This is brilliant. This so beautifully explains my thoughts on photography. So well in fact that now I even understand it better. Thanks Ari. 5 thumbs up.
Meyerowitz said, “Photography looks like pictures but it’s really ideas, and they’re really your ideas.” I keep trying to photograph ideas but it’s pretty hard.
AI has lulled our brains to sleep. When I hold my Rolleiflex in my hand I feel my soul awakening. Like being allowed to climb on the climbing set again, instead of just looking at it. (I’m 63 years old, but you get the point)
I'm one of few,who never use RAW, Photoshop, Adobe, Lightroom etc! The joy of making images, perfect! Ari, you are my Saturday gift! Usually! U use cameras I never touch (anymore). They are all to big and heavy! Holga not for me! Your photos, methods are super. AI is on my laptop. I hate it! It's mean and horrible and only function to sell things or services.. NB Leica uses AI in it's lens links for much needed lens corrections..How good will those lenses be, if program stopped? My cameras are all Old! I do use tiny digitals a lot! It's a weight thing! Being 80 is cause of going lighter! All the best! Again BRAVO!
The great Ansel Adams' description of the negative as the score and the print as the performance, his chosen subject previsualized and captured with a large format camera in b&w, the composition. This to me demonstrated his attitude towards the amazement of extraordinary photography. And I'm appreciative by lovely performances of music by the great Richard Strauss, played with attitude. Bravo!
Hola Ari! Hoy, con tu video, me has hecho pensar y darle una "vuelta de turca" diferente al proceso de crear una fotografía. Gracias por tus aportes! Saludos desde el Sur de Chile!
Ive just come back to your channel after you took your summer break and I have had a busy fall so far. This was really great. I have so little interest in AI but I like how you used the prompt idea as a way to improve one's approach. I was out in the rain visiting my son in Montreal last week and really wanted that dark, muddy look so I shot my Holga in the rain and pushed Kentmere to 800 in Rodinal to achieve my moody day. Lots of imperfections but I had a few shots that hit what I had in mind. I'm sure I could achieve it digitally but I don't have an interest in playing with it on a screen. Interacting with these materials is just fun.
I love the concept! I take photographs to remember memories, but my intentions are very basic, at least I feel that way. I need to put more intention to make me feel what I remember. Now, just have to be aware of my intentions! Thanks for a great video!!!
Maybe this idea of reclaiming our intentions is one of the factors in the renewed interest in analog photography. It certainly is for me. It doesn't even have to go as far as AI generating an image based on our briefly described idea. We've been using in-camera technical assistants to "fix" our technical issues for years. Smile detection on... My point is to agree with yours, when we rely too heavily on tools to make our photos more "perfect," we give up control of the results we might want. Mistakes and outright failures can open doors to new ideas that are better than the ones that didn't work. Thanks Ari!
Agreed fully. As a photographer and painter, I see that the prevalence of cliche or trendy images makes the truly creative art really attractive to passers by. Even choosing to shoot in black and white is in itself something that makes people look closer. Tack sharp is so normal now that any blur suggests incompetence, but we who know, know. True art is appreciated when encountered.
I totally agree. I'm thus not at all worried about AI. Also, my daughters (20-something) both shoot on film as they don't want the shiny, sterile stuff.
@@ShootOnFilm as a landscape artist I see it every day. Artists following trends and not doing very well. We creators of art/photography must buck trends and stick to our passion of making things that are real. Love what you do Mr Jaaksi. Always stop what I’m doing to watch your newest posts.
I take “shiny” snaps with my iPhone and on the same bicycle ride some not-so-shiny monochrome photos with my Fuji! Today, the autumn foliage near Montreal is very colourful so plenty iPhone snaps on my ride but I also took the time to capture some B&W images … it’s all good! Thanks for another great video … the boat pics were excellent. 🚴♂️⛵️📷🙂 PS: Also sprach Zarathustra … very nice!
Thanks Ari. Sounds like you have a lesson in Ansel Adam’s previsualization technique. He was a big proponent of deciding what you wanted to reveal about a subject before you go about making the image. Of course one part which you demonstrated but really didn’t discuss is just how much you need to know about the craft in order to be able to convert what’s in front of the camera to what is in the final photo to achieve what you previsualize. It is truly a great lesson. Thanks.
