The Future of Photography??

I suspect it'll lead to all sorts of legal issues at some point in time Copywrite of something created by a computer. Two people using similar images might get the exact same result (I'm guessing)
I can see the point of say noise reduction learning, but once it starts adding skys or mountains I'm out. Come back film, all is forgotten :).
 
A few thoughts...

I've said before on here that we are reaching a point where everything "worthwhile" has already been photographed and there will be a future where you can simply download a collection of images of a scene and use AI to composit them into any photograph that you want from the comfort of your arm chair. Imagine perfect snaps of your trip to New York without having to take a camera with you ... or even go there at all.

That will be some people's hobby, much as painting by numbers is a hobby. Most people though like the performance of a pastime as much as the end result, people also like a challenge and to develop and grow their skills. People still use film because they like the challenge and performance of that method, people still paint pictures, people still walk when they have cars.

The idea that the new replaces the old seems to be a perennial misconception, the new adds to the old, chemical photography did not replace painting, digital photography did not replace chemical photography, AI generated photography will not replace digital photography.
 
sirch said:
The idea that the new replaces the old seems to be a perennial misconception, the new adds to the old, chemical photography did not replace painting, digital photography did not replace chemical photography, AI generated photography will not replace digital photography.
Click to expand...

I see you point but photography or at least getting good images used be seen as a black art practiced by people with a lot of interest/ knowledge/skill in the subject but we are getting to the point where any knowledge or skills will not be required, thus photography will no longer be seen as and art form requiring skill or knowledge so photos from anyone still practicing it the old way will be lost in the mire of Key board heroes images and not appreciated at all. The usual response now when someone sees an image of mine and likes it is wow you must have a good camera not wow you good at that ( not for a second saying I'm particularly good !)
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
I see you point but photography or at least getting good images used be seen as a black art practiced by people with a lot of interest/ knowledge/skill in the subject but we are getting to the point where any knowledge or skills will not be required, thus photography will no longer be seen as and art form requiring skill or knowledge so photos from anyone still practicing it the old way will be lost in the mire of Key board heroes images and not appreciated at all. The usual response now when someone sees an image of mine and likes it is wow you must have a good camera not wow you good at that ( not for a second saying I'm particularly good !)
Click to expand...
I think you might be confusing art with craft, as well as opening up a debate on what a "good" image is.

I know that centuries ago, the two were interchangeable, but today, "art" is about unique vision or seeing the world in ways that others don't. To show insights about the world that might pass others by. To capture and share an insight, emotion or message about the world that has value to others. The "craft" is the practical skills needed to make the art.

By making the craft easier, you make being an artist more difficult and challenging, simply because the poorer artists having nothing to offer beyond being good at their craft (which is not without value). The poorer ones will fall by the wayside (lost in a mire of images not appreciated at all) and the better ones, the ones with artistic merit, will continue to thrive and be appreciated by a knowledgeable minority.

Most everyday appreciation of "art" is really an appreciation of craft. And that will continue, in the same way we still appreciate traditional craft skills (e.g.thatching, hand made shoes, or wet plate photography), but, today, these are the exception rather the norm.

The "good camera" comment isn't new. There is the story of Cartier-Bresson being asked what camera he used, because the questioner wanted to buy his son the same camera so he could take photographs like Cartier-Bresson.

Of course a good artist needs enough craft to make their art in the way they want it made, but "the craft" is not "the art". Good artists shouldn't be threatened by AI (or other technology) but grasp it as a new tool or medium that might open up new opportunities to better express themselves.

I like this quote from Ansel Adams (which I've posted a few times before)

“In electronics, the technology we have now can do far more than film. As the world’s silver resources are depleted, these new technologies are particularly important… Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics . Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again”

Ansel Adams Playboy interview May 1983.

P.S. There is an argument that the craft becoming easier might allow some great artists, who would otherwise have struggled to master the craft, to find a voice.

