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

[Dean Wilson]

Most sky replacements I have seen look like they have been replaced. For my taste I'd rather work with the existing sky, the same as Only RF

 

[Only RF]

I can see huge benefit for commercial and working pros. If it's somethings hobby to replace and they enjoy it then it's all good. I think younger generations getting into photography will use it more. Since we are on favourite shots this may be my #1. We were in Portugal on a bus tour to Lisbon. We left in the morning and I could believe I did not have car so I could pull over. Fantastic morning mist all over the place. I put it in Servo and got this doing 60 mph. I think the dirty bus window helped.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[ACEkin]

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!
View attachment 19564View attachment 19565

The new sky introduced in the second photograph does not add much to the image. It may be possible to select the sky in the original photograph and tweak the tonality. You may be surprised how much information may exist there. What I described in the following article is now available in Lightroom without the multiple steps. But you can see the extra structure in the edited photograph. I have extracted sky tonal structures from images that looked almost like the first image. You may want to give it a try. Here is the article:

Curve adjustments, Lightroom Masks, easy, useful

You can bring the curve adjustments to lightroom masks if you take a few extra steps into camera raw and get back to Lightroom.

www.keptlight.com

 

[Dave Williams]

The new sky introduced in the second photograph does not add much to the image. It may be possible to select the sky in the original photograph and tweak the tonality. You may be surprised how much information may exist there. What I described in the following article is now available in Lightroom without the multiple steps. But you can see the extra structure in the edited photograph. I have extracted sky tonal structures from images that looked almost like the first image. You may want to give it a try. Here is the article:

Curve adjustments, Lightroom Masks, easy, useful

You can bring the curve adjustments to lightroom masks if you take a few extra steps into camera raw and get back to Lightroom.

www.keptlight.com

Thanks for the link. I don't have access to the original at the moment but when I do I'll give it a go. Must admit I can't get on with Lightroom and although there are advantages to using it I prefer Photoshop.

 

[mimigamez]

I think there are some fantastic uses for AI, I’ve been playing with AI to create different digital backgrounds. Haven’t used any yet, but it’s been fun. I’ve seen people create AI generated background and then print the backgrounds & are selling them. I’m not sure where the copyright lies, but I’m not going down that road.

What I don’t like are AI programs that change people’s appearance. I don’t like editing much, so a friend suggested I try one of them. It automatically smooths the face gets rid of blemishes but also changes facial features. It has sliders where you can adjust how much it changes, but the default is noticeable to the point that I found it to be a waste of money. It narrows the the face, enlarges the eyes, puts a smile on the lips, thins the nose and removes any undesirable features …. My friend is a very popular photographer with models, but when I’ve met the models some have been altered considerably and if he forgets to smooth out a body part or thin the body, they are upset about it. They are portraying a body image that isn’t real.

I guess for me, that’s where I draw the line. I don’t like to alter people’s appearance, but I don’t mine AI changing the scenery, yet I would hate to purchase a background that was AI generated instead of hand painted. I love seeing digital artist create and then print the background, or creating setups then photographing the setup to print as a background and of course I love hand painted backdrops but I’m finding that some of the new backdrops are looking more AI generated.

So for me, I will embrace some AI but I think it should be disclosed when it’s being used in photography.

 

[ACEkin]

Thanks for the link. I don't have access to the original at the moment but when I do I'll give it a go. Must admit I can't get on with Lightroom and although there are advantages to using it I prefer Photoshop.

You can do the same in Photoshop, either by opening the image in ACR, or directly selecting the sky. Photoshop is far more finessed than Lightroom. Curves, after selecting the sky would be my choice in Photoshop.

 

[ACEkin]

I wanted to follow up with a sample image where the original shows pretty much no detail. After opening it in ACR and selecting the sky, I made a few adjustments that can be seen in the screen captures. Following that, a little more global adjustments yielded the final image. The sky has not been replaced with anything new but edited to bring out the colors and tonal structure, maybe even a tad overdone. Larger images will show the adjustments, but not rocket science.

 

[ctitanic]

My friend is a very popular photographer with models, but when I’ve met the models some have been altered considerably and if he forgets to smooth out a body part or thin the body, they are upset about it. They are portraying a body image that isn’t real.

That's why I love wildlife photography, they never complain!

Family are even worse! I end telling them that I'm just a photographer not a plastic surgeon.

 

[Myles Baker]

That's why I love wildlife photography, they never complain!

Family are even worse! I end telling them that I'm just a photographer not a plastic surgeon.

I used to give my family SOOC jpegs & they were happy, now (as we've gotten older & for want of a better word, saggier) its always "can you remove the wrinkles. They are so used to seeing the heavily smoothed images from smartphones. Me, I like my wrinkles, its taken many years & a lot experiences (some good, some not so) to get them and I wouldn't swap that for anything (well maybe a few inches off the waist, less of a double chin & fix up the teeth

 

[Photofarmer]

in

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

in awe nothing like shooting storm and seeing what ya got later literal shooting gallery some nights

 

[pauliusm]

They say an image is worth 1000 words...

 

[Archibald]

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.

Back in the early 1990s, photo editing with programs like Photoshop was coming in big. I was in a camera club at the time. The president was a guy who was intensely competitive and also very articulate, but not computer-savvy at all. He could see the power of photo editing, and saw that as a threat to his success in photo competitions. So he got the club to ban photos edited on computers. It was declared as unfair.

It was a lot easier to ban editing than to learn editing.

One way of dealing with new technology is to avoid it. This happened too when Kodak replaced professional CPS negative film with VPS. Before the change, some pros filled their fridges with the old film.

New technology sometimes fails, as quad audio did when it tried to replace stereo. You have to use some judgement and pick the right horse to win.

But AI is here to stay. I'm using it by default in Lightroom and sometimes use ChatGPT, but have not tried creating new images from text prompts. I'm probably behind, but for now I don't see the point. That might be showing my own shortcomings. Many of the best real photographs are made with previsualization, and that applies to text-to-image AI processes too. I quite like the images created by @Chris Summers using AI.

 

[MrSparks999]

I think Pro photographers should be worried, especially product and model photography. It is now easier and cheaper for companies to use AI to get the images they want. I am just an amateur and take my pictures for me, so i am not worried at all by AI.

 

[BasilFawlty]

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.

I’m not a big fan of regulation, but in this case I feel it is warranted. There needs to be serious consequences for anyone creating a video of another person that reports them saying something. They did not say or doing something they did not do. In my book it is no different than slander.