I don't. I agree with your views. I do like occasionally go into art gallery and look at paintings so I guess AI helps artists who may have every talent but not a steady hand make a painting.
I've been using Photoshop's generative tool and erase tool, local stable diffusion, and a larger variety of stable diffusion models & samplers on web tools that run stable diffusion. I also like AI selection tools; they're getting a lot better. All that said, though, I pretty much only use generative AI on my landscape photos to remove minor distractions when Content Aware Fill doesn't do a great job. I never add anything significant (it basically amounts to a digital leafblower), especially not adding a subject. For real estate photo editing, for instance, I couldn't use AI enough. It is incredibly useful and speeds up my workflow a ton. And I also don't care about what's real and what's not in real estate photography so long as the client is happy. Use AI to replace a dead patch of grass on a yard? No problem. Use AI to add a key subject to a landscape photo? That's been a "nope" for me so far.
Film or digital makes no difference. That is purely the medium used for the capture, but the method of taking the photo remains the same. Thanks, great show.
I'm an actual "old man" and I agree with your perspective about AI assistance versus AI generation. I recently saw a reel of AI generated birds. To me, who actually knows birds, the AI was pretty obvious. But the comments told me that many non-birders were not only fooled, but enthralled. They couldn't believe the glorious plumage being displayed. I felt almost sick. On the other hand, yes I've done some exposure blending of bracketed photos. I don't replace skies or add elements. But I'll remove stuff like an extraneous sign, or detritus floating on water. After all, God didn't put that sign there; and that flotsam will eventually float away. Right? Right? Oh man, it's getting complicated...
The birds one is interesting, because it's hard to generate the subtle details. But, I've noticed this in sky replacement - especially astro. People add AI skies, but the stars are wrong.
Brendan, for me photography is all about the experience and what it took for me to get the photo in front of me. The biggest joy is bringing it into editing and reliving where I was and what I was feeling at that precise moment. So I do not get excited either at AI photography.
Agree completely! Every creation, whether it's photography, painting or sculpture begins with a thought, an inspiration. After that the craftsmanship of that creator makes the thought come to reality. With AI, the thought, the inspiration is the endpoint. There is no craftsmanship after that. The thought is turned over to a machine to do the rest. Creation is so much about the process after the thought. The process of an AI generated product is completely stifled, maybe nonexistent. Great conversation! Thanks for sharing and your passion about this is appreciated.
You have summed it up very well. The joy is taking my own photographs and teaching myself to get the best possible picture. The one analogy that always pops into my mind is: commissioning a painter to do a painting and giving them the points you wanted in the picture, does this make you the artist? This does not take away from some of the amazing work that has been created, but I think the creator should mark it as AI
You had mentioned something about losing interest in people's photography on social media or in galleries due to AI's influence. I kind of get it. I've found myself feeling similar, especially on social media. I can tell the difference between real photography and AI generated work, but its become overwhelming. I have toned back my Instagram time, as it's just not as interesting anymore. However, on the flipside, its made me rethink how I create images these days, and that excites me!
I just recently started getting into photography (less than a year ago) because we took an Alaskan cruise last summer. I had a blast taking pictures and learning the settings of my camera. Bought it in the spring to practice before the trip and while I was happy with most of my photos, some were missing something. That’s when I found out about the whole editing side of photography and my brain can’t handle all that right now 😂. The most I’ve done was lighten an image. I’m ok with stacking photos because I can see how the sky can be tricky to catch just right without taking multiple pictures in different settings. I don’t like seeing images edited to the point that they are no longer a realistic representation of the subject. Like adding the northern lights somewhere they don’t belong/occur naturally.
There is so much to say on this topic. In a nutshell, I almost entirely agree. Suppose someone, call them Bob, wrote a short story about a news magnate turned politician who lived in a mansion and had a special fondness for his childhood sleigh. Suppose they then tell that story to Orson Wells who then makes Citizen Kane based more or less loosely on that story. Bob cannot claim that Citizen Kane is his movie. They may deserve credit for the story, but not for the movie. They cannot claim that they are a great movie-maker or director or cinematographer, etc. The same, in miniature, is true of AI generated images. Anyone who thinks that AI generated images is their creative work because they came up with a text prompt is lying to themselves. And all such images should be clearly labelled as such to avoid deceiving others.
Salute and respect from Ontario, Canada! I have DSLRs like 3 Pentax cameras and a Canon RP and associated gear that is used by my family of 5, including an 8 year old. None of us are into AI photo generation. Personally, only I do any edits and those too are minimum, such as cropping and few touches here and there. Most of my/our photography remains PSOOC. I am totally against substituting the background skies, erasing unwanted bush/objects, in short making any significant changes to my pictures. The reason is simple. If I share my landscape and wildlife shots, any people watching them should not get disappointed to reach or see those subjects in real life by seeing the actual is way blander than the pictures.
