Will images created with AI replace photography as we know it?

[Chris Summers]

This is a big topic with a lot of opinions but I figured I would start a thread here in the Open Talk Forum. Recently I got accepted by Adobe to be in their beta testing for Adobe Firefly which is their version of "text to image" AI generation. For those that have somehow missed out, you type a detailed prompt of what you want and the software creates an image or in this case 4 images for you to look at. Since it is beta testing I have the option to express my approval or disapproval and even more specifically what I liked or didn't. As a beta tester I get to try it for free but Adobe will probably sell it later on, perhaps it will be part of one of their plans and be available with Lightroom and Photoshop or as a separately priced plan.

Here is the way I view AI. It's coming whether we like it or not. In fact it has been a part of most editing programs to some extent for a long time. Ever use the Auto button in Lightroom? That's AI that moves all the sliders. Or use a program like Topaz Photo AI and it analyzes the image and suggests corrections for noise and sharpening as well as allowing you to multiply the pixels for a higher resolution image. A while back Photoshop added Neural Filters where AI is used to colorize B&W image, shift focus in existing shots and other things. And now you can lift cheekbones, change a frown to a smile and the color of hair on a model. It's all AI.

Way back at the dawn of photography most artists such as painters, sculptors, etc. said photography was not art but a process, they said it took no talent. Over time that was proved wrong. I can remember when a lot of film photographers said digital was not real photography. And a lot of folks still think an image straight out of their camera is better than one edited in post processing. Which is funny because if you shoot Jpeg images the camera makes adjustments using AI to create the image you see. There is also a whole other argument over copyright infringement when AI copies a famous photographers style. Adobe Firefly by the way only uses its own stock library as the source for what is created so at least that solves that problem. If this kind of AI creation gets better I see it being used more in advertising or by ad agencies as they create storyboards or layouts to present to clients, in the past they hired illustrators, now they will just become the illustrator through the computer. 20-30 years ago the abundance of stock photography images did cut into many photographers work because it was cheaper and faster to just pay for a stock image then pay for a photographer to go to a location and take pictures. But it didn't replace photography.

So I won't argue on the ethics or artistic merit as it is a controversial subject. But I will tell you what I have learned. For the most part these AI text to image generators are not really that good at making pictures yet. More like photo illustrations. They seem to be very good at creating images that have a Sci-fi futuristic look like a city on a planet with moons floating overhead. They are good overall at faces. I think that is because faces often are common in stock libraries. Appendages like hands, fingers, legs, etc are pretty bad a lot of the time. You often get an image of a person where the face it not bad but the hand has 7 fingers or a horse has 6 legs.

Silly or odd prompts seem to do well, probably because they are creating an image we would never see in real life. Here are a few from the last week or so. The prompt I gave is the title of the image I created. I think you can do up to 200 words but mine were pretty simple. Don't ask me why I thought of Jesus on a cell phone!

 

[dmanthree]

No. I guess I'm old-fashioned and prefer photos of real things and people. Journalism, portraits, events, sports, etc. Ai can't touch those. I really have no use for any Ai generated images.

 

[MikeZ]

Don't be so sure about how good AI is, or will be. You have heard of deep fakes - AI created videos that you can't discern from reality. There was one of President Obama floating around the web a couple of years ago. It was clearly him and his voice, though the content was just as clearly not something that he would have said publicly as president. How soon will we see similarly created videos of sports, journalism , human events, etc.

After 40 years in IT and technology I personally don't like what AI is bringing us, and see parallels to HAL from "2001 a Space Odyssey" which makes me leary of this tech. It can and will be used for good, but it has the ability to be morphed into something else. Pretty soon, seeing will NOT be believing.

 

[Only RF]

Don't be so sure about how good AI is, or will be. You have heard of deep fakes - AI created videos that you can't discern from reality. There was one of President Obama floating around the web a couple of years ago. It was clearly him and his voice, though the content was just as clearly not something that he would have said publicly as president. How soon will we see similarly created videos of sports, journalism , human events, etc.

After 40 years in IT and technology I personally don't like what AI is bringing us, and see parallels to HAL from "2001 a Space Odyssey" which makes me leary of this tech. It can and will be used for good, but it has the ability to be morphed into something else. Pretty soon, seeing will NOT be believing.

It's coming and fast. Within 2 years there will be videos of politicians, celebrities, etc saying whatever they want and you won't know if it really them or not.