Thanks thanks. Yeah, you need to know the media and the tools. But even if you don't master them 100%, you can aim at creating your own vision of the outcome. And work towards it. And by doing so, learning!
Never given it a though before........Photographed what I liked and thats it. I started photography in the late 1940s.......Must think more beforehand ............😀
I know what you mean. I may be the other extreme. To me, my subjects are secondary. Disposable raw material :-) (Well, not all, but you get the point ...)
Very well spoken. And yes, I want to create an image of what I see, and can make it through the craft of using my camera. If I would like to make images with "prompts" I would write words in a book. 😊
Thank you very much for showing your videos each saturday and for your thoughts in this interesting video! You explained the process perfectly! By the way I just bought a restored 80 mm for Hasselblad 500 CM from Kamerastore in Tampere! 😊 Kind regards from Sweden!
Thank you for discussing this subject of AI. I like the way you synthesise the two sides, i.e., what lies in front of the camera and what lies behind, if anything 🤔 😅
That was heavy for a Saturday afternoon :) Really interesting to break photography down into that equation of human input and subject. I find that the older I get, the more I reject technology. My new camera is over half a century old and artificial intelligence terrifies me. Maybe soon I will be using wet plate collodian!
I used to use a glass plate quarter square camera...Made you think before taking a picture as you were really limited in the number of plates carried! and for a youngster..expensive.. but happy days without deep thought
Right on song Ari! The fatigue of bright packaging and imperfect vs flawless. I recently entered a local photo competition (didn't feature but thats alright) and was amazed that the winning shots not only were easy to take photos of iconic tourist locations but so sharp and photoshopped they looked more at home on a cheesy calendar or biscuit tin. The road less travelled to imperfection is much more interesting. Thanks as always for your inspired videos.Cheers!
Yeah. I have the same experience. The worst competitions/exhibitions/books are those where the pictures were selected by popular vote. Democracy may be the best way to govern but the worst way to make art!
Excellent! This idea is what Ansel Adams was also talking about with pre-visualization. Something that, I agree, is probably not used enough by most photographers. Basically I think I usually use it, just not consciously. In other words, I see a subject or a scene that attracts me, and then I execute the mechanics to capture it, hopefully in a way that would support my executing the pre-visualized image in the final print, but without really thinking about the whole process. I take your intent, and completely agree, that we (I) should probably consider or think more about the print we want to end up with before we press the shutter release. Thank you for another thought provoking video.
Yeah. I think you should not make it always mandatory or something that would make you afraid of pressing the shutter, but ... i think its worth thinking about :-)
@@ShootOnFilm You have such an arsenal of cameras to choose from, do you find that your pre-concieved image dictates or influences your choice of camera? Certain cameras lend themselves to achieve certain types of images and thus 'force' the choice. An obvious example might be a Holga for a soft, moody image with few sharp details of the subject.
Another’Blad man! Recently picked up a 553ELX + 50mm; owned 500CMs in the 80s-90s. Haven’t rolled any film yet- and I literally still have 120 film stock from THEN! The old stuff is DIRT CHEAP…and in my case, Mint condition. ALL the film formats/cameras VERY affordable. Lesson, kids: the tools are cheap, the output not so! Film, processing, contact sheet, scanning, and…maybe prints. Cost PER shot is insane…which is why if you’re not into boats and private planes, your black hole is….film photography! Join me.
That's technology for you - as manufacturers keep tinkering with it, there comes a time when the tech becomes too bright and shiny for its own good. Especially with fully automated devices all the photographer can do is push the shutter. The perfect Kodak moment has become all to true.
So true. It has become a nightmare. People do not know what nights look like. Or northern lights. Or rainy days. Or wrinkled skin. Everything will soon be made of red and white plastic.
So you have me thinking. As a perfectionist I'm rarely thinking about what I want to create and mostly looking take something visually pleasing and perfect. Often I am disappointed in my results. I can see where it would be really helpful to have more intention, which would lead to getting the results I want. I'm also not interested in AI images. But I wonder if creating some AI images would be helpful in building that muscle. Maybe, but I'm probably better served working on building some creative intent. This video is food for thought for me. Thank you.