Hey, Brendan! Great thoughts.. makes me think where this move will lead.. maybe we need a totally creative category for AI generated images.. not another type of photography, but a totally separate category of "art"...?! With regards to who own the copyright of AI images, can't wait for the moment when you'll hear the AI in your speakers saying: "that's my image and you have no rights over it, unless you give me access to all your electronic devices from your house" 😂 AI is everywhere and will go nowhere, unfortunately... Sometimes I wish to be born 150 years ago.. 😊
Excellent explanation of what AI created images are, the end result of a prompt. Like you, for me it's the whole 'adventure' of going out, near or far, and creating a photograph you enjoyed creating.
I learned photography during the film days and shot film for decades before digital came along. When I first heard about digital, I wasn't sure about it because it was different. I broke down and bought a digital camera (Olympus - E-10) and decided it was okay after all. Now that AI has been thrust upon us, I'm not sure about it. But because of my photographic history, I tend to shoot with as much refinement as possible in camera with little to no post-processing although I will spend quite a bit of time cleaning up the images (I shoot macro and my subjects are agates, jaspers, and other stones which have all sorts of flaws and fractures). I've worked hard on refining the lighting I use because lighting is so important to most photographs and especially so with macro work.
Just got to the part where you made an analogy with commissioning the construction of a house. Considering the people I've met, yes, they absolutely will say "I built that house". I guess they equate the hiring of an architect and general contractor to be them doing the work. I disagree but, hey, I don't have the capital to build a house. I guess they're overseeing the project as the client but, they're not doing any labor. I really do think that people with that much money have a different way of thinking than the rest of us.
AI photography will always lack the creativity by the photographer. it's not real photos. I truly all AI generated needs to be watermarked by the software itself and do not miss lead viewers. that's my take
Generally I agree with you and would not touch sky replacement, etc. unless I was working on a commercial project. Film is not proof against manipulation however. Just look at Ansel Adams’ original negative of “Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico”.
I once took two B&W film pictures of the same person with a black background. I put both pictures in the darkroom enlarger and made a picture of fake twins. Nothing artistic about it… I was just playing around. But if it’s not digital and I didn’t capture it in frame then what was it? Just curious. Idk what I’d call it.
I agree. The photoshoot is the apex of the photographic process. If someone skips that step entirely then they are motivated by different things than I am.
bit late on this but: you often get paid commisions from tourism boards and brands. If those paid employers give you a prompt,, are they the real artists? no, of course not. They simply have the goal in mind, you're the artist. eg2: I hire a painter to make a portrait of my family. obviously it was my bright idea to hire a painter so i'm the real artist right?
Interesting Topic B! I concur AI "photography" is not photography! I hate it when someone gets explored on flickr by an AI generated photo that being said I saw one that I liked. Another thing photography is going out there to the actual location and making a great composition or making a photo as it happened in the environment that you are in say a photographer in a combat zone. So when I see an AI photo I say Nooo waaaay. Nice to know you are AFOL
Maybe in the near future and future law making will bring a clearer definition between 'image' and 'photo' rather than at the moment, allowed to be be used interchangeably. ??? Does AI PHOTO generation even really exist?? what happens when a camera can connect to the internet and blends images with 'reality photos' and AI in camera in real time?
"The crux of the matter" oh no ..... could this be AI generated Brendan doing the podcast 🤣🤣🤣, btw great podcast. I saw Greg's Midjourney images on WhatsApp, this is definitely an interesting kerfuffle 🤔I'll take the Journey for $1000 Alex 👍😎
@@BrendanvanSon Hey Brendan, I had originally not read your blog, just saw the UA-cam Podcast. I just went back and read your Blog and the images you showed are Meh! hahaha. Actually some of the images were pretty cool, the photographer on the cliff must have been using some new fan dangle camera. Anyway, like you I have lost interest in other peoples photos, some of those images on Instagram like "Beautiful Places" are just too much, I use to stop and study the images, but now I just scroll right past.
AI image generation does nothing for me, same with sky replacements. it might look cool but it leaves me cold. I will use AI to do adjustments, such as denoise and sharpen occasionally, but for me, photography is about the background to the image. To me there is no point sitting at a PC to make an image. Get out and experience what you are creating the image of.
Sitting at home and making images with AI of places you’ve never been is really really stupid to me. This is NOT the same as digital cameras replacing film. You still had to be the one to capture the shot in the field. Now you don’t. Defeating the purpose to me. It’s focusing on the ends not the means or the experience. Good luck using AI for Concert Photography.
