AI and Photography

PaulDalex

PaulDalex

Dilettante artist
Local time
6:49 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
693
Hi all,
Recently I read that DPreview has awarded a (Google) smartphone, which uses AI to improve the result when you take a photo. Already Luminar uses AI to apply various effects to a photo.
If these are the harbingers of a pervasive trend in future cameras or post production means, well for me here I see in them another good motivation to return to film.
I will never accept AI (or perhaps should I say AS - Artificial Stupidity) hijack my creativity.
My photos, for good or bad, must be he result of my own talent and technique, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the creative process, let alone to introduce horrible and kitsch effects to "improve" a photo.
As long as AI is used to improve AF it is fine for me (BTW I use AF very little). But please take its hands off my photo work.
What is your take?
Cheers
Paolo
 
I respect your point of view but you present a rather bleak orthodox perspective regarding 'creativity'.
nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the creative process
Click to expand...
If that is so, perhaps you should give up on photography altogether and focus on other creative activities...have you considered finger painting?
 
Pistach said:
.......
My photos, for good or bad, must be he result of my own talent and technique, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the creative process, let alone to introduce horrible and kitsch effects to "improve" a photo.
...
Cheers
Paolo
Click to expand...

I'm trying to get over that exact thing. I want good glass, wide angles without distortion, dang I've been spoiled (thanks Pres. K). I see many companies making adjustments in their cameras for this. Part of me say No, No, NO. I love my CV, Nikkors and others, I don't like Clippy doing stuff for me, I don't want it in my camera.

Then I think about auto-correction, punctuation that on my iPhone makes my life easier (Single quote is on a different keyboard from letters). I feel like a Luddite (no offense to our friends across the pond) even though I loved my Ricoh GR (first auto everything film camera). I switched from a Vivitar 192 to a 283 and found to accept auto flash exposure. I've accepted and am love my new to me iPhone 7 Plus (still a lot to learn) as the automation on my olf 5 gave me some picture I never would have gotten my with Leica, Nikon, or Bessas.

I'm OK with it as long as I can over-rule or turn it off. Rather like shooting Raw and/or JPEG.

Trying to move into this century.......

B2 (;->
 
Pistach said:
I will never accept AI (or perhaps should I say AS - Artificial Stupidity) hijack my creativity.
Click to expand...
Why? Might be a stretch, but it can be seen as saying I don't need ABS, traction control, GPS and many other electronic aids cars have now. AI isn't that intelligent, but just a series of trained algorithms.



It of course depends of what. If what you are referring to is "Night Sight", which is a smart multi exposure blend for improving low light photography a lot... I welcome computational advancements as this can be the difference between no or bad shot to a nice snapshot.




OTOH I am much more indifferent to other smartphone AI applications in daylight photography.
 
Prest_400 said:
Why? Might be a stretch, but it can be seen as saying I don't need ABS, traction control, GPS and many other electronic aids cars have now. AI isn't that intelligent, but just a series of trained algorithms.



It of course depends of what. If what you are referring to is "Night Sight", which is a smart multi exposure blend for improving low light photography a lot... I welcome computational advancements as this can be the difference between no or bad shot to a nice snapshot.


OTOH I am much more indifferent to other smartphone AI applications in daylight photography.
Click to expand...


Hmm I didn't do research but took the OP's word that this is about AI manipulating the resulting photos, dunno, auto color and contrast enhancements and such?

If so, the automotive equivalent isn't ABS, traction control etc, which aren't "intelligent", it's a car that does the accelerating and braking by itself and the driver only needs to steer (~point the camera). Now that would be convenient for travel if it worked safely, but would anyone be interested in this in car racing, i.e. an activity done for its own sake? No.
 
We've had it for years haven't we? I remember a film P&S that looked at the scene and then compared it with a database and adjusted accordingly. Just don't ask me what camera.

And my little Trip 35 started it by sulking if there was too little light...

Regards, David
 
I'd say it's merely a choice around automation. I love shooting in manual mode on all of my cameras, but on some occasions, I prefer using Aperture Priority. In making that choice, I would say that there's plenty of calculation and automation going on to help create my properly exposed image, but I'm making a choice here to eliminate some of my own authorship for the sake of convenience. I don't necessarily see that as an elimination of my own creativity. I love the manual process of digital and film, but each has it's own level of analog and simplicity, depending on what you choose to prioritize.

Additionally, there was a time a few years back that I went to such extremes as to try my hand at wet plate collodion, which was so fun and exciting, creating not only the image but the emulsive surface on which to expose the image. This process requires attention at all levels, but in the end, it is very tedious, so automation (read AI) is sometimes a much more efficient way to progress despite eliminating some direct control.
 
slantface said:
I'd say it's merely a choice around automation. I love shooting in manual mode on all of my cameras, but on some occasions, I prefer using Aperture Priority. In making that choice, I would say that there's plenty of calculation and automation going on to help create my properly exposed image, but I'm making a choice here to eliminate some of my own authorship for the sake of convenience. I don't necessarily see that as an elimination of my own creativity. I love the manual process of digital and film, but each has it's own level of analog and simplicity, depending on what you choose to prioritize.