There are always different levels of creativity: You can visit you nearest restaurant and choose a meal from their menu. But you might also visit a different city or even country to find a special restaurant that offers what you imagine. Or you can go out and buy the ingredients for a meal you imagine (either from a recipe book or your free imagination). Similar with pictures -- you can take a picture with a wide angle lens from your living room window or you can take a blank canvas and paint a picture from your imagination (and everything in between).
What is interesting is how the intention is built, its path. As I said result doesnt matter, result is an accident. With randomness and because what I see of the world, of a scene, in the viewfinder is not what I get on the paper or screen, this is why we still check the result in digital. There is something out of control even with intention. There is not only intention and subject, there is something else, we come from 3 dimensions to 2 dimensions, we remove something but something is added : imperfection. fail. I dont know what I want to say here. But yes intention makes the difference between a photograph and a Photograph.
I'm not sure if I follow this all BUT, you made me think: what is the element of surprise, accidents and unintentional imperfections. When are they good and when are they bad? Gotta think a bit --- but thanks!!!
Let me add to this discussion w/a few examples and questions - What was Nick Ut's intention when he shot "Napalm Attack"? Or, Alfred Eisenstaedt's "VJ Day in Times Square"? Or, Ansel Adams' "Canyon de Chelly" I could go on and on but, hopefully, these examples make my point. In legal circles attorney's use the phrase "Res ipsa loquitur" which, loosely translates into "the thing speaks for itself". And this perspective and these examples resonate w/me as a photographer. The "feelings" or "intentions" inherent in my work are those of my subjects. My voice is INTENTIONALLY subordinate to that of my subjectsd. I am only the person who snapped the shutter at a moment. Certainly I planned, lighting, exposure, focus all considered, choice of film and optics but in the end -MY goal as photographer is merely to let my subject speak for itself. Perhaps that voice will not be appreciated or even understood by every casual viewer - but loudly and clearly, a message my subjects convey will bring smiles, perhaps a few tears or at the very least some wonderment to an audience (larger or smaller) for decades to come. Re AI, while I have not engaged AI as a creator of imagery, I have engaged ChatGPt AND Copilot in several simple Q&A and discussions of, arguably, some fringe topics BUT very much topics for which historical facts are readily available. A simply question I asked both several weeks ago was "What 6x6 camera offers autofocus?" Neither of these mechanisms identified Rolleiflex 6008AF as a solution and both apologized for this error of omission when I pointed it out. I have several other examples I can site but the point is that neither mechanism is, IMHO, a reliable source of truth and appear to have the research skills of a 6th grader. Both are making some serious and very rookie mistakes. I'm certain these mechanisms will improve in time - but I also have to wonder - in this online realm where so much disinformation exists and where reputation is that of bits and bytes which anyone can plagiarize for any purpose - how do THESE mechanisms differentiate fact from fiction? How do THESE mechanisms sieve sources into "reliable" and "unreliable" - AND if they DO possess such a filter - WHY ISN'T THAT MECHANISM PUT INTO PLAY TO BENEFIT ALL? (e.g., use that mechanism to curate reliable and less reliable sources). Thank you so much for your thought provoking discussions. I look forward to my Saturday mornings together with Ari, they are always a breath of fresh air.
Interesting. I don’t know what was on their minds. But I can guess: Nick wanted to create a view against the cruelty of the war. A clear intention. What comes to Ansel Adams' "Canyon de Chelly”, he had been looking for that view for a long time and had only one frame left to take it when the opportunity came. He was worried about running out of time - so he clearly had an intention to do what he did. Then you said, “The "feelings" or "intentions" inherent in my work are those of my subjects. My voice is INTENTIONALLY subordinate to that of my subjects.” which is interesting. I’m the total opposite. To me, my subjects are raw materials for MY art. I’m not documenting, I’m creating. My subjects are secondary to me. It may sound harsh, but that’s how it is for me. Then, if we think about how AI works from the technical and mathematical point of view, it will make mistakes. That is inherently built into it. It is not a fact checker or search engine and should not be used as such. But that would probably require more explanation than what fits here …. All they get their information from is the internet, which is all twisted, biased, and full of mistakes. Unfortunately. For typical errors, such as how many letters r are in Strawberry, you also get a wrong answer, but that will be fixed soon. It is just that all that these large language modes do is guess the probability of the next word. So they are incredibly primitive still. Thank you for your comment. I feel that even if we somewhere disagree, we agree :-) We’d need that more in today’s world!!
