The Ramifications of AI on Photography

[Merv (Mervin Rosenquist)]

I just want to throw out a different way of looking at AI imagery, and this is in part from the discussion in the podcast on AI and part of it comes from my life career as a builder.

Imagine that the pieces (or pixels) in AI imagery as billions of individual pieces of building material, e.g., one piece is a spruce 2x4, another piece is a fir 2x4, a red brick, a brown brick, a square brick, a roof shingle, a floor tile, etc., etc., etc.,
Think of each individual piece of building material having millions of variations in color and texture.

Now, think of those individual building materials being put together by a carpenter and brick mason in a very unique way.
Now realize that the next carpenter and brick mason may use identical building materials to build a completely different structure that has a completely different and unique look because those materials were put together in a different way (arranged differently).
Now realize how many unique homes and other buildings there are in the world.

AI imagery uses billions of variations of individual digital building materials (pixels) that can be put together in a unique way just like carpenters and brick masons do with the exception that it’s done via computer algorithms instead of being put together in a physical way.
AI has to use those building materials in a way that will fit together coherently, much in the same way that carpenters and masons have to do.

It’s an extremely simple way of looking at it but that’s what it boils down to in my mind.
It may be a very bad analogy but it’s the way I see it at the moment.

I can’t count the number of times I had a customer say: I want this feature built into my house (while showing me someone else’s house), then they show me another house and say: And I want that feature as well.
Some said that they wanted their house to be exactly like someone else’s house (you’d be surprised how many people do that) and there are no laws broken by doing so.
There are rules about using someone else’s building plans but no laws against making your own that look “almost” just like theirs.
The architects say: What’s the chances that we will be sued for creating almost identical drawings, especially if there are a couple of things different and if the colors of the brick and paint are different?
For better or worse, it’s reality.

Just my thoughts on the matter, AI is here to stay and I’m sure it won’t end with AI as we know it today, even that will evolve into something unimaginable at some point.

The one thing that sticks in my mind is that we as people want the experience of being out in the world using our view finders and shutter buttons no matter how easy AI becomes.

[Larry_Greenbaum]

@Matt_Payne

Originally published at: . You can remove any tags you do not want to be notified about under the Watching First Post section. These are broken down by genre, so if you only want to get notifications about landscape, macro, etc., you can do that here.

Thanks, Matt for your extensive and thorough article. I’m not too worried about Ai created images as one person said - they look like comic books.

I am concerned about Ai software like that of Topaz Labs. Topaz has done amazing work with Photo Ai and their individual products, but I find it necessary to not accept the Ai generated model without first making some manual tweaks to find the amount of sharpening, noise reduction, or enlargement that works best for me. What’s your take on Topaz-like software? Thanks, Matt.

[Matt_Payne]

@Larry_Greenbaum

What’s your take on Topaz-like software?

Thanks for checking out the article, Larry.
I guess I’d say I’m not too “concerned” with AI-driven photo editing software at this stage - heck, Lightroom is AI-driven for a lot of the workflows most of us use.
I think Topaz is pretty clunky still, and I personally don’t use it “much” as I’ve rarely had great results with it.
The AI systems I personally think are concerning are those used by Luminar which basically just edits the photo for you and gives folks the ability to drop in sun beams and new skies, etc. It doesn’t “worry” me except that it just cheapens photographs that actually capture those types of awesome things and makes “epic” more ubiquitous, which for me just makes nature photography look cheap to outsiders.

I have very strong opinions on those sorts of things

[Egídio (Egídio Leitão)]

@Matt_Payne

Luminar which basically just edits the photo for you and gives folks the ability to drop in sun beams and new skies, etc.

I use Luminar Neo occasionally, but I’m concerned that those edits are destructive. So, if I use Luminar Neo, it’s often on a copy of my files. As for those sky replacements they do, my biggest pet peeve is that folks do not even take the time to relight the scene. They end up with a beautiful sky with the sunlight coming from one direction and the shadows being entirely wrong. Please don’t get me started!

[Larry_Greenbaum]

@Matt_Payne

…se used by Luminar which basically just edits the photo for you and gives folks the ability to drop in sun beams and new skies, etc. It doesn’t “worry” me except that it just cheapens photographs that actually capture those types of awesome things and makes “epic” more ubiquitous, which for me just makes nature photography look cheap to outsiders.I have very strong opinions on those sorts of things

Thanks, Matt.