While I instinctively believe you can have craft without art, but you cannot have art without craft, I'm not entirely sure this is necessarily correct.
 
I was more so referring to what is known as the art of photography rather than art it's self,. The art of photography as you say being more really a craft which I agree with Graham. The Ansel Adams quote proves he was either a very intelligent man to see exactly what was coming or maybe him being regarded at a very high level allowed him to see forth coming technology that was not seen by the many.
 
I think the first image looks more "organic" or authentic. The second looks better in superficial "wow look at me" kind of way. The AI will get better at emulating the original look but I think there will always be an appreciation of the original. A Turner painting is a blurry mess but there is a whole wing of a gallery given over to him.
Caravaggio used to paint "local" and "tourist" versions of the same scene. The local one having more muted natural colours, the tourist more garish in comparison. So I feel if you are to nail a "photo" to your wall it needs to he more than attention grabbing for a few moments you are going to live with perhaps for years. I'd rather have an artisan product than a page torn from a magazine or printed from silicone dream sequence. It just feels more authentic.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
I was more so referring to what is known as the art of photography rather than art it's self,. The art of photography as you say being more really a craft which I agree with Graham. The Ansel Adams quote proves he was either a very intelligent man to see exactly what was coming or maybe him being regarded at a very high level allowed him to see forth coming technology that was not seen by the many.
Click to expand...
Adams worked with the very earliest digital camera prototypes that Kodak developed.

As to the "art of photography" I think this may depend on how you define the art of photography. Given my craft without art but no art without craft belief, I see the art of photography" as implicitly meaning "The art and craft of photography".
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
we are getting to the point where any knowledge or skills will not be required,
Click to expand...

Are we though? The real skill in photography always was an always will be light and composition; cameras, lenses and software might get better but none of those improvements will fix basic issues with light and composition in the original scene, silk purse from a sow's ear and all that.
 
Photography is a medium, not an art. Just as paint is a medium. You can make art in any medium, or a combination of media, and without great technical skills because it's the ideas and personal vision that are more important.

But there are more uses for photography than making art. For example it can be used to make evidential pictures for science, archeology, prosecution. In that guise the craft skills are very important.

In other areas you can make pictures which are evidential and also have an artistic intent - that's the way much contemporary documentary photography is made.
 
myotis said:
While I instinctively believe you can have craft without art, but you cannot have art without craft, I'm not entirely sure this is necessarily correct.
Click to expand...
A lot of innovative art has been created by people using technology which is too new for anyone to have developed a 'correct' way of using it. Particularly electronic music making. Experimentation generates creativity. The same can apply when taking up a new medium for the first time, when you don't know the 'rules' of its use.

“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”
Pablo Picasso
 
Ed Sutton said:
A lot of innovative art has been created by people using technology which is too new for anyone to have developed a 'correct' way of using it. Particularly electronic music making. Experimentation generates creativity. The same can apply when taking up a new medium for the first time, when you don't know the 'rules' of its use.

“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”
Pablo Picasso
Click to expand...
While believing my statement is a good generalisation. My hesitation in it being some sort of absolute rule (I'm not keen on any absolutes) was thinking about an artist becoming aware of a mediums potential, and producing worthwhile work, before necessarily mastering it. Edit: when I say mastering I mean "fit for purpose" ie mastered sufficiently to achieve what the artist wants to achieve.

As an aside, while I think I know what you mean by "rules", as a more general point I've always thought the duty of art was to "ignore" the constraints of rules and take a medium to places it had never been before. This is one of the most exciting things about art, even if I don't always understand or appreciate where its been taken.

I know that this isn't necessarily what happens in practice e.g. The slowness of establishment acceptance of the Impressionists, or in the UK, the Glasgow school or the Colourists. But in art don't the rules eventually follow the practice, rather than the art being constrained by the rules.
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
Edit: when I say mastering I mean "fit for purpose" ie mastered sufficiently to achieve what the artist wants to achieve.
Click to expand...
(y)

Learn as much technique as you need and 'near enough is good enough' have always been my working methods!
myotis said:
But in art don't the rules eventually follow the practice, rather than the art being constrained by the rules.
Click to expand...
Some conceptual art depends on the creation of a set of rules to follow!
 
myotis said:
That's interesting, can you give an example.
Click to expand...
A simple example is my own Gone Out series.

The 'rule' was; take one photograph of every dry patch caused by a car keeping rain off the ground on a walk from home to the village Post Office and back using the camera in Auto mode. I didn't pick and choose the most photogenic dry patches, I had no control over focusing or aperture. The idea was the work. If it works as a series of pictures, or any individual pictures work on their own, wasn't what it was about. It was chance that there were 20 patches. If I had known this, or planned in advance, I would probably have shot for redundancy - taking one vertical and one horizontal picture of each patch in order to make a grid, or just for consistency. But I didn't. I framed each shot in the orientation which immediately felt right.
Gone Out

A more complex example (which is where I first became aware of the idea of setting rules before making work, or creating systems, to make work) is Brian Eno's Music For Airports. Wikipedia has a brief description of the process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_1:_Music_for_Airports#Recording_and_composition

Some more here - https://reverbmachine.com/blog/deconstructing-brian-eno-music-for-airports/

Using systems or 'rules' takes some of the control out of the artist's hands, relying on chance to create the unexpected. Something frowned upon by a lot of hobbyist photographers and 'Sunday painters'!

Edited for spelling...
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
A simple example is my own Gone Out series.

The 'rule' was; take one photograph of every dry patch caused by a car keeping rain off the ground on a walk from home to the village Post Office and back using the camera in Auto mode. I didn;t pick and choose teh most photogenic dry patches, I had no control over focusing or aperture. The idea was the work. If it works as a series of pictures, or any individual pictures work on their own, wasn't what it was about. It was chance that there were 20 patches. If I had known this, or planned in advance, I would proably have shot for redundancy - taking one vertical and one horizontal picture of each patch in order to make a grid, or just for consistancy. But I didn't. I framed each shot in the orientation which immediately felt right.
Gone Out

A more com[plex example (which is where I first became aware of the idea of setting rules before making work, or creating systems, to make work) is Brian Eno's Music For Airports. Wikipedia has a brief description of the process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_1:_Music_for_Airports#Recording_and_composition

Some more here - https://reverbmachine.com/blog/deconstructing-brian-eno-music-for-airports/

Using systems or 'rules' takes some of the control out of the artist's hands, relying on chance to create the unexpected. Something frowned upon by a lot of hobbyist photographers and 'Sunday painters'!
Click to expand...
Ah, OK.

I think we are using rules in a slightly different way.

I am thinking of "rules" that hold back the progress, change, and development of art in a more generic, establishment led way. While we need rules on some things, e.g food standards, highway code etc. I was suggesting that the excitement of art is the lack of these universal rules. Even though there are some individuals who seem to have their own rules on what they expect art to be, artists should be free to do what they want to.

Setting personal constraints (rules), and "creating" circumstances that can generate serendipitous results, I see as ways of encouraging, exploring and developing personal creativity.
 
myotis said:
Setting personal constraints (rules), and "creating" circumstances that can generate serendipitous results, I see as ways of encouraging, exploring and developing personal creativity.
Click to expand...
And the breaking of 'rules'?

In my series I was breaking the golden 'rules' I've read on here of always being in control of focus points, shutter speed and aperture in order to be creative. More than once I've seen comments railing against letting cameras select focus points. Although these days a lot of people seem to be lost unless their cameras have face and eye detect focusing! :LOL:
 
Ed Sutton said:
And the breaking of 'rules'?

In my series I was breaking the golden 'rules' I've read on here of always being in control of focus points, shutter speed and aperture in order to be creative. More than once I've seen comments railing against letting cameras select focus points. Although these days a lot of people seem to be lost unless their cameras have face and eye detect focusing! :LOL:
Click to expand...
I'm actually rather keen on learning your craft, but nothing to do with rules and everything to do with giving you the freedom and confidence to make choices.
 
myotis said:
I'm actually rather keen on learning your craft, but nothing to do with rules and everything to do with giving you the freedom and confidence to make choices.
Click to expand...
I've always liked making it up as I go along. :D
 
Will we need a camera in the future?

Interesting article in the FT this week. AI is everywhere.
Not sure if this link will let you read the article but give it a try.
Financial Times

One of the hottest startups they mention is a company called midjourney.

Here is their site

Mid Journey

Their AI bot takes text input and creates an image based solely on what you type.

It's not easy to actually get access as you need to be on Discord, but I managed to finally get in and use their free service.

You have to begin your text with /imagine and then enter your own words.

So I entered /imagine sailing boat as a test.

This is the initial 4 images it generated:

wornish_sailing_boat_e388010c-0f32-49d9-9adb-44a8014cd923.jpg



You can select one and upscale it to get more detail.

This is the result.


wornish_sailing_boat_85c3e806-4533-4c0a-a93b-acc5a577d6ed.jpg

Pretty amazing stuff.
 
wornish said:
Pretty amazing stuff.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that but I can just imagine the gleeful rubbing of hands among lawyers contemplating copyright disputes galore! :naughty:
 
It is amazing. That's actually a very pretty image. But a photo it ain't. If this stuff becomes mainstream photography will be dead. Because the whole point of it is getting out there and seeing it with your own eye. It's rather sobering to think that the images AI produces will be done without any feeling or artistic interpretation.
 
Plain Nev said:
It is amazing. That's actually a very pretty image. But a photo it ain't. If this stuff becomes mainstream photography will be dead. Because the whole point of it is getting out there and seeing it with your own eye. It's rather sobering to think that the images AI produces will be done without any feeling or artistic interpretation.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. But I fear it's coming.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I suspect it'll lead to all sorts of legal issues at some point in time Copywrite of something created by a computer. Two people using similar images might get the exact same result (I'm guessing)
I can see the point of say noise reduction learning, but once it starts adding skys or mountains I'm out. Come back film, all is forgotten :).
Click to expand...
You are way out of touch. When researching the history of my camera club we found a poster for a lecture on how to change a sky in a landscape shot. This was in 1928 long before digital cameras. Ansel Adams also changed skies and modified skies using chemicals. Having said that I am not keen on changing skies, and it rarely produces the ideal effect.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
You are way out of touch. When researching the history of my camera club we found a poster for a lecture on how to change a sky in a landscape shot. This was in 1928 long before digital cameras. Ansel Adams also changed skies and modified skies using chemicals. Having said that I am not keen on changing skies, and it rarely produces the ideal effect.

Dave
Click to expand...
Was it the tweed Ulster coat, swordstick and deerstalker hat that gave me away?
 
swanseamale47 said:
Was it the tweed Ulster coat, swordstick and deerstalker hat that gave me away?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was the misunderstanding of what you wrote. ;)

There's little or no relationship between combining two pictures (whether digital or bromide based) and the consequences of letting lawyers loose on the potential for algorithms to "create" more or less identical images.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Well, there is no 'right' way to do things. ;)
Click to expand...
....Absolutely! :agree:

To quote a famous professional surfer: "There are a million ways to surf..." :

Croyde happygrom.jpg

^ ^ ^ She is a beginner aka a Grom.

I don't think that we should worry about the future of photography and I even believe that the massive use of mobile phone cameras serves to keep it all alive. Although I detest using them because I prefer to aim and fire through a viewfinder!
 

Attachments

  • Croyde happygrom.jpg
    Croyde happygrom.jpg
    128.5 KB · Views: 1
Plain Nev said:
It is amazing. That's actually a very pretty image. But a photo it ain't. If this stuff becomes mainstream photography will be dead. Because the whole point of it is getting out there and seeing it with your own eye. It's rather sobering to think that the images AI produces will be done without any feeling or artistic interpretation.
Click to expand...
.... But AI can be merely used as one of many tools available to the author when post-processing RAW images.

AI also can save loads of valuable workflow time in the tedium of manually creating masks (in ON1 2023). No-one has to use it but it can be very helpful in creating your final picture. Taking a photograph with a camera is merely the first (essential and fundamental) step.

I shoot any number between 200 and 2,000 RAW images a week every week and greatly value what AI can offer in my post-processing workflow. It even comes down to just using ON1 Resize AI because a customer wants a giant print for a wall.

I shoot on OM System Pro gear (Olympus).
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... But AI can be merely used as one of many tools available to the author when post-processing RAW images.

AI also can save loads of valuable workflow time in the tedium of manually creating masks (in ON1 2023). No-one has to use it but it can be very helpful in creating your final picture. Taking a photograph with a camera is merely the first (essential and fundamental) step.

I shoot any number between 200 and 2,000 RAW images a week every week and greatly value what AI can offer in my post-processing workflow. It even comes down to just using ON1 Resize AI because a customer wants a giant print for a wall.

I shoot on OM System Pro gear (Olympus).
Click to expand...

I think you have a point. There's a compelling argument for its use in a professional capacity. But, for every professional there is likely to be a hundred people who had a terrible holiday and want an imaginary photo of how they imagined it to be. The trouble is, as I see it, it's distorting reality. They will forget the bad weather and look fondly on the fantasy.
 
Plain Nev said:
The trouble is, as I see it, it's distorting reality. They will forget the bad weather and look fondly on the fantasy.
Click to expand...
That's the "When I was a kid it was always sunny and only rained on the days when I wanted to stay in and play with my train set" syndrome. :naughty:
 
Plain Nev said:
I think you have a point. There's a compelling argument for its use in a professional capacity. But, for every professional there is likely to be a hundred people who had a terrible holiday and want an imaginary photo of how they imagined it to be. The trouble is, as I see it, it's distorting reality. They will forget the bad weather and look fondly on the fantasy.
Click to expand...
.... I am not a professional and personally I don't think it matters what any snapper does with a camera or, more likely, a mobile phone camera. Why should we care if someone else distorts their reality. A certain amount of fantasy is healthy IMO [says Robin who lives in a bubble].

I occasionally, not often enough, sell my photos as either Giclee prints or digital files and so I may be described as 'semi-professional'. But I am a 'retired-but-hardwired' art director and all my photography is primarily for me as a challenging pleasure.
 
As my brother used to say

"We all go to hell in our own way - and it's got sod all to do with you!"
 
I started to read this but could never get away from the need for a hobbit to have been caught in Mike's first image.....then we would have a future right?

Do you guys overthink stuff? ;)

Sorry:LOL:
 
adrianday said:
Is today's AI capable of capturing the human condition? So much of what I've seen seems to be beautifully rendered computer generated art, much as you'd see on a modern video game. Is it capable of capturing emotion? Can today's computers generate anything close to something like this?


Portrait by Adrian Day, on Flickr
Click to expand...
.... Your comment suggests that you may not fully realise how AI can be a very real aid in enhancing or even amplifying the emotion a photographer captures on camera and consequently wishes to convey. AI is simply another tool in a photographer's arsenal.

Furthermore, AI can greatly save time in post-processing and can be fine-tuned manually anyway (in ON1 RAW 2023). And of course you don't have to select any AI options at all.
 
adrianday said:
Is today's AI capable of capturing the human condition?
Click to expand...

That's really a different, though parallel, subject. The AI that the OP, Mike, was telling us about is used for enhancement. It's up to the photographer to identify the human condition and decide whether AI enhancement adds or takes away from the image he is crafting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top