AI is a plagiarism machine. It has been trained on existing images or text. The people who created those images or text were not consulted or compensated. I like to see images created by people, and the less computers involved, the better. I'm just learning the process of darkroom printing, and my first print (a portrait of my wife) I was astonished at the difference between what Lightroom produced (so clear, so sharp, you could see where she's going to get wrinkles in 10 years, and showed age spots the eye can't see in real life) and what the print showed, a softer and more luminous image.
I personally have nothing against AI. I use it elsewhere a lot. Drafting presentations. Just today, I was asking for ideas for an essay. But, for me photography is holy. AI will not touch my pictures. And I will not use AI to create my pictures. What comes to stealing work is a complex topic. AI does not copy -- it is a technical fact. It takes input and creates something new and unique based on that input. Just like a student of art after looking at the work of others. And I personally would gladly give all my work to train AI systems. Less shiny pictures ==> better AI images. :-)
AI is like drawing, painting, 3D graphics... not photography of the real world. They are simulations, fakes, ... not meant here with any bad meaning. Photography stays photography regardless how and how much it is processed by filters, coloring, B&W, cropping, dodging and burning, ...etc. *) Where photography and photographers is -- from my point of view -- at a "question border"when you change shape of / edit the content (e.g. like by removal of content). For me such "photography" is another category (not worse/better as others). You may call such "edited photography". Everybody needs to define such borders for him/herself taking the picture intension / usage purpose into account. *) For sure you can start to debate here also the next levels... up to: Is arranging a set to pictured not already fake? The answer has to be yes in some very 'hard core' documentary kind of photography. This is irrelevant for art, advertising, family photography, ... but key for e.g. archeology, war photography, ...
Though provoking as ever Ari. Are “intentional” photographers at an advantage, being less predictable “statistical outliers”? Or will homogenisation, driven by AI powered groupthink, ultimately crush them? I’d like to think the former. 🤞
I want to live in a world where they are at a considerable advantage. I predict people will get tired of cellphone/AI/popular vote-castrated images fairly soon!
Whatever we "see" is subject to interpretation, is it not? We generally see things differently -- so, is there such a thing as a "realistic" and/or "perfect" picture?
This is brilliant. This so beautifully explains my thoughts on photography. So well in fact that now I even understand it better. Thanks Ari. 5 thumbs up.
Oh, thank you for your kind words. Truly appreciated!
Meyerowitz said, “Photography looks like pictures but it’s really ideas, and they’re really your ideas.” I keep trying to photograph ideas but it’s pretty hard.
That's a great quote!
Great subject. The discussion of the intersection of AI and photo creation blew me away.
Cools. And thanks for watching :-)
AI has lulled our brains to sleep. When I hold my Rolleiflex in my hand I feel my soul awakening. Like being allowed to climb on the climbing set again, instead of just looking at it. (I’m 63 years old, but you get the point)
Excellent video, thank you.
I'm one of few,who never use RAW, Photoshop, Adobe, Lightroom etc! The joy of making images, perfect! Ari, you are my Saturday gift! Usually! U use cameras I never touch (anymore). They are all to big and heavy! Holga not for me! Your photos, methods are super. AI is on my laptop. I hate it! It's mean and horrible and only function to sell things or services.. NB Leica uses AI in it's lens links for much needed lens corrections..How good will those lenses be, if program stopped? My cameras are all Old! I do use tiny digitals a lot! It's a weight thing! Being 80 is cause of going lighter! All the best! Again BRAVO!
Awesome. Thanks!!!
The great Ansel Adams' description of the negative as the score and the print as the performance, his chosen subject previsualized and captured with a large format camera in b&w, the composition. This to me demonstrated his attitude towards the amazement of extraordinary photography. And I'm appreciative by lovely performances of music by the great Richard Strauss, played with attitude. Bravo!
