thank you for this comprehensive analysis
Ideally, the best way to counter being fooled by AI is to increase people's media literacy. In cases like AI invading photography and art contests, judges should be required to inspect the original files, not just the final image. Other posts of AI generated images and videos already have people warning others that they're not real, which is always an appreciated service.
These days, the one thing we can celebrate is that using AI for easy clicks is at least universally disliked. Some people have realized that AI, like every tool, can be misused, but not the true evil
AI doesn't make photos, it makes "illustrations."
Illustrators and graphic artists have been creating illustrations for decades/ centuries, using various tools and media, versus photographers who have traditionally used cameras (film or digital) to create authentic images - think photojournalism. Lately photographers use software (Photoshop, etc.) to create or improve their photos, which often creates a level of fakery which I disapprove of. This could be the result of me taking film photos from 1970 to 2008, a practice which forced me to master the basics - when I shot Kodachrome slide film, my work was done once I hit the shutter .
Faking things with Midjourney, etc. is about 1,000 times worse than faking things with Photoshop.
I'm saving this post for future reference. Very useful. Thank you.
True photography, that is photography that is true to life has an element to it that no amount of A.i.mlessness can ever aspire to and that is the E.i. or Emotional Input the essence of any timeless photograph.
A.i. ( Apathy Inducer ) will only be an issue in photography if we let it.
A.i. is in the news feed you read and watch . To me the. A I. Goes much deeper and darker than just the essence of pure photography.
Beware of strangers bearing gifts...
I believe as long as AI can't do the field work of news journalists and event photographers we shouldn't worry too much.
Too many of us actually love our craft. The small group that does AI, a lot of them I have talked to don't go outside their house. We have a camera because we like to see the world differently than others. AI completely takes that away. It is fine if you use AI. The problem is that people try to pass AI off as reality which it isn't. Lying is actually the problem.
Great video Simon. I appreciate the perspective since I just can’t keep up with AI. You packed a ton of information into 14 minutes.