AI and Photography

[jsrockit]

Call it duck if you want. The situation remains the same.

What situation is that? That people are creating images with AI? Nobody has disputed that. What I am disputing is that it is photography or that people who enjoy doing photography will now just sit at a computer to make their images instead of using a camera (for non-commercial purposes).

"Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating durable images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film."

 

[boojum]

There are people not on this board. So how this small group of people is affected is not really important in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it can be debated how important AI is to "photography" but it is not unlike arguing the merits of various buggy whips. There will always be horse fanciers but the world is driving cars.

We have folks here still tracking down film, shooting it, processing it and printing it. And that's great, this is a mostly hobby site with some pro's. But I suspect that pro's send there stuff out to a pro shop for processing and printing.

But back to AI and photography, who knows how it will affect those on this board? There is autofocus, autoexposure and auto-everything. I do not remember when they were introduced but I bet there were plenty of naysayers. There are still naysayers of autofocus, sure they are faster manually. Yeah, right. How many pro's out there covering news do it with RF cameras? In the "git 'er done" situation it is auto-everything and it works because the success rate is higher. We may have to accept that photography is less a manual exercise than it was. And AI is already here in cameras in the form of autofocus and autoexposure, auto white balance and so on. What will be unfolding is the degree that AI will be involved in photography in the future and whether it will be embraced and if embraced by how many? That thing in your shirt pocket is chock-full of AI in its photgraphy/imaging software. And some of those phones can take amazing photos. With a lens smaller than a drop of water.

We may be fighting the last Luddite battles. The transition from "camera" to camera-phone has been discussed a lot and when the transition point will be. 35mm digitals may be the 35mm film cameras of tomorrow. This is all fluid. And it is happening fast. And you can be sure that other than the M-body folks at Leica the manufacturers have teams working on implementing AI. Why? Better batting average, i. e., better photos. And it can all be overridden for full manual should the user want.

So there are at least two tracks: 1) implementation in what is being made now and 2) generating images out of suggested text. The Pope in a white puffy jacket is an extreme but if a manufacturer can make you a "better" photographer to get an edge on his competitor he will. I see it as a question not of "If" but as "How." When? Now.

 

[jsrockit]

There are people not on this board. So how this small group of people is affected is not really important in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it can be debated how important AI is to "photography" but it is not unlike arguing the merits of various buggy whips. There will always be horse fanciers but the world is driving cars.

Well, not exactly.

We have folks here still tracking down film, shooting it, processing it and printing it. And that's great, this is a mostly hobby site with some pro's. But I suspect that pro's send there stuff out to a pro shop for processing and printing.

and artists.

But back to AI and photography, who knows how it will affect those on this board? There is autofocus, autoexposure and auto-everything. I do not remember when they were introduced but I bet there were plenty of naysayers. There are still naysayers of autofocus, sure they are faster manually. Yeah, right. How many pro's out there covering news do it with RF cameras? In the "git 'er done" situation it is auto-everything and it works because the success rate is higher. We may have to accept that photography is less a manual exercise than it was. And AI is already here in cameras in the form of autofocus and autoexposure, auto white balance and so on. What will be unfolding is the degree that AI will be involved in photography in the future and whether it will be embraced and if embraced by how many? That thing in your shirt pocket is chock-full of AI in its photgraphy/imaging software. And some of those phones can take amazing photos. With a lens smaller than a drop of water.

Now you are talking about how AI can affect cameras. That's a different topic.

We may be fighting the last Luddite battles. The transition from "camera" to camera-phone has been discussed a lot and when the transition point will be. 35mm digitals may be the 35mm film cameras of tomorrow. This is all fluid. And it is happening fast. And you can be sure that other than the M-body folks at Leica the manufacturers have teams working on implementing AI. Why? Better batting average, i. e., better photos. And it can all be overridden for full manual should the user want.

Could be... but again, my original point was based on the fact that you seemed to think that instead of using a camera, we'd rather sit at a computer and write text.

So there are at least two tracks: 1) implementation in what is being made now and 2) generating images out of suggested text. The Pope in a white puffy jacket is an extreme but if a manufacturer can make you a "better" photographer to get an edge on his competitor he will. I see it as a question not of "If" but as "How." When? Now.