Hola Ari! Hoy, con tu video, me has hecho pensar y darle una "vuelta de turca" diferente al proceso de crear una fotografía. Gracias por tus aportes! Saludos desde el Sur de Chile!
Excellent! Thank you for your comment. South of Chile must be an excellent location for photography! :-)
@@ShootOnFilm Indeed! It is a wonderful region, full of photographic possibilities.
Ive just come back to your channel after you took your summer break and I have had a busy fall so far. This was really great. I have so little interest in AI but I like how you used the prompt idea as a way to improve one's approach. I was out in the rain visiting my son in Montreal last week and really wanted that dark, muddy look so I shot my Holga in the rain and pushed Kentmere to 800 in Rodinal to achieve my moody day. Lots of imperfections but I had a few shots that hit what I had in mind. I'm sure I could achieve it digitally but I don't have an interest in playing with it on a screen. Interacting with these materials is just fun.
Brilliant. I could not agree more. We are going to have to start calling you "doctor," for Doctor of Photographic Philosophy.
Ha haa ... a doctor -- but not the kind of doctor who can help people :-)
I love the concept! I take photographs to remember memories, but my intentions are very basic, at least I feel that way. I need to put more intention to make me feel what I remember. Now, just have to be aware of my intentions! Thanks for a great video!!!
Awesome!! Thanks for watching!
Maybe this idea of reclaiming our intentions is one of the factors in the renewed interest in analog photography. It certainly is for me. It doesn't even have to go as far as AI generating an image based on our briefly described idea. We've been using in-camera technical assistants to "fix" our technical issues for years. Smile detection on... My point is to agree with yours, when we rely too heavily on tools to make our photos more "perfect," we give up control of the results we might want. Mistakes and outright failures can open doors to new ideas that are better than the ones that didn't work.
Thanks Ari!
I totally agree!
Agreed fully. As a photographer and painter, I see that the prevalence of cliche or trendy images makes the truly creative art really attractive to passers by. Even choosing to shoot in black and white is in itself something that makes people look closer. Tack sharp is so normal now that any blur suggests incompetence, but we who know, know. True art is appreciated when encountered.
I totally agree. I'm thus not at all worried about AI. Also, my daughters (20-something) both shoot on film as they don't want the shiny, sterile stuff.
@@ShootOnFilm as a landscape artist I see it every day. Artists following trends and not doing very well. We creators of art/photography must buck trends and stick to our passion of making things that are real. Love what you do Mr Jaaksi. Always stop what I’m doing to watch your newest posts.
Always very good stuff. I was especially amused with the last still and music of the boat on the lake. It wrapped up your concept precisely.
@@johnstringfellow5097 I love to make those piano parts 🙂
I take “shiny” snaps with my iPhone and on the same bicycle ride some not-so-shiny monochrome photos with my Fuji! Today, the autumn foliage near Montreal is very colourful so plenty iPhone snaps on my ride but I also took the time to capture some B&W images … it’s all good! Thanks for another great video … the boat pics were excellent. 🚴♂️⛵️📷🙂 PS: Also sprach Zarathustra … very nice!
Well said. We also have marvelous foliage up here. I even loaded some color film into my Hasselblad.
I love those dark and moody sunset shots!!! I found that actually capturing what your mind's eye sees is the biggest challenge that I struggle with.
Thanks thanks. That is my struggle, too! But it is very rewarding to work in it!
Thanks Ari. Sounds like you have a lesson in Ansel Adam’s previsualization technique. He was a big proponent of deciding what you wanted to reveal about a subject before you go about making the image. Of course one part which you demonstrated but really didn’t discuss is just how much you need to know about the craft in order to be able to convert what’s in front of the camera to what is in the final photo to achieve what you previsualize. It is truly a great lesson. Thanks.
Thanks thanks. Yeah, you need to know the media and the tools. But even if you don't master them 100%, you can aim at creating your own vision of the outcome. And work towards it. And by doing so, learning!
Great video as always
Thanks for watching!!!
Never given it a though before........Photographed what I liked and thats it. I started photography in the late 1940s.......Must think more beforehand ............😀
I know what you mean. I may be the other extreme. To me, my subjects are secondary. Disposable raw material :-) (Well, not all, but you get the point ...)
Another wonderful video! Thought provoking with excellent photographs to match the theme.
Thanks, thanks! And thanks for watching!
Very well spoken. And yes, I want to create an image of what I see, and can make it through the craft of using my camera. If I would like to make images with "prompts" I would write words in a book. 😊
"If I would like to make images with "prompts" I would write words in a book." That's an awesome sentence!
Thank you very much for showing your videos each saturday and for your thoughts in this interesting video! You explained the process perfectly! By the way I just bought a restored 80 mm for Hasselblad 500 CM from Kamerastore in Tampere! 😊 Kind regards from Sweden!
Thank you for watching!!! My lens is also from Kamerastore :-)
Thank you for discussing this subject of AI. I like the way you synthesise the two sides, i.e., what lies in front of the camera and what lies behind, if anything 🤔 😅
Thanks!! And thanks for watching!
That was heavy for a Saturday afternoon :) Really interesting to break photography down into that equation of human input and subject. I find that the older I get, the more I reject technology. My new camera is over half a century old and artificial intelligence terrifies me. Maybe soon I will be using wet plate collodian!
I'm right behind you!!!
I used to use a glass plate quarter square camera...Made you think before taking a picture as you were really limited in the number of plates carried! and for a youngster..expensive.. but happy days without deep thought
Right on song Ari! The fatigue of bright packaging and imperfect vs flawless. I recently entered a local photo competition (didn't feature but thats alright) and was amazed that the winning shots not only were easy to take photos of iconic tourist locations but so sharp and photoshopped they looked more at home on a cheesy calendar or biscuit tin. The road less travelled to imperfection is much more interesting. Thanks as always for your inspired videos.Cheers!
Yeah. I have the same experience. The worst competitions/exhibitions/books are those where the pictures were selected by popular vote. Democracy may be the best way to govern but the worst way to make art!
Excellent! This idea is what Ansel Adams was also talking about with pre-visualization. Something that, I agree, is probably not used enough by most photographers. Basically I think I usually use it, just not consciously. In other words, I see a subject or a scene that attracts me, and then I execute the mechanics to capture it, hopefully in a way that would support my executing the pre-visualized image in the final print, but without really thinking about the whole process. I take your intent, and completely agree, that we (I) should probably consider or think more about the print we want to end up with before we press the shutter release. Thank you for another thought provoking video.
Yeah. I think you should not make it always mandatory or something that would make you afraid of pressing the shutter, but ... i think its worth thinking about :-)
@@ShootOnFilm You have such an arsenal of cameras to choose from, do you find that your pre-concieved image dictates or influences your choice of camera? Certain cameras lend themselves to achieve certain types of images and thus 'force' the choice. An obvious example might be a Holga for a soft, moody image with few sharp details of the subject.
Another video which makes me think about about, and or analyze, what I'm doing with the process of my photography .....
I hope that's a good thing :-) Thanks for watching.
AWESOME! Thank you!
Thank you for watching!
Another’Blad man! Recently picked up a 553ELX + 50mm; owned 500CMs in the 80s-90s. Haven’t rolled any film yet- and I literally still have 120 film stock from THEN!
The old stuff is DIRT CHEAP…and in my case, Mint condition. ALL the film formats/cameras VERY affordable.
Lesson, kids: the tools are cheap, the output not so! Film, processing, contact sheet, scanning, and…maybe prints. Cost PER shot is insane…which is why if you’re not into boats and private planes, your black hole is….film photography! Join me.
That's technology for you - as manufacturers keep tinkering with it, there comes a time when the tech becomes too bright and shiny for its own good. Especially with fully automated devices all the photographer can do is push the shutter. The perfect Kodak moment has become all to true.
So true. It has become a nightmare. People do not know what nights look like. Or northern lights. Or rainy days. Or wrinkled skin. Everything will soon be made of red and white plastic.
I always enjoy your videos!!!
Thanks thanks!! Thanks for watching them!
It's a fascinating topic.
Thanks for watching!
Right on. To me, verisimilitude is boring. It’s three things to me: abstraction, abstraction, abstraction.
True. I also like obfuscation. :-)
So you have me thinking. As a perfectionist I'm rarely thinking about what I want to create and mostly looking take something visually pleasing and perfect. Often I am disappointed in my results. I can see where it would be really helpful to have more intention, which would lead to getting the results I want. I'm also not interested in AI images. But I wonder if creating some AI images would be helpful in building that muscle. Maybe, but I'm probably better served working on building some creative intent. This video is food for thought for me. Thank you.
I think I know exactly what you mean. Here is a suggestion: Go and take bad photographs. Do it for a day. It may help you :-)
There are always different levels of creativity: You can visit you nearest restaurant and choose a meal from their menu. But you might also visit a different city or even country to find a special restaurant that offers what you imagine. Or you can go out and buy the ingredients for a meal you imagine (either from a recipe book or your free imagination). Similar with pictures -- you can take a picture with a wide angle lens from your living room window or you can take a blank canvas and paint a picture from your imagination (and everything in between).
True. Emphasis on: And everything in between
“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” - Ansel Adams
Yep. That's what he said :-)
What is interesting is how the intention is built, its path. As I said result doesnt matter, result is an accident. With randomness and because what I see of the world, of a scene, in the viewfinder is not what I get on the paper or screen, this is why we still check the result in digital. There is something out of control even with intention. There is not only intention and subject, there is something else, we come from 3 dimensions to 2 dimensions, we remove something but something is added : imperfection. fail. I dont know what I want to say here.
But yes intention makes the difference between a photograph and a Photograph.
I'm not sure if I follow this all BUT, you made me think: what is the element of surprise, accidents and unintentional imperfections. When are they good and when are they bad? Gotta think a bit --- but thanks!!!
@@ShootOnFilm funny, I was thinking about this very recently. Same exact questionment
Let me add to this discussion w/a few examples and questions - What was Nick Ut's intention when he shot "Napalm Attack"? Or, Alfred Eisenstaedt's "VJ Day in Times Square"? Or, Ansel Adams' "Canyon de Chelly" I could go on and on but, hopefully, these examples make my point. In legal circles attorney's use the phrase "Res ipsa loquitur" which, loosely translates into "the thing speaks for itself". And this perspective and these examples resonate w/me as a photographer. The "feelings" or "intentions" inherent in my work are those of my subjects. My voice is INTENTIONALLY subordinate to that of my subjectsd. I am only the person who snapped the shutter at a moment. Certainly I planned, lighting, exposure, focus all considered, choice of film and optics but in the end -MY goal as photographer is merely to let my subject speak for itself. Perhaps that voice will not be appreciated or even understood by every casual viewer - but loudly and clearly, a message my subjects convey will bring smiles, perhaps a few tears or at the very least some wonderment to an audience (larger or smaller) for decades to come. Re AI, while I have not engaged AI as a creator of imagery, I have engaged ChatGPt AND Copilot in several simple Q&A and discussions of, arguably, some fringe topics BUT very much topics for which historical facts are readily available. A simply question I asked both several weeks ago was "What 6x6 camera offers autofocus?" Neither of these mechanisms identified Rolleiflex 6008AF as a solution and both apologized for this error of omission when I pointed it out. I have several other examples I can site but the point is that neither mechanism is, IMHO, a reliable source of truth and appear to have the research skills of a 6th grader. Both are making some serious and very rookie mistakes. I'm certain these mechanisms will improve in time - but I also have to wonder - in this online realm where so much disinformation exists and where reputation is that of bits and bytes which anyone can plagiarize for any purpose - how do THESE mechanisms differentiate fact from fiction? How do THESE mechanisms sieve sources into "reliable" and "unreliable" - AND if they DO possess such a filter - WHY ISN'T THAT MECHANISM PUT INTO PLAY TO BENEFIT ALL? (e.g., use that mechanism to curate reliable and less reliable sources). Thank you so much for your thought provoking discussions. I look forward to my Saturday mornings together with Ari, they are always a breath of fresh air.
Interesting.