When I was playing Everquest at the start of the 2000s, there were 60 levels and it was a brutal grueling process to advance. It took hours, was incredibly challenging, and you loved/hated the experience as you worked through it but felt an amazing sense of achievement. Later, folks rolled in and started buying level 50+ accounts. They bought the gear, bought the equipment, and skipped the process. In part, it let them unlock the top level experiences. But, a lot of it was the purchase of status and something that looked really impressive, but which was soulless. A lot went out of their way to try and pass off those purchased accounts as authentically earned. But, it was almost always visible. Still, for them, they also got a different type of value out of it. Just one that didn't appeal to me. I see a lot of the current AI "Photography" in line with this. Especially when its in transparent. And, like you. It has made me enjoy a lot of the photography I see a bit less, but also changed how I prioritize who I'm interested in. I think one part that doesn't get talked about, is a big chunk of the "value" for folks using AI or doing AI generated art, is the same as the folks who bought those level 60 characters. They can claim they're doing it as a "novel" or "its own" process. But go out of their way to seek attention based on the challenge and artistry and journey that comes from more traditional photography. In general, I think AI art, as AI art - is brilliant. It's exciting, and it is very much it's own new category. But, if folks want to impress me with travel or landscape AI-enriched photography? They're barking up the wrong tree. But, there's also not anything all that new with it. It just amplifies closing stuff in/out of images, and some of the more extreme edits that have been going around and blurring things for years. A true artist is proud of how they create the work and the journey. They may have some aspects of their method or process they keep private, but the overall how? They'll be very proud of. I think that's a good litmus test when it comes to all forms of art. From a painted work, a sculpture, a photo, or an AI generation. When they're not proud of the process or go to hide it, or obscure it? Then that tells you everything.
I tried to write a smart comment but I’m too tired and nothing made sense. 😃 So basically great video, you covered a lot of good points. I believe that the images created by AI are OK but need to be labelled as made by a machine. If tourist companies start using them they likely gonna get sued or just lose business because people want to see real images of where they are going.
I think we all make our own rules and secretly bend them when nobody's watching. For example the Farol-do-Cabo-de-São-Vicente-photo in your coffee-shop. I suppose all the waves did not hit the cliffs at the same time. On the other hand you did not "turn the lights on" on the lighthouse. I would have done the waves and the lights without a bad conscience. I often remove things from the photo that need no be there, like tourists. What I really absolutely never do is add elements. Except...when nobody's watching...I might have replaced a sky three times. I did mention that in in de description, though. That is key to me. I agree with you that photography becomes digital art then. And where that border lies, I really don't know.
Totally agree with most of it, AI is not photography, and people that are actually trying to pretend it is and that can replace a photographer will learn that eventually. But I disagree with the clone stamp comment, if you clone stamp something out doesn't mean it's not photography, because you did took that photo. for example I sometimes use it to remove marks on the floor when shooting cars to make the photo more clean, I am not changing the general image at all.
I've always considered photography to be capturing a story rather than creating a story. As long as the manipulation isn't changing the story that I saw, I still consider it photography. AI generation clearly creates a story and so, for me, clearly fails the photography test. But I'm more interested in Brendan's comments about manipulation because I think there is a more nuanced debate there. Personally, I do a lot of ice hockey photography. I will happily use the Heal tool to remove the stick of a player who isn't in the frame and isn't impacting the play. That isn't changing the story, it is only making the story clearer. But I would never use the Clone Stamp tool to move the puck in the frame. That is writing a completely different story to the one that I saw. That said, I know of a lot of press agencies who would not accept a photo where that stick had been removed in post-processing. But, don't we have to be honest about what constitutes creating a story? Can we complain about using the Heal tool to remove a person to get a cleaner landscape image when the same thing could be achieved by putting a 10-stop filter on the front of our lens? If the story is "What does the Taj Mahal look like at noon?", by removing the thousand tourists aren't both guilty of the same thing? Is it fair to only call one out because the manipulation was analogue rather than digital?
I shot film for many years as a press photographer and moved to digital back when a Canon 10D came out.The only manipulation of a digital capture of mine is the equivalent of dodging and burning I might have done in the darkroom. I think if you are not present capturing what is in front of you but sat in front of a computer generating a image purely with software you are not a photographer.Enjoy it by all means but you are doing AI art not photography.
Agree AI assistance is great, the generation side doesn’t really appeal. It’s now made me view others images differently and would pause and may not like an image anymore on web size as unsure if it is not real.
I use it to create surreal things like gingerbread animals. And one day I'll give these images to a confectionar to make them. It'll be an awesome Christmas gift. Some UA-camr already did this with a cake. It works!
Good Summation. As much as AI generates, there is an art side to it in designing prompts to get some consistency in the outcome. Much as photography we take several images to find the one that resonates best with yourself and your "audience". Photography is not dead, it's just evolving and we need to embrace the good with it. More the problem ix how to identify photographs that have been AI and to what degree its acceptable.
Digital art because you remove something? Negative's were retouched all of the time, an art in itself. I was a. wedding/portrait photographer in the 80s. Almost all negatives were retouched to remove blemishes and unwanted items.
Yeah, I started on film as well. But I'm talking about things like removing a building that isn't there and replacing it with another item from the frame. To me, this is the grey area.
I completely agree Brendan, I’m an amateur of three years and still don’t use PS or LR, I do however edit my images using my iPad simply to remove dust spots or distractions that it was not possible to do during composition whilst taking the actual photo. You could argue that this is using AI but I think minor post processing to remove distractions or to boost colour, sharpen an image, reduce noise etc is OK. I would never add/replace things that were not there when I took the image. I try to keep my images as close as possible to how they were shot, it’s called “being honest with yourself” Photography as the name suggests is the capture of light and to do that you have to go out with your camera and deal with the conditions your have. To artificially create that is not photography in my opinion and it would never satisfy me. The journey to get the image is as important as taking the shot and when it comes together perfectly it is so satisfying 😉
I love photographing birds and the joy is in seeing the bird especially a lifer and constantly trying to get the best shot of the bird even if I see them every day. Recently a few photographers I liked are saying they replaced the sky because it was too plain, merged multiple photos to look like a flock etc. Very disappointing 😢
There are terms you sign up for in the AI generators that specifically state that images generated cannot be copyrighted. If you use a generated image as a part of your image then that changes things.
That's interesting. So, if I generate an image, then I personally add something to it. Like a part of a photo, or text, I become the creator (since it's then human-generated)? I feel like the courts are going to have some fun with this over the next decade.
@@BrendanvanSon The changes have to "substantially" alter the generated image. You're totally right, it's the lawyers that will be making money on this
I'm so far behind on gear. haha. I have no idea about it, to be honest. That said, for a long time I've been waiting for the R5ii as my next camera, so I might find out first hand what the ai means.
Found this: specifically relating to autofocus. "There will also be new 'AI' autofocus features appearing in the EOS R5 Mark II for the first time. so everything has AI something or other these days. And the current EOS R5 already has a form of AI, thanks to its Deep Learning AF autofocus - an algorithmic system trained on data sets to recognize specific subject types.
That term "deep learning" AF is misleading. The AF doesn't learn anything, its just been pre-programmed to recognise certain things. It doesn't improve with use as it supposedly "learns" That doesn't happen.
I believe that the auto focus is AI. Eye tracking, face tracking and animal eye tracking. Maybe it’s just hype to sell new products. Happy Trails, Take Care! Bret
Looking at your image on your desktop Brendan is a good reminder that the feelings of seeing those penguins and having the opportunity to capture them will never be replaced by putting words into a piece of software to generate a picture of a place you have never been to. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your images are now part of the AI universe and will be used to generate images, so the ethics around AI generated work and the legality of such work will be subject to much debate for some time to come. The use of AI tools in editing an image you've taken will also split opinions. I use Photoshop tools in my work so I know the purists will disapprove but I would doubt there are many images (except editorial work) where there hasn't been some digital processing applied to it. Photography will survive the AI evolution as each will attract its own audiences and market demands will determine longevity. Personally the more AI becomes ingrained into our society, I think the more the desire for real word experiences will be prevalent. so workshops and tours like yours will be in demand for a long time to come
This was something I was going to touch on, but I didn't feel like I knew enough about it. Do we really know where AI is taking imagery from? Is it just scraped from the internet? Does it infringe on other people's rights? I actually don't know this.
@@scotty4418you're absolutely right. Pretty much any image on the web can be scraped for AI generation. In some cases, things like watermarks are still visible, albeit warped.
Nice to see you the other day on the street! Podcast: I have moreless the same idea as you about what is a photo and what is digital art and I like photography for the same reason, the dopamine comes out from photographing something or somewhere I'm enjoying seeing/living at that moment. So for me doesn't want make sense to "enhance" with aí to change the sky as it changes the moment. But, I may do it, for art sake, not really because I want a "better" photography Edit: if a player is missing to PADDLE, I can join you, not an amazing player though ahah @tomasaavpedro
Informal poll, how many of you are doing AI Photo Generation? If so, which program are you using?
Adobe products such as PS and LRC.
I don't. I agree with your views. I do like occasionally go into art gallery and look at paintings so I guess AI helps artists who may have every talent but not a steady hand make a painting.
I've been using Photoshop's generative tool and erase tool, local stable diffusion, and a larger variety of stable diffusion models & samplers on web tools that run stable diffusion. I also like AI selection tools; they're getting a lot better.
All that said, though, I pretty much only use generative AI on my landscape photos to remove minor distractions when Content Aware Fill doesn't do a great job. I never add anything significant (it basically amounts to a digital leafblower), especially not adding a subject.
For real estate photo editing, for instance, I couldn't use AI enough. It is incredibly useful and speeds up my workflow a ton. And I also don't care about what's real and what's not in real estate photography so long as the client is happy. Use AI to replace a dead patch of grass on a yard? No problem. Use AI to add a key subject to a landscape photo? That's been a "nope" for me so far.
Hard no
nope
Film or digital makes no difference. That is purely the medium used for the capture, but the method of taking the photo remains the same. Thanks, great show.
Well said!
I'm an actual "old man" and I agree with your perspective about AI assistance versus AI generation. I recently saw a reel of AI generated birds. To me, who actually knows birds, the AI was pretty obvious. But the comments told me that many non-birders were not only fooled, but enthralled. They couldn't believe the glorious plumage being displayed. I felt almost sick.