[LensAfield (Len Romanick)]

@Kerry_Gordon

I’ve been hearing a lot about A.I. generated photography lately

This kind of statement is exactly the kind of thing we need to avoid making while confronting and correcting such statements whenever and wherever we see them. Politely counter with:

AI generative imagery is not a photographic process; it does not produce photographs.

I have stated this on at least a dozen sites so far where I have seen statements equating AI-generative illustration with photography. I just learned today that someone removed my comment and blocked me for saying what I said above. I can still see what he writes. He posted another gem today using the word photography at least 10 times. No one called him out for it.

Words usage and misuse matter. Descriptive dictionaries base their definitions on prevailing usage, not on actual, prescriptive definitions. I have spent over a hundred hours researching critical photography definitions. What I have found in statutory, regulatory, and case law is shockingly awful in many uses I have found. None of the critical terms we use are ‘terms of art’ in the legal field. Guess where the judges and lawyers will look for definitions?

This will become a critical legal issue in the future when IP statutes are revisited and case law begins to weigh in on this disruption. We need to get ahead of this. I haven’t done any shooting since January as I have been spending all my free time researching and working on this. Think about the consequences if photography and illustration are legally considered to be one and the same.

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Just two things - what Adobe calls Generative Fill does use photographs to alter photographs, so … I’m pretty sure it’s still a photograph.

Second - language changes. It’s just a fact. Trying to turn the tide on this is going to be an uphill battle if not an impossible one. I’d rather spend my time creating new and original work that pleases me rather than arguing about what its called.

[Matt_Payne]

@Kris_Smith

Second - language changes. It’s just a fact.

It’s not “a fact” at all- in fact, where one lands in this debate is fairly nicely explained through examination of where one sits in the “lumpers vs. splitters” continuum. I think this article will better help us all see how it’s not really a right vs. wrong thing at all. Hope you also enjoy the read, @LensAfield

http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Lumpers/splitters

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Really, Matt? Language doesn’t change? Why aren’t we all speaking like Chaucer then?

[Matt_Payne]

Language and definitions (how we classify things) are certainly different than the long-term evolution of language in general. You’re referring to things that happen over the course of a millennia, I’m referring to things that change in the course of a decade. How and why they change is quite different.

[Matt_Payne]

Furthermore, simply dismissing the differences between AI generative images or those that benefit from their implementation is about as nonsensical as dismissing the differences between a pencil and a Sharpee. As writing implements, you can write your name with them but that’s about as close as they are from a categorical perspective.

I also thing it’s dangerous and and insensitive to not examine the implications and ramifications that generative AI will have on photography, especially on those that derive their full income from it. It’s easy for someone that’s a hobbiest to not care but for those of us that use photography to put food on the table, it’s something to think about, from a multitude of angles.

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Are you addressing me, Matt? With your second post, in particular. If so, it’s presumptuous at the very least.

In terms of the first one, language changes come fast. Yes, my example is an old one, but just look at the word impact. It is now synonymous with affect. It wasn’t like that just a decade ago. Oh sure a few people used it that way, but now no one uses affect to mean what it means - everything is impacted now, not affected.

[Matt_Payne]

While it may not concern you, it deeply frustrates a lot of people (or maybe it does concern you but you feel resigned to the fact that you can’t impact it?). Whether or not you think those concerns are legitimate is perhaps a more fruitful direction of discussion, but I think some thought may need to go into formulating that response otherwise we risk of coming off as uncaring.

I find short replies that dismiss legitimate concerns about AI as flippant at best. Such as, “I’d rather spend my time creating new and original work that pleases me rather than arguing about what its called.”

While I agree that it’s probably an impossible uphill battle, I think just shrugging and moving on isn’t useful either as it relates to a discussion. And I also agree that our energies are generally best spent focusing on things we can impact; however, in this case, I don’t think it’s helpful to casually shrug off someone’s lengthy reply and/or argument so casually.

Then, I reply with a lengthy article that highlights the fundamental differences people have in categorization of things (which in my opinion succinctly and accurately showcases your position and Len’s position on this topic), and your reply was “really, Matt?”

Now, I might be over-reacting because I’m easily triggered by these topics and how readily some people can just ignore well-thought-out arguments that highlight the challenges and dangers these technologies pose on our artform (and the world in general), not to mention how it impacts some of our livelihoods… If that’s the case, just let me know and I’ll happily move on. I don’t mean to be callous in my response, and, I do find things like “language changes, it’s a fact” (which to me reads like, “who cares, move on” to be an overly simplified response to a complex issue. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way - and it’s my own sensitivities getting in the way here.