 

[Only RF]

No. I guess I'm old-fashioned and prefer photos of real things and people. Journalism, portraits, events, sports, etc. Ai can't touch those. I really have no use for any Ai generated images.

Me neither but AI is already writing poetry, music. etc. I worked in print media and in the early 80's the 4 colour strippers in the pre press department said they would never be replaced. One day Photoshop showed up at the door.

 

[StevenAunan]

I, too, worked in print media before Adobe PageMaker and Photoshop took over, and I don't see a return to vacuum enlargers, hot wax machines, and proportion wheels. But there's already movement toward things that are old, tried, and true. Vinyl albums, vintage clothing and pyrex, for instance, are hot items among a certain younger crowd. I also think there will always be a market for art that is known to be created by humans. AI might even accelerate the thirst for truth in a world where grifting influencers tell us, with a straight face, that their forgeries are real.

 

[Only RF]

I, too, worked in print media before Adobe PageMaker and Photoshop took over, and I don't see a return to vacuum enlargers, hot wax machines, and proportion wheels. But there's already movement toward things that are old, tried, and true. Vinyl albums, vintage clothing and pyrex, for instance, are hot items among a certain younger crowd. I also think there will always be a market for art that is known to be created by humans. AI might even accelerate the thirst for truth in a world where grifting influencers tell us, with a straight face, that their forgeries are real.

Yes I have read about that with the younger crowd. I’d like to be a fly on the wall watching them sitting around a dial phone trying to figure out how it works.

What really blows me away is we watched huge industry rise and fall in our lifetime. I still remember the first movie I popped into my brand new VCR and how awesome that was. Road Warrior. Later it was the bi-weekly trip to Block Buster, eventually going DVD and one day it was gone.

I have all my CD’s and DVD’s to charity and I have no devices to play them anyway. We only one 3 movies via Prime. The extended Lord of the Rings series. Around every new year my wife and I watch them.

 

[Only RF]

I, too, worked in print media before Adobe PageMaker and Photoshop took over, and I don't see a return to vacuum enlargers, hot wax machines, and proportion wheels. But there's already movement toward things that are old, tried, and true. Vinyl albums, vintage clothing and pyrex, for instance, are hot items among a certain younger crowd. I also think there will always be a market for art that is known to be created by humans. AI might even accelerate the thirst for truth in a world where grifting influencers tell us, with a straight face, that their forgeries are real.

I just remembered. Until a few years ago when we sold our house I had a ½ dozen lead bars left over from the typography era in the garage. They used to be handy weights in the trunk of my rear drive vehicles in the winter.

 

[Myles Baker]

AI will change things more for proffesional photographers, but less so for enthusiasts for whom the act of capturing the image is as important and rewarding as the image itself (at least for me). My biggest concern with it is deepfakes and how that affects news & disinformation as opposed to how it affects my photography.

 

[Only RF]

AI will change things more for proffesional photographers, but less so for enthusiasts for whom the act of capturing the image is as important and rewarding as the image itself (at least for me). My biggest concern with it is deepfakes and how that affects news & disinformation as opposed to how it affects my photography.

That is a very good point. I personally will never replace a sky but that is me. It is what it is when I took it. The only AI I take advantage of is NR and some sharpening. I will use Topaz Sharpen AI if I really need to. I pre-cull using Canon's DPP so most OOF files don't make it LrC. Even the ones that do don't often get used.

I will use masking to fine tune the subject and background exposures a bit but I try not to. I use masking a lot for my B&W conversions. I may not replace the sky but I there are any clouds I'll contrast it, etc to death.

Here Jan culled 18,00 files (wow) and had 3,000 left. Then he really plays around to bring the colours out. Not AI but just edging examples. There are strait out of camera enthusiasts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa4oFkqpba8

This shows Topaz Photo AI which I removed from my OS since Adobe Denoise was released. Like I said I kept Sharpen AI around. I have thing for Spitfires. I got to this model airplane show just as it was finishing so I was a hurry to set up.

 

[MikeZ]

I agree with your statement, but I don't confuse AI for denoise, masks, sharpening and the like, as these are tools that improve the image and not create the image. They are akin (mostly) to what a master developer would have done in a wet darkroom. I don't want to re-open the discussion on what digital tools do and would Ansel Adams have used them since this is an AI thread.

BTW, I think that the above photo is a P40 Hawk/Warhawk/Tomahawk in pseudo Flying Tiger paint. The hump over the engine nacelle helps to identify it. Also, the shark mouth was something that the AVG started to use in China around 1940 while flying for the Nationalist Chinese and General Chiang Kai Shek.

 

[Only RF]

I agree with your statement, but I don't confuse AI for denoise, masks, sharpening and the like, as these are tools that improve the image and not create the image. They are akin (mostly) to what a master developer would have done in a wet darkroom. I don't want to re-open the discussion on what digital tools do and would Ansel Adams have used them since this is an AI thread.

BTW, I think that the above photo is a P40 Hawk/Warhawk/Tomahawk in pseudo Flying Tiger paint. The hump over the engine nacelle helps to identify it. Also, the shark mouth was something that the AVG started to use in China around 1940 while flying for the Nationalist Chinese and General Chiang Kai Shek.

Well said about improving and not creating. I like that. Thanks for the heads up on the plane. I guess I have to open encyclopedia and do some studying. Watched a documentary on the Battle of Britain and I assumed it was a Spitfire.

I read all of Ansel's books and spent a lot of time dodging and burning. About 10 years ago in Toronto we seen his show. I walked up to a large poster sized print of Moonrise over Hernandez. I asked if the would take a cheque. They told us it was priceless. When we were in Santa Fe we drove to Hernandez and found the spot where he took the shot. I'm a bit of a fan.

 

[Only RF]

Has anyone seen this?

Adobe Firefly: Family of New Creative Generative AI Models

Adobe Firefly is Adobe’s family of new creative generative AI models. It is initially focused on the generation of images and text effects, but looking forwa...

www.youtube.com

 

[CrashPC_cz]

Of course it will substitute some content. But people still have hobbies, people want memories, and people want to document stuff.

Many of us value the process, not the outcome.

 

[Dean Wilson]

Here's mine using Image Creator...and a little editorial comment.

 

[Only RF]

Here's mine using Image Creator...and a little editorial comment.

View attachment 16506

Lol

 

[KEN_A]

No I don't think so. It's a tool that should be used sensibly. I've recently been scanning some slides getting on for 50 years old and they have not faired well with time. This is where some AI has come in real handy to recover the damage. I've never used sky replacemenrt as yet. It depends on are you trying to reproduced what you saw and took an image of or tuning it into an artistic result.

 

[PhotoJim58]

I dearly hope not but I think it will have a severe impact on the art.

 

[ACEkin]

AI-generated images will explode, that's for sure. A friend sent me one he found on FB showing Rembrandt and Mona Lisa's old "photograph" this morning. However, will they be "photographs" is another question that I explored in a three-part article? The main article separates the qualities of photographs and contrasts them with the AI-imagery. Also important is the distinction between the "creation" and "modification" or editing of images. The core idea is "light" being the sine qua non in "photos" "graphos."

AI vs Photography, is the fear of replacement real and magic

Much has been written, discussed, and argued about AI replacing photography and photographers. I have participated in some of these discussions by writing or

www.keptlight.com

The other two articles summarize my conversations with chatbots on this issue. Surprisingly, AI chatbots may be more willing to call a spade, a spade. I would like to hear your thoughts here or as comments on the article which may benefit other visitors.

 

[ctitanic]

I saw the other day some real pictures edited using AI (no details were given about what was changed) and what I saw were pictures only comparable to heavy photoshopped pictures. A local photographer making a living would have hard time trying to replicate something like those pictures in his studio. So I could not stop thinking that AI could potentially give a advantages to those that are not good photographers but good using a PC. And that's sad.

 

[Normware]

I saw the other day some real pictures edited using AI (no details were given about what was changed) and what I saw were pictures only comparable to heavy photoshopped pictures. A local photographer making a living would have hard time trying to replicate something like those pictures in his studio. So I could not stop thinking that AI could potentially give a advantages to those that are not good photographers but good using a PC. And that's sad.

I do see a difference between using AI to edit/clean up a photo and using AI to generate a photo. I think using AI for editing is similar to using any tool. Generating an image solely from "text" is a different animal. It is totally a creation, almost similar to a painting. A painting is what an "artist" interprets as to what he/she "sees". Is it "real" ? Is it any different from an AI generated image? Before mirrors were commonly available or even invented(?) people did not know what they looked like, unless they could afford to have their portrait painted. Even then it was/is an interpretation of what the painter thought they looked like, not an exact representation.

AI is not any different from any other advance of technology. Before calculators be able to use a slide rule was a skill allowing a person to do high level math. With the advent of the scientific calculator, there was no more need for a slide rule. Now with SIRI/Google/Alexa , you can just ask for the solution

So yes a "bad" photo can be easily saved with the AI editing. What I see is photo competitions / websites putting in rules/limits on what can be entered/posted. No exif data... no entry or posting. Or perhaps a limit on the amount of AI editing. Like a limit of 30% editing, and has to be calculated by the software. Maybe blockchain on the original image that has to be carried through the editing process. Every-time it is edited the blockchain contains that data.

 

[Delbert]

Playing with the Beta version I found useful for expanding a background. The original image left the subject to close to the edge. The background was a bush with flowers. Expanding the edge nad generating fill created an image where I could not detect real from fill.

 

[Bert-63]

the act of capturing the image is as important and rewarding as the image itself (at least for me).

Perfect.

 

[Dave Williams]

I saw the other day some real pictures edited using AI (no details were given about what was changed) and what I saw were pictures only comparable to heavy photoshopped pictures. A local photographer making a living would have hard time trying to replicate something like those pictures in his studio. So I could not stop thinking that AI could potentially give a advantages to those that are not good photographers but good using a PC. And that's sad.

I wonder if the artists of bygone days said exactly the same about someone who couldn't master a paint brush but could handle the complexities of a camera?
For me personally the thrill is capturing an image, particularly as my passion is wildlife, rather than tiresome post processing to tweak the image.

 

[Dave Williams]

I recently saw someone had won first prize ( worth a lot of money too!) in a magazine photo competition and I would swear that the sky was a photoshopped version. I haven't been impressed with the sky replacement but seeing that I decided to try again and used a similar subject and sky as the winning shot.
I'll leave you to decide!

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[MikeZ]

Before making any comments on the sky replacement, let me say that I like the original photo, even if the sky is burned-out. To me, the elephants are the subject and the rest is somewhat incidental.

As for the sky replacement, the clouds belie the shadows created by the elephants and the brightness of the image. The doctored image seems odd and I wonder how something like that could have passed the scrutiny I'd expect in a judged competition. Sad to say, but I'm sure this sort of manipulation will become much more common in the future.

 

[Only RF]

That is great looking shot and if you didn't tell anyone no one would know. I have not replaced a sky nor do I plan to. For now I'm going to stay with the being at the right place at the right time, even of it costs me money. I have no issues if someone else does it. It will be a challenge for photo contest judges.

This took me over 600 shots. We were on a trip and this storm came up. My wide went for a nap, I got a few beer, sat on the balcony and with my remote kept pressing the shutter for 6 second exposures. 2011 and I still talk about it today. For me a replacement would have been forgotten in a month.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Only RF]

I will go nuts to bring out what exists. Over 50 edits and a lot of radial and linear masking. This may be the same thing but it is still the original file. I have been doing this for decades. Did a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom following Ansel's teachings.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Dave Williams]

That is great looking shot and if you didn't tell anyone no one would know. I have not replaced a sky nor do I plan to. For now I'm going to stay with the being at the right place at the right time, even of it costs me money. I have no issues if someone else does it. It will be a challenge for photo contest judges.

This took me over 600 shots. We were on a trip and this storm came up. My wide went for a nap, I got a few beer, sat on the balcony and with my remote kept pressing the shutter for 6 second exposures. 2011 and I still talk about it today. For me a replacement would have been forgotten in a month.

View attachment 19588

Now that is a cracking shot! I'm with you that getting the image is as memorable as the end result. The adrenaline rush when you see what you have on the rear screen is something not everyone experiences!

 

[Dave Williams]

Before making any comments on the sky replacement, let me say that I like the original photo, even if the sky is burned-out. To me, the elephants are the subject and the rest is somewhat incidental.

As for the sky replacement, the clouds belie the shadows created by the elephants and the brightness of the image. The doctored image seems odd and I wonder how something like that could have passed the scrutiny I'd expect in a judged competition. Sad to say, but I'm sure this sort of manipulation will become much more common in the future.

All the signs that it wasn't the original image in the competition were there. Shadows ( as in mine) and a some of the colours of the sky had changed the appearance and colour of the trees on the horizon ( as it has in mine too when you look in the distance above the baby elephants.) The results were published on Facebook and a couple of people questioned that the shot was photoshopped whereas the majority posted the usual banal "awesome". The result stood as far as I'm aware. What was interesting was that the rules didn't mention altering images but it did say they had to have been taken within a specific time scale which the sky may well not have been!