Again... my only point is that using AI to generate an image is not photography in the traditional sense. It could very well kill the appeal of photography for the masses. That's ok. How it will affect cameras is another topic entirely. I think you are correct there...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I met Captain Grace Hopper, and handed her the "Manual of Operations" for the "Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator" to autograph for me. My copy is 16 of 258 published, SN in the book. I got it Library Surplus. She asked "where the hell did you get that, I wrote that book", then went down the list of names in the book and started telling stories about them. One would rewire the computer to make execution of his programs faster. That stuck with me...

My first real job was rewriting Atomic Structure Programs that were as old as I was to run on vector supercomputers. Back when 40,000 lines of code was a big program. Fairly soon I was writing Fortran programs to read Fortran programs and assist with the conversions by outputting Fortran programs.

George R. R. Martin also uses Wordstar. I use mine for writing code on embedded processors.

What the world really needs is lower-cost Polaroid Film. More kids would start shooting Polaroid if they could afford more film. Every time I bring a Polaroid to my Daughter's youth group, I get "will you take our picture". And of course the pictures go to the person asking. Photography is fun. Typing on a computer has provided a great career for 45 years. But- nothing replaces slowing down and taking a picture of something you find beautiful.

 

[Pál_K]

… There is autofocus, autoexposure and auto-everything. I do not remember when they were introduced but I bet there were plenty of naysayers. There are still naysayers of autofocus, sure they are faster manually. Yeah, right. …

@jsrockit made the comment earlier that some people make photos because they enjoy using cameras.

That’s true, I’m one of them, but I also enjoy making a good photo.

When autofocus arrived in the 1980’s, my reaction was to ignore photographic trends for the next 10 years and use just what I had. Today I see things differently, but I will say that I like manual focus because it lets me be more involved in the process of choosing where to focus and looking at depth of field while doing so. It’s like using a manual transmission on a car: sure, an automated transmission can shift faster, but it doesn’t provide the engagement, involvement, and satisfaction of doing it manually.

So the same is true of this AI strawman argument: those of us who enjoy the process of photography will continue to use the methods we always have - be it large format glass plate, film, or digital.

 

[Pál_K]

…
George R. R. Martin also uses Wordstar. I use mine for writing code on embedded processors.

…

Wordstar, eh? That is pretty fancy technology, sir.

I still use a typewriter. You never know when those electronic word processors will auto-correct your writing - even for embedded firmware…

 

[boojum]

I was and still am questioning the impact on photography as a whole and, yes, us as a subset. Following the manual involvement argument to its logical conclusion will lead back to camera obscuras with primitive image capture mediums. And my oft-used analogy of playing golf with a croquet mallet still holds. If that is fun for some folks, great, go for it. If camera obscuras, wet plate, large format negative or just plain 35mm film float your boat fine. I have paid my dues in 8 and 10 hour darkroom stints and have no desire to repeat that experiment.

The less time I am involved with processing the image after the shutter is pushed the more time I have to find and compose good images before the shutter is pushed. So now it becomes do you want to photograph inside or outside? Snapping time or developing and printing time? We each get to make our own decisions on this, there is no "right" answer and no cross to bear.

But, AI. It could come to pass that a new art form springs up involving some subtle and sophisticated image creation with a laptop not a camera. As photography is almost entirely electronic now just at what point does it become computer work and stop become "photography" as however you might wish to define it? Today's digital cameras are computers with a lens. The person generating some sophisticated images at his laptop may turn up their nose at those who point their computer at a scene, push a button and call it art, art better than that which took thought and reflection while at the keyboard to imagine and create a scene with text much as a painter can do with a brush. Hmmm. Now it is not so simple, is it?

This AI - image interface will unfold and grow and modify in the near future in ways we cannot imagine. But to dismiss it as not art is not much unlike the dismissing of photography by painters, way back when. We are looking at a new-born baby and trying to describe and evaluate where it will be as a young adult. Good luck. Regardless, it will be interesting, frustrating for some, rewarding for others but unnoticed by none.

"Oh, do not ask, 'What is it?'
Let us go and make our visit."

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Wordstar, eh? That is pretty fancy technology, sir.