I also tend to agree with @LensAfield in that AI generative imagery is not a photographic process. I’m not sure why people who use a camera would ever defend it as such. Is it / can it be art? Sure. But there doesn’t seem to be any harm in trying to categorize it as something other than photography, at least for the benefit of the preservation of an artform we all seem to care deeply about. I personally like

This is probably not a great analogy but it is like telling a parent that lost their kid to an active shooter to stop caring about gun control because we can’t change it (which isn’t bad logic but its also not very useful in advancing the conversation or in acknowledging someone’s emotional attachment to an idea).

Lastly, yes, maybe I was presumptuous in my reply. I tend to simplify too when responses to arguments are short. Heuristics are one of the banes of the human experience, and I’m guilty of falling into that trap too. I apologize.

In regards to your latest reply, yes, language changes and can change quickly… but I’m not sure that’s a great argument for us to move on from wanting photography to have a more sacred definition within the art community. But again, I’m a splitter whereas I think you may be a lumper! =) When I first read that article it helped me so much in understanding why and how I’m the way I am and why others are not.

Again, I didn’t mean to cause you any consternation in my replies, and I’m guessing that wasn’t your intent either! =)

[Matt_Payne]

@Kris_Smith

language changes come fast.

BtW, if you enjoy examining how language changes and why, and more specifically certain phrases or words, there’s a wonderful podcast you’d enjoy:

‎That's What They Say on Apple Podcasts

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Well, I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one, Matt. You’re reading an awful lot into what I wrote and frankly, it’s pretty insulting that you think you know my mind on this and can put words in my mouth the way you did. All I said was that I’m going to keep doing what I do instead of arguing with the general public over word definitions. You fight that battle if you want. I’m leaving the subject now.

[LensAfield (Len Romanick)]

… to move on from wanting photography to have a more sacred definition within the art community.

I am addressing the community that should be most concerned, first. This is an issue that we need to address with the general —and generally disinterested—public. Generative imagery and photography must not be allowed to be blithely equated. The dictionaries will follow, validating and institutionalizing this misuse. Examples of such catechesis are easy to find (deliberately, politically motivated). And they occurred in much less than a decade.

This definitional subject WILL become a serious legal issue as lawsuits are already pending. We should anticipate potential Congressional hearings in the future on IP law that will directly affect the photography community whether or not some chose to pretend it doesn’t matter…until it does.

I will mention two very nasty little words of great consequence: fair use. This is and will continue to be a nightmare unless the artistic community gets its collective head together. The battles to come are our last chance to get some rewrites and sanity into IP law. It starts with fundamentals like defining photography, photographer, and photograph.

[Tom_Nevesely]

@LensAfield

I am addressing the community that should be most concerned, first. This is an issue that we need to address with the general —and generally disinterested—public.

My question is who exactly are “we”? Are the “we” all photographers? Or just a subset? I think that if you were to ask a documentary photographer what they would define a photograph as you’d get a different answer than if you asked an expressive photographer. There are so many photographers that I think it’s close to impossible to determine ONE definition for photography, photographer, and photograph.

One could argue that photographers need to unite but who is going to do the uniting and will everyone even want to be united?

Photography is still in the stone age compared to other creative pursuits with its recognition as an art form (or not an art form) even without AI being thrown into the mix.

@Matt_Payne

I also thing it’s dangerous and and insensitive to not examine the implications and ramifications that generative AI will have on photography, especially on those that derive their full income from it. It’s easy for someone that’s a hobbiest to not care but for those of us that use photography to put food on the table, it’s something to think about, from a multitude of angles.

I think that this is where we need to differentiate the amateur photographers – the ones that do this for the love of it from the professionals – the ones who do it for the money. I think asking amateur photographers to care about the implications of AI on photography as a profession if they don’t want to is quite frankly unfair. It’s not their obligation nor should it be.

If you use photography to make a living and want to keep doing it then it’s your responsibility to fight for it (meaning educate the public) or to adapt to the new trends. Either that or give up and do something else. It’s that simple. You can’t stop time or force a river to flow upstream. This is where the amateurs have it better because they can in effect stop time and keep doing what they want for as long as they want.