On the other hand, yes I've done some exposure blending of bracketed photos. I don't replace skies or add elements. But I'll remove stuff like an extraneous sign, or detritus floating on water. After all, God didn't put that sign there; and that flotsam will eventually float away. Right? Right? Oh man, it's getting complicated...
The birds one is interesting, because it's hard to generate the subtle details. But, I've noticed this in sky replacement - especially astro. People add AI skies, but the stars are wrong.
Totally agree with you Sir, AI images is not real photography. Period
Brendan, for me photography is all about the experience and what it took for me to get the photo in front of me. The biggest joy is bringing it into editing and reliving where I was and what I was feeling at that precise moment. So I do not get excited either at AI photography.
Agree completely! Every creation, whether it's photography, painting or sculpture begins with a thought, an inspiration. After that the craftsmanship of that creator makes the thought come to reality. With AI, the thought, the inspiration is the endpoint. There is no craftsmanship after that. The thought is turned over to a machine to do the rest. Creation is so much about the process after the thought. The process of an AI generated product is completely stifled, maybe nonexistent. Great conversation! Thanks for sharing and your passion about this is appreciated.
You have summed it up very well. The joy is taking my own photographs and teaching myself to get the best possible picture. The one analogy that always pops into my mind is: commissioning a painter to do a painting and giving them the points you wanted in the picture, does this make you the artist? This does not take away from some of the amazing work that has been created, but I think the creator should mark it as AI
You had mentioned something about losing interest in people's photography on social media or in galleries due to AI's influence. I kind of get it. I've found myself feeling similar, especially on social media. I can tell the difference between real photography and AI generated work, but its become overwhelming. I have toned back my Instagram time, as it's just not as interesting anymore. However, on the flipside, its made me rethink how I create images these days, and that excites me!
If I go back to film only, and I developed my images in layers would that be Analog Art?
Hahaha, it would be something like that. Photography-generated analog art. haha
I just recently started getting into photography (less than a year ago) because we took an Alaskan cruise last summer. I had a blast taking pictures and learning the settings of my camera. Bought it in the spring to practice before the trip and while I was happy with most of my photos, some were missing something. That’s when I found out about the whole editing side of photography and my brain can’t handle all that right now 😂. The most I’ve done was lighten an image. I’m ok with stacking photos because I can see how the sky can be tricky to catch just right without taking multiple pictures in different settings. I don’t like seeing images edited to the point that they are no longer a realistic representation of the subject. Like adding the northern lights somewhere they don’t belong/occur naturally.
The double exposition was a technique used long before the digital age.
There is so much to say on this topic. In a nutshell, I almost entirely agree. Suppose someone, call them Bob, wrote a short story about a news magnate turned politician who lived in a mansion and had a special fondness for his childhood sleigh. Suppose they then tell that story to Orson Wells who then makes Citizen Kane based more or less loosely on that story. Bob cannot claim that Citizen Kane is his movie. They may deserve credit for the story, but not for the movie. They cannot claim that they are a great movie-maker or director or cinematographer, etc. The same, in miniature, is true of AI generated images. Anyone who thinks that AI generated images is their creative work because they came up with a text prompt is lying to themselves. And all such images should be clearly labelled as such to avoid deceiving others.
Salute and respect from Ontario, Canada! I have DSLRs like 3 Pentax cameras and a Canon RP and associated gear that is used by my family of 5, including an 8 year old. None of us are into AI photo generation. Personally, only I do any edits and those too are minimum, such as cropping and few touches here and there. Most of my/our photography remains PSOOC. I am totally against substituting the background skies, erasing unwanted bush/objects, in short making any significant changes to my pictures. The reason is simple. If I share my landscape and wildlife shots, any people watching them should not get disappointed to reach or see those subjects in real life by seeing the actual is way blander than the pictures.
I would just like all creators of any type of art to be honest about the process they used and then I can enjoy it, or not, on that level.
Hey, Brendan! Great thoughts.. makes me think where this move will lead.. maybe we need a totally creative category for AI generated images.. not another type of photography, but a totally separate category of "art"...?! With regards to who own the copyright of AI images, can't wait for the moment when you'll hear the AI in your speakers saying: "that's my image and you have no rights over it, unless you give me access to all your electronic devices from your house" 😂 AI is everywhere and will go nowhere, unfortunately... Sometimes I wish to be born 150 years ago.. 😊
Excellent explanation of what AI created images are, the end result of a prompt.
Like you, for me it's the whole 'adventure' of going out, near or far, and creating a photograph you enjoyed creating.
I learned photography during the film days and shot film for decades before digital came along. When I first heard about digital, I wasn't sure about it because it was different. I broke down and bought a digital camera (Olympus - E-10) and decided it was okay after all. Now that AI has been thrust upon us, I'm not sure about it. But because of my photographic history, I tend to shoot with as much refinement as possible in camera with little to no post-processing although I will spend quite a bit of time cleaning up the images (I shoot macro and my subjects are agates, jaspers, and other stones which have all sorts of flaws and fractures). I've worked hard on refining the lighting I use because lighting is so important to most photographs and especially so with macro work.