I still use a typewriter. You never know when those electronic word processors will auto-correct your writing - even for embedded firmware…

View attachment 4819116

I Disassembled and HEX patched my Wordstar so it is tuned to me.
I can even call it from inside Fortran to use as an editor for data files.
I've used it since version2 on CP/m.

No one is dismissing AI generated images as a form of Art- but I do reject it as Photography. About the same as stating that Photography is really Painting.
Although I could see AI controlled Lasers used to expose film. It's been a while since I wrote code to control Lasers.

 

[boojum]

I pray this does not degenerate into semantics.

 

[Pál_K]

No one is dismissing AI generated images as a form of Art- but I do reject it as Photography. About the same as stating that Photography is really Painting.

That seems reasonable enough to me.

I used to go to car shows and, after choosing the angle and perspective of how I wanted to make the photo, I’d then have to wait and wait until people would get out of the shot - at least some people, like a guy with an obscene T-shirt. It was a frustrating and time consuming way of making photos, but it was my obstinate way of trying to get the initial image correct rather than edit it later. I made one photo of a friend’s car and then spent an hour editing out a distracting background and someone sitting nearby in a lawn chair. I’ve had a lot of experience in digital editing, so that was actually fun - making the final image look totally natural. These days, if I were making those or similar photos for a living, I’d use an AI tool where I could specify “remove all the people near the car.”

 

[wlewisiii]

I still have a copy of Wordstar 7.0D, the first software that I had bought legally after having pirated 3.3. I keep it running in dos box on my PC and use it occasionally. Most word processing I do in LibreOffice because I have to interoperate with MS Word 🙁

But honestly, the Wordstar commands have long since been overwritten in my brain anyway by the EMACS commands because I use that daily.

 

[wlewisiii]

No one is dismissing AI generated images as a form of Art- but I do reject it as Photography. About the same as stating that Photography is really Painting.

I do like this thought. You can get a nice oil paint starter kit on amazon for $80 too 😉

 

[jsrockit]

I was and still am questioning the impact on photography as a whole and, yes, us as a subset. Following the manual involvement argument to its logical conclusion will lead back to camera obscuras with primitive image capture mediums. And my oft-used analogy of playing golf with a croquet mallet still holds. If that is fun for some folks, great, go for it. If camera obscuras, wet plate, large format negative or just plain 35mm film float your boat fine. I have paid my dues in 8 and 10 hour darkroom stints and have no desire to repeat that experiment.

I agree, I have no desire to do darkroom work again. However, I have no desire to type out my images either.

The less time I am involved with processing the image after the shutter is pushed the more time I have to find and compose good images before the shutter is pushed.

To an extent, I agree.

So now it becomes do you want to photograph inside or outside? Snapping time or developing and printing time? We each get to make our own decisions on this, there is no "right" answer and no cross to bear.

Right.

But, AI. It could come to pass that a new art form springs up involving some subtle and sophisticated image creation with a laptop not a camera. As photography is almost entirely electronic now just at what point does it become computer work and stop become "photography" as however you might wish to define it?

When you no longer use a camera with an imaging capture device? Digital cameras still have an image capturing device. We still use them for straight photographs without huge manipulations that turn them from reality into fantasy.

Today's digital cameras are computers with a lens.

And an image capturing device based on light.

The person generating some sophisticated images at his laptop may turn up their nose at those who point their computer at a scene, push a button and call it art, art better than that which took thought and reflection while at the keyboard to imagine and create a scene with text much as a painter can do with a brush. Hmmm. Now it is not so simple, is it?

Nobody has said it cannot be art. It already is being used by famous artists.

This AI - image interface will unfold and grow and modify in the near future in ways we cannot imagine. But to dismiss it as not art is not much unlike the dismissing of photography by painters, way back when. We are looking at a new-born baby and trying to describe and evaluate where it will be as a young adult. Good luck. Regardless, it will be interesting, frustrating for some, rewarding for others but unnoticed by none.

"Oh, do not ask, 'What is it?'
Let us go and make our visit."

Nobody dismissed it as art. I just do not look at it as traditional photography by definition.

 

[boojum]

I hate for this to be bogged down in semantics. But, the root of the word is from the ancient Greek to write with light. There is no mention therein of cameras. But there go the semantics.

Rather, let's examine the effect of AI on the business of taking or making pictures, with or without a camera. AI is changing this and will further change this. Some folks will run an image through an editor and come up with a wholly artificial image, one with light coming from different directions and colors changing. And I have seen some of these efforts praised for what looks comic to me. Nothing in reality is reflected in the image. Just venturing into photo editing is venturing into AI. Whole layers can be removed, noise removed, dust removed, colors changed and, yes, even the perspective and horizon can be changed. But this is art? This is not AI? Really?

Adobe uses no AI in removing that high ISO noise? And HB with those sweet, clean high ISO images at one second shutter speed use no AI?

So when someone sits down at their laptop and creates a stunning image it is not art? Because they do not generate the original images? OK, suppose they work from a library of their own photographs that they run through an AI program to create a new image, is that art? Is it still a photograph? And if not how is it different from taking an image, layering it, and then editing the hell out of it to come up with an entirely new modified image using a current photo editor?

Rather than get bogged down in what is art, after all Van Gogh was derided as an artist and never sold a painting while alive, because that depends one someone's definition of what is art and that is just an invitation to fisticuffs, ear-biting and eye-gouging, lets just look at what AI can do for photography, what it is already doing and how that will change what we do. This is an exciting and unavoidable event. It is here, it is now. It is exploding. This is no time to ignore it. So unless we are 100% manual, like I was with my tiny Baby Brownie way back when, we are using AI in some form or fashion. Aperture priority on that Leica? Yup. And if anyone is using our current high-powered photo editors they are using AI. What is different is that ChatGPT-4 is on the scene as an AI stand-alone that can do so many things, and learn.

So, to me, AI is part of everyday life. What is different now is that it is out there as AI rather than being tucked into some other software as a feature or a purchased plug-in. So it is the question of is AI the problem or is ChatGPT-4 the problem?

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I am very alarmed over the potential for social manipulation. However, for myself and my own methods of image production (film), it doesn't matter a whit. Two separate issues.

 

[pgk]

AI probably may worries some authors too. Imagine a book written using AI. That said great books contain more than just words just as great photos are more than the sum of their parts. If AI ever manages to intrude upon this then we should all worry. The problem of course, is not whether AI can do stuff, but whether we are fed such stuff under the guise of being something it is not (photo realistic = photograph?).

 

[boojum]

AI probably may worries some authors too. Imagine a book written using AI. That said great books contain more than just words just as great photos are more than the sum of their parts. If AI ever manages to intrude upon this then we should all worry. The problem of course, is not whether AI can do stuff, but whether we are fed such stuff under the guise of being something it is not (photo realistic = photograph?).

AI is another tool, a dangerous one like a very sharp knife. As a very sharp knife it can do good or it can do harm. The same with computers, cameras and printing presses. It is in the wild now to a greater degree than before. We have CAD/CAM, our cars are run with computers as are our appliances. The technology has become evident to the world now. And we can fall into the Dunning-Kruger trap if we are not cautious.

We cannot stop it. It is out there. It will be taught to clone itself if is at all possible. Is it computer Covid or the cure for computer Covid? We'll see.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Colossus, the Forbin Project comes to mind. Also "War Games".

If ChatGPT asks if you want to play a game, do not ask "Thermonuclear war". Ask for Tic-Tac-Toe.
Then ask ChatGPT to compute the last digit of PI using override Archimedes.
Easier yet- run self-diagnostics in a loop. My favorite trick.

 

[Out to Lunch]

My pre-AI version was to ask the Mormon solicitors at the front door if god could create a stone he could not lift himself. Cheers, OtL

 

[Sonnar Brian]

AI probably may worries some authors too. Imagine a book written using AI. That said great books contain more than just words just as great photos are more than the sum of their parts. If AI ever manages to intrude upon this then we should all worry. The problem of course, is not whether AI can do stuff, but whether we are fed such stuff under the guise of being something it is not (photo realistic = photograph?).

Computers Are Writing Novels: Read A Few Samples Here

Alan Turing came up with the perfect test to see if computers can write real fiction.

www.businessinsider.com

C:\ChatGPT>"Naked Came the Stranger"