I don’t know what was on their minds. But I can guess: Nick wanted to create a view against the cruelty of the war. A clear intention.
What comes to Ansel Adams' "Canyon de Chelly”, he had been looking for that view for a long time and had only one frame left to take it when the opportunity came. He was worried about running out of time - so he clearly had an intention to do what he did.
Then you said, “The "feelings" or "intentions" inherent in my work are those of my subjects. My voice is INTENTIONALLY subordinate to that of my subjects.” which is interesting. I’m the total opposite. To me, my subjects are raw materials for MY art. I’m not documenting, I’m creating. My subjects are secondary to me. It may sound harsh, but that’s how it is for me.
Then, if we think about how AI works from the technical and mathematical point of view, it will make mistakes. That is inherently built into it. It is not a fact checker or search engine and should not be used as such. But that would probably require more explanation than what fits here …. All they get their information from is the internet, which is all twisted, biased, and full of mistakes. Unfortunately.
For typical errors, such as how many letters r are in Strawberry, you also get a wrong answer, but that will be fixed soon. It is just that all that these large language modes do is guess the probability of the next word. So they are incredibly primitive still.
Thank you for your comment. I feel that even if we somewhere disagree, we agree :-) We’d need that more in today’s world!!
No doubt! We share a common journey and passion .. even if the beauty we each see is something different
Yes, you are right. AI is not a photographic creation, it is a visual creation made by sentences and paragraphs. 😊
Yes it is.
Maybe there’s a third element between intention and what’s in front of the camera- the thing that happens when a composition catches your eye?
Probably so. There is also an element of surprise and happy accidents. There is room for these all!
AI is a plagiarism machine. It has been trained on existing images or text. The people who created those images or text were not consulted or compensated. I like to see images created by people, and the less computers involved, the better. I'm just learning the process of darkroom printing, and my first print (a portrait of my wife) I was astonished at the difference between what Lightroom produced (so clear, so sharp, you could see where she's going to get wrinkles in 10 years, and showed age spots the eye can't see in real life) and what the print showed, a softer and more luminous image.
I personally have nothing against AI. I use it elsewhere a lot. Drafting presentations. Just today, I was asking for ideas for an essay. But, for me photography is holy. AI will not touch my pictures. And I will not use AI to create my pictures.
What comes to stealing work is a complex topic. AI does not copy -- it is a technical fact. It takes input and creates something new and unique based on that input. Just like a student of art after looking at the work of others. And I personally would gladly give all my work to train AI systems. Less shiny pictures ==> better AI images. :-)
AI... Ari Influenced , I think i might give that a try next time I am out with a camera.
:-) Go for it!
More abstract...
AI is like drawing, painting, 3D graphics... not photography of the real world. They are simulations, fakes, ... not meant here with any bad meaning.
Photography stays photography regardless how and how much it is processed by filters, coloring, B&W, cropping, dodging and burning, ...etc. *)
Where photography and photographers is -- from my point of view -- at a "question border"when you change shape of / edit the content (e.g. like by removal of content).
For me such "photography" is another category (not worse/better as others). You may call such "edited photography".
Everybody needs to define such borders for him/herself taking the picture intension / usage purpose into account.
*) For sure you can start to debate here also the next levels... up to: Is arranging a set to pictured not already fake? The answer has to be yes in some very 'hard core' documentary kind of photography. This is irrelevant for art, advertising, family photography, ... but key for e.g. archeology, war photography, ...
Though provoking as ever Ari.
Are “intentional” photographers at an advantage, being less predictable “statistical outliers”? Or will homogenisation, driven by AI powered groupthink, ultimately crush them? I’d like to think the former. 🤞
I want to live in a world where they are at a considerable advantage. I predict people will get tired of cellphone/AI/popular vote-castrated images fairly soon!
@@ShootOnFilm Amen to that. I am with you 100%
Hopefully, the more people understand how the sausage is made, the less they’ll want to eat it. 🙏
Whatever we "see" is subject to interpretation, is it not? We generally see things differently -- so, is there such a thing as a "realistic" and/or "perfect" picture?
I totally agree.
The advent of AI should give us some more scope in the Real World 👏