Just got to the part where you made an analogy with commissioning the construction of a house. Considering the people I've met, yes, they absolutely will say "I built that house". I guess they equate the hiring of an architect and general contractor to be them doing the work. I disagree but, hey, I don't have the capital to build a house. I guess they're overseeing the project as the client but, they're not doing any labor. I really do think that people with that much money have a different way of thinking than the rest of us.
AI photography will always lack the creativity by the photographer. it's not real photos. I truly all AI generated needs to be watermarked by the software itself and do not miss lead viewers. that's my take
Generally I agree with you and would not touch sky replacement, etc. unless I was working on a commercial project. Film is not proof against manipulation however. Just look at Ansel Adams’ original negative of “Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico”.
I once took two B&W film pictures of the same person with a black background. I put both pictures in the darkroom enlarger and made a picture of fake twins. Nothing artistic about it… I was just playing around. But if it’s not digital and I didn’t capture it in frame then what was it? Just curious. Idk what I’d call it.
I don't know either haha. But, it's again using photography (as a tool) to create art.
I agree. The photoshoot is the apex of the photographic process. If someone skips that step entirely then they are motivated by different things than I am.
Exactly. Sometimes, I don't even care about the photos. I just have fun with the photoshoot.
@@BrendanvanSon For sure. Especially when you factor in a social dynamic - like you do. This is time well spent.
I agree with your thoughts and summation one thousand percent! Great video.
some really interesting points. thanks for sharing your thoughts
bit late on this but:
you often get paid commisions from tourism boards and brands. If those paid employers give you a prompt,, are they the real artists?
no, of course not. They simply have the goal in mind, you're the artist.
eg2: I hire a painter to make a portrait of my family. obviously it was my bright idea to hire a painter so i'm the real artist right?
Exactly.
Omg, you described what photography means (for me) perfectly
I'm glad you can relate :D
Brendan, I feel your pain.
I have used PS to take my photo and ceate a water colour or oil painting. Some results are useable others, not so much.
It's interesting. I think the part that's important though is that the process itself is pretty fun.
Interesting Topic B! I concur AI "photography" is not photography! I hate it when someone gets explored on flickr by an AI generated photo that being said I saw one that I liked. Another thing photography is going out there to the actual location and making a great composition or making a photo as it happened in the environment that you are in say a photographer in a combat zone. So when I see an AI photo I say Nooo waaaay. Nice to know you are AFOL
Perhaps in the future we can command a premium if we can prove the images were created by a human.
This is a thought. But do people pay a premium for images made on film? Maybe... I'm not sure.
Maybe in the near future and future law making will bring a clearer definition between 'image' and 'photo' rather than at the moment, allowed to be be used interchangeably. ??? Does AI PHOTO generation even really exist?? what happens when a camera can connect to the internet and blends images with 'reality photos' and AI in camera in real time?
Yeah, this is something that's going to happen in my opinion.
"The crux of the matter" oh no ..... could this be AI generated Brendan doing the podcast 🤣🤣🤣, btw great podcast. I saw Greg's Midjourney images on WhatsApp, this is definitely an interesting kerfuffle 🤔I'll take the Journey for $1000 Alex 👍😎
Did you see mine on the blog? It's wild.
@@BrendanvanSon Hey Brendan, I had originally not read your blog, just saw the UA-cam Podcast. I just went back and read your Blog and the images you showed are Meh! hahaha. Actually some of the images were pretty cool, the photographer on the cliff must have been using some new fan dangle camera. Anyway, like you I have lost interest in other peoples photos, some of those images on Instagram like "Beautiful Places" are just too much, I use to stop and study the images, but now I just scroll right past.
I think there are 5 players because you specified 4 players AND one in the middle smashing the ball.
haha, that's true. But that person wasn't smashing the ball :(
AI to me feels like cheating, yes you might make a great image but it's not "Your" image.
Yeah, again. It's a different thing. If you can separate image generation with photography, they can both be fun.
Yes it may be cheating but more like fake
AI image generation does nothing for me, same with sky replacements. it might look cool but it leaves me cold. I will use AI to do adjustments, such as denoise and sharpen occasionally, but for me, photography is about the background to the image. To me there is no point sitting at a PC to make an image. Get out and experience what you are creating the image of.
Sitting at home and making images with AI of places you’ve never been is really really stupid to me. This is NOT the same as digital cameras replacing film. You still had to be the one to capture the shot in the field. Now you don’t. Defeating the purpose to me. It’s focusing on the ends not the means or the experience. Good luck using AI for Concert Photography.