Additionally, there was a time a few years back that I went to such extremes as to try my hand at wet plate collodion, which was so fun and exciting, creating not only the image but the emulsive surface on which to expose the image. This process requires attention at all levels, but in the end, it is very tedious, so automation (read AI) is sometimes a much more efficient way to progress despite eliminating some direct control.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Choices abound, and it's never been a better time to be a photographer, in my opinion. One can choose from high automation to purely manual, even coating one's own emulsions if one wishes, and everything in between.

I would only be upset if not given a choice. I have often heard angry diatribes against digital cameras in general and digital SLRs in particular, where a person angrily asserts that the camera 'forces' them to use forms of automation they do not want, or 'forces' them to chimp the screen, or 'forces' them to machine gun one photo after another instead of taking slow deliberate shots. Funny, my DSLR can be set to M and then I set the focus, the aperture, the shutter speed, the ISO, and of course I frame the shot and take the photo myself. In what way was I 'forced' to do anything I didn't want to do? Of course, sometimes I like to use AF, AE, and hammer away like a mad thing. Nice to have a choice, IMHO.
 
AI is not automation. AI's purpose is to mimc human behavior and intellegence

AI abounds in all forms of data processing and analysis.

Digital imaging and data processing are intertwined. We record data and then computational models are used to convert the data into information – in our case an image. Sometimes the rendering model parameters are thoughtful and purposeful. Sometimes they are not.

The tone-mapped HDR fad is an example of primitive AI. Most people (judging by the results) just clicked on automated presets that maximized tone-mapping effects. They didn't think or create. They just relied on the intelligence of the tone-mapping algorithms.

Modern AF (face-detection for instance) is a primitive form of AI.

A significant amount of AI is present in Adobe CC. Recently Adobe announced Adobe Sensei technology. Adobe's marketing materials state – "Amplify Human Creativity with Artificial Intelligence". Most of Adobe's Sensei efforts are focused on providing CC users with customer data analysis. But their Sensei AI engine is also used in LR CC for facial recognition and in PS for subject selection.

As with all technology, the issue with AI can be summarized by the 1943 is a Louis Jordan song, "Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Baby". Will people use AI well or badly in their photography. The answer is probably both. Misuse is not an AI issue, it is a human issue.
 
Pistach said:
Hi all,
Recently I read that DPreview has awarded a (Google) smartphone, which uses AI to improve the result when you take a photo. Already Luminar uses AI to apply various effects to a photo.
If these are the harbingers of a pervasive trend in future cameras or post production means, well for me here I see in them another good motivation to return to film.
I will never accept AI (or perhaps should I say AS - Artificial Stupidity) hijack my creativity.
My photos, for good or bad, must be he result of my own talent and technique, and nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the creative process, let alone to introduce horrible and kitsch effects to "improve" a photo.
As long as AI is used to improve AF it is fine for me (BTW I use AF very little). But please take its hands off my photo work.
What is your take?
Cheers
Paolo
Click to expand...

So far, AI in phones has been pretty transparent. It is only allowing for bokeh effects (which you do not need to use) and for extended dynamic range to combat the tiny sensor (which can be turned off too). The results of the HDR effects just end up looking like a normal photo... it is not doing anything for you other than preserving highlights.
 
I have no problems with AI becoming creative. I have a problem with it becoming dangerous. But hey, look at humans! We're the most dangerous species on the planet. We gas hordes of folks, blow them up with bombs, torture and kill them in the name of nation security (or worse, in the name of our gods), commit genocide, slaughter countless sentient beings for sport or to eat their bodies, drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations, destroy and pollute the earth's surface, air, climate and water....how could AI be any worse? It's not rational to call any of this creative. Let the robots and computers run things. We've had our day in the sun, and failed miserably. It's time to turn it over to someone or something else. Go Robots! Give me an R! Give me an O! And so on. It's past time for the next evolutionary step.
 
bmattock said:
Remember filters? Dodging and burning? Solarization? We've never been about pure anything.
Click to expand...




So important to remember this. Manipulation (and selfies!) has been the order of the day since the very beginning. And considered an integral part of creativity.
 
Thanks you all.
Very interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Wijninga, you guessed it right.
When I was young I tried to paint, but I gave up because I had too little time left by my job to learn the technique and reach satisfying results
Of course in my post I was referring to the scenario where one has no override.
And I was referring to such examples as the AI skies or light rays provided by Luminar in post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom