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

[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!

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 118.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 1600

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 118.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[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.

• Canon EOS 5D Mark II
• 24.0 mm
• ƒ/13
• 8 sec
• ISO 100

 

[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.

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 400

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 400

 

[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!