When I was playing Everquest at the start of the 2000s, there were 60 levels and it was a brutal grueling process to advance. It took hours, was incredibly challenging, and you loved/hated the experience as you worked through it but felt an amazing sense of achievement. Later, folks rolled in and started buying level 50+ accounts. They bought the gear, bought the equipment, and skipped the process. In part, it let them unlock the top level experiences. But, a lot of it was the purchase of status and something that looked really impressive, but which was soulless. A lot went out of their way to try and pass off those purchased accounts as authentically earned. But, it was almost always visible. Still, for them, they also got a different type of value out of it. Just one that didn't appeal to me. I see a lot of the current AI "Photography" in line with this. Especially when its in transparent. And, like you. It has made me enjoy a lot of the photography I see a bit less, but also changed how I prioritize who I'm interested in. I think one part that doesn't get talked about, is a big chunk of the "value" for folks using AI or doing AI generated art, is the same as the folks who bought those level 60 characters. They can claim they're doing it as a "novel" or "its own" process. But go out of their way to seek attention based on the challenge and artistry and journey that comes from more traditional photography. In general, I think AI art, as AI art - is brilliant. It's exciting, and it is very much it's own new category. But, if folks want to impress me with travel or landscape AI-enriched photography? They're barking up the wrong tree. But, there's also not anything all that new with it. It just amplifies closing stuff in/out of images, and some of the more extreme edits that have been going around and blurring things for years. A true artist is proud of how they create the work and the journey. They may have some aspects of their method or process they keep private, but the overall how? They'll be very proud of. I think that's a good litmus test when it comes to all forms of art. From a painted work, a sculpture, a photo, or an AI generation. When they're not proud of the process or go to hide it, or obscure it? Then that tells you everything.
Well done Brendan, totally agree 💯🎯
I tried to write a smart comment but I’m too tired and nothing made sense. 😃 So basically great video, you covered a lot of good points. I believe that the images created by AI are OK but need to be labelled as made by a machine. If tourist companies start using them they likely gonna get sued or just lose business because people want to see real images of where they are going.
I think we all make our own rules and secretly bend them when nobody's watching.
For example the Farol-do-Cabo-de-São-Vicente-photo in your coffee-shop. I suppose all the waves did not hit the cliffs at the same time. On the other hand you did not "turn the lights on" on the lighthouse.
I would have done the waves and the lights without a bad conscience. I often remove things from the photo that need no be there, like tourists. What I really absolutely never do is add elements. Except...when nobody's watching...I might have replaced a sky three times.
I did mention that in in de description, though. That is key to me. I agree with you that photography becomes digital art then. And where that border lies, I really don't know.
Totally agree with most of it, AI is not photography, and people that are actually trying to pretend it is and that can replace a photographer will learn that eventually. But I disagree with the clone stamp comment, if you clone stamp something out doesn't mean it's not photography, because you did took that photo. for example I sometimes use it to remove marks on the floor when shooting cars to make the photo more clean, I am not changing the general image at all.
I've always considered photography to be capturing a story rather than creating a story. As long as the manipulation isn't changing the story that I saw, I still consider it photography. AI generation clearly creates a story and so, for me, clearly fails the photography test.
But I'm more interested in Brendan's comments about manipulation because I think there is a more nuanced debate there. Personally, I do a lot of ice hockey photography. I will happily use the Heal tool to remove the stick of a player who isn't in the frame and isn't impacting the play. That isn't changing the story, it is only making the story clearer. But I would never use the Clone Stamp tool to move the puck in the frame. That is writing a completely different story to the one that I saw. That said, I know of a lot of press agencies who would not accept a photo where that stick had been removed in post-processing.
But, don't we have to be honest about what constitutes creating a story? Can we complain about using the Heal tool to remove a person to get a cleaner landscape image when the same thing could be achieved by putting a 10-stop filter on the front of our lens? If the story is "What does the Taj Mahal look like at noon?", by removing the thousand tourists aren't both guilty of the same thing? Is it fair to only call one out because the manipulation was analogue rather than digital?
I shot film for many years as a press photographer and moved to digital back when a Canon 10D came out.The only manipulation of a digital capture of mine is the equivalent of dodging and burning I might have done in the darkroom. I think if you are not present capturing what is in front of you but sat in front of a computer generating a image purely with software you are not a photographer.Enjoy it by all means but you are doing AI art not photography.
Agree AI assistance is great, the generation side doesn’t really appeal. It’s now made me view others images differently and would pause and may not like an image anymore on web size as unsure if it is not real.
Great video, not a fan of AI, I would rather be out in nature and not sitting in front of a computer for hours, each to one's own.
'
I use it to create surreal things like gingerbread animals. And one day I'll give these images to a confectionar to make them. It'll be an awesome Christmas gift. Some UA-camr already did this with a cake. It works!
Yeah, things like this are cool. And I've had fun with it playing with different prompts to see what it spits out. It has it's use.
Photography is an art.. you need a soul to create real art..
💯 well said.
Couldn’t have said it any better.
Agreeing with you 100%, it puts the doubt in one's mind,
I like AI for "cropping" my images to fit in instagram 🤣
Good Summation. As much as AI generates, there is an art side to it in designing prompts to get some consistency in the outcome. Much as photography we take several images to find the one that resonates best with yourself and your "audience". Photography is not dead, it's just evolving and we need to embrace the good with it. More the problem ix how to identify photographs that have been AI and to what degree its acceptable.
growing pains - between the two artforms, is what it is, I think.
I like to play around with Generative Fill in PS and some of the results are comical at best. Some are very good though.
Digital art because you remove something? Negative's were retouched all of the time, an art in itself. I was a. wedding/portrait photographer in the 80s. Almost all negatives were retouched to remove blemishes and unwanted items.
Yeah, I started on film as well. But I'm talking about things like removing a building that isn't there and replacing it with another item from the frame. To me, this is the grey area.
Great video man! I agree with you 👍🏻
Glad you enjoyed it!
I completely agree Brendan, I’m an amateur of three years and still don’t use PS or LR, I do however edit my images using my iPad simply to remove dust spots or distractions that it was not possible to do during composition whilst taking the actual photo. You could argue that this is using AI but I think minor post processing to remove distractions or to boost colour, sharpen an image, reduce noise etc is OK. I would never add/replace things that were not there when I took the image. I try to keep my images as close as possible to how they were shot, it’s called “being honest with yourself” Photography as the name suggests is the capture of light and to do that you have to go out with your camera and deal with the conditions your have. To artificially create that is not photography in my opinion and it would never satisfy me. The journey to get the image is as important as taking the shot and when it comes together perfectly it is so satisfying 😉
I love photographing birds and the joy is in seeing the bird especially a lifer and constantly trying to get the best shot of the bird even if I see them every day. Recently a few photographers I liked are saying they replaced the sky because it was too plain, merged multiple photos to look like a flock etc. Very disappointing 😢
You said it Brandon. I agree completely, this is the exact way I feel about AI too.
Well said.
There are terms you sign up for in the AI generators that specifically state that images generated cannot be copyrighted. If you use a generated image as a part of your image then that changes things.
That's interesting. So, if I generate an image, then I personally add something to it. Like a part of a photo, or text, I become the creator (since it's then human-generated)?
I feel like the courts are going to have some fun with this over the next decade.
@@BrendanvanSon The changes have to "substantially" alter the generated image. You're totally right, it's the lawyers that will be making money on this
Have you seen the new canon R5 mark ii that is coming out. AI powered? Not sure what that means or what it controls. What do you think about that?
I'm so far behind on gear. haha. I have no idea about it, to be honest. That said, for a long time I've been waiting for the R5ii as my next camera, so I might find out first hand what the ai means.
To much technology! If you couldn't get it right the first time to bad so sad better luck next time.
Found this:
specifically relating to autofocus. "There will also be new 'AI' autofocus features appearing in the EOS R5 Mark II for the first time.
so everything has AI something or other these days. And the current EOS R5 already has a form of AI, thanks to its Deep Learning AF autofocus - an algorithmic system trained on data sets to recognize specific subject types.
Interesting. Part of me feels like this is just playing to current "Catch words" like, isn't Auto-Focus already AI?
That term "deep learning" AF is misleading. The AF doesn't learn anything, its just been pre-programmed to recognise certain things. It doesn't improve with use as it supposedly "learns" That doesn't happen.
I believe that the auto focus is AI. Eye tracking, face tracking and animal eye tracking. Maybe it’s just hype to sell new products. Happy Trails, Take Care! Bret
Looking at your image on your desktop Brendan is a good reminder that the feelings of seeing those penguins and having the opportunity to capture them will never be replaced by putting words into a piece of software to generate a picture of a place you have never been to. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your images are now part of the AI universe and will be used to generate images, so the ethics around AI generated work and the legality of such work will be subject to much debate for some time to come. The use of AI tools in editing an image you've taken will also split opinions. I use Photoshop tools in my work so I know the purists will disapprove but I would doubt there are many images (except editorial work) where there hasn't been some digital processing applied to it.
Photography will survive the AI evolution as each will attract its own audiences and market demands will determine longevity. Personally the more AI becomes ingrained into our society, I think the more the desire for real word experiences will be prevalent. so workshops and tours like yours will be in demand for a long time to come
This was something I was going to touch on, but I didn't feel like I knew enough about it. Do we really know where AI is taking imagery from? Is it just scraped from the internet? Does it infringe on other people's rights? I actually don't know this.
@@BrendanvanSon As I understand it, there is a lot of scraping involved to support machine learning
@@scotty4418you're absolutely right. Pretty much any image on the web can be scraped for AI generation. In some cases, things like watermarks are still visible, albeit warped.
Nice to see you the other day on the street!
Podcast: I have moreless the same idea as you about what is a photo and what is digital art and I like photography for the same reason, the dopamine comes out from photographing something or somewhere I'm enjoying seeing/living at that moment. So for me doesn't want make sense to "enhance" with aí to change the sky as it changes the moment. But, I may do it, for art sake, not really because I want a "better" photography
Edit: if a player is missing to PADDLE, I can join you, not an amazing player though ahah @tomasaavpedro