Great points Adam. As a serious hobbyist at the end of the day I do this for me. Capturing beauty helps me remember it, trains me to seek it, and incentivizes me to GET OUT.
fortunately, I am a hobbyist, and do not rely on photography to make a living. I will continue doing my thing. My current way of image making is to emphasize composition within the limits of the reality I am physically present in. When I process, I do minor edits a few tweaks, and minor crops. I constantly consume content on line by youtubers like yourself in an effort to improve my efforts. And I try to challenge myself by using a single prime lens, use fishing technique for street images, doing photo walks etc. I've dabbled with photoshop layering, luts and heavy filtering.. and i've grown past all of that. AI will definitely affect professional illustration for business purposes.. this will push people out of photography for business illustration.. but photography as a personal experience will remain.
Good insights. Another thing to take into account is the "memory capturing" ability of photographs. No one is going to want an AI generated image of their first wedding dance, or their favourite football team's winning World Cup goal, or their band's first/biggest concert etc. Art could well be the most impacted genre though.
Interesting insight. I do agree with the memory capturing aspect of photography (portrait will stay relevant either, and food photography might also be a genre that is not so easy for an AI to "do right"). With art I'm not so sure - painting might get even more interesting, but only as an original (prints not so much).
You are right, yet a smart drone released by a "geeky uncle" paired with a online service upscaling, denoising and whatever will be able to do a lot. Even less fantastical and faster to implement imho will be a app that sends real time snapshots from cellphones or some rebel cameras frrom peoiple watching the first dance and so on, in to the web where AI will do its magic. Everybody will be happy only not the photographer. I dont know maybe im to pesimistic...
Its the whole process that I enjoy. Walking and looking, picking a subject, working out a composition then taking a photo and developing it in Lightroom. I don`t want instant Images from text inputs or presets or 1 click solutions. Keep on showing your process and don't worry.
I think we'll see a shift to different ways in which photography is treated and consumed. Similar to how streaming platforms completely changed how music is consumed, we have seen the flip-side where there is a growing demand for vinyl records - products that are tangible, real, physically owned, and hold emotional value to the purchaser. Given how readily available AI art and photographs will be I think we will see a similar sort of flip-side where people will add extra value to 'human-made' art and photographs. I certainly agree that many advertisers and such will start to rely on the use of AI generated art etc, however I feel there will always be a place for authentic products. Furthermore I think we may also see more of a revival of film photography. Not to say that it's not popular now, but I think more people will be inclined to take photos that have a creative process, images that have unique imperfections, and something that is tangible. It's undeniable that a lot of changes are coming, for better or for worse, however I will continue with photography and I imagine many others will too (both hobbyists and professionals)
I'm not so sure about an even greater film revival (I would like it, since I'm already mostly shooting on film, and larger demand will keep production afloat and might even lead to "new" high-quality analog cameras being made - beyond large format and Leica ;-)).
As someone who takes only bad photos I am still very opinionated on this. I belonged to a photo group and someone actually took a picture at mid day and then replaced the blown out sky with a template to make it sunrise. The comment bothered me not the act. She said that it was a waste to get up in time for a sunrise, you can just add it in post. (she also lied to the person she sold it to and called it an original photo but that's a different story) It's this attitude that concerns me more than the ability to do it. I do hope that the novelty will wear off and actual photography will be valued for the art. Same as painting was not replaced by photography.
Your comments are very interesting and in some sense asks the question: Does editing images in post make some images basically analog versions of an AI images? What is real and what isn't when you see a published photographic image?
Great comments that I agree with. The software I utilize lets me modify anything to do with the image. Personally I believe that a good photo should require minimal editing. Like you, I have have run into some whopping great fakes. Those people are not photographers, they are graphic artists.
Lying about the capture is a different topic, however, sky replacement is not. How many of the different photo editing software companies promote their ability to easily replace a sky. They are the people responsible for enabling some photographers to think it must be okay. That this woman was able to convince a buyer that the image was taken at sunrise means she must have done a lot more to the image than add a sky. I'm not sure what you mean by a template. That of course does not make it okay. I wonder if the sky was one she took rather than someone else's sky. Thats also an issue. People will do what people do, all we can do is be true to ourselves with how we edit our images. As I in the most part do images for me there is no point in adding a spectacular sky. I do have several fantastic images where I wish I had a better sky. If I put one in and then hang the print on my wall, I'll always know so there is no point for me.
@@Mark-qn9xl Some AI software can drastically alter the whole photograph (Luminar AI advertises this ability) - not only the sky, but the whole lighting of the scene. Even my iPhone can do this to a portrait (changing the lighting, not replacing the sky ;-)).
I mostly agree. It will become harder to strive for authenticity, originality, and overall quality as a distinguishing factor. Using editing tools (and AI) is not bad in itself, rather how they are used.
Don't forget, nowdays everybody is photographer. I doubt photography will fade, most of people make photos of friends, relatives, places they visit. AI can't replace this, it can't illustrate your own memories. And for amateur photograper the most important aspect of photography is quest for making good photo. Hunting reality for the moment and place when and where it suddenly turns beautiful.
nobody pays you because you were in the nature at the moment of creation. And no one will look at real photos anymore because they will feel "boring" very soon compared to A.I-images, see thumbnail of this video, how to take that with a camera?
@@RonK I'm not so impressed by the thumbnail image, and also the images shown in the video are quite boring - they remind me of the generic images you can buy at Ikea (together with the frame). Yes, AI images will take over certain market segments, but authentic photographs will remain interesting for lots of people (not for those who don't care anyways).
I’m 73… my first camera was a Nikon F Photomic FTn. My new Nikon Z7ll would have been considered how we feel about AI today. Technology moves on. If a photographer takes a odd rock, or a traffic sign, or even adds a moody dark sky to his photo in Lightroom or Photoshop, then what is that? I have no conclusion. How are we going to control it, or can AI even be controlled? Thank you Adam for another thought provoking video. (No, my FTn is not for sale)
I think AI will definitely have an impact and it will have different levels of repercussions based on the various creative industries, some of which you discussed Adam. Unfortunately there will be some who may see their part of the market being swamped in a short space of time. The value of photography which I know is a subject close to you heart will also become more prevalent as there will still be those who want more than just seeing an end product and will still be looking for that emotional connection and the personal journey to accompany the product itself.
No AI will ever take away the fun of going on photo trips, enjoying nature and tranquility and the excitement of what scenes will arouse my interest, what good or bad conditions come my way. Sometimes alone, sometimes in great company of friend photographers. And then images emerge, of locations, objects and people that exist in reality. But with photography, editing or AI, everyone can do as they like. I like it rather authentic. And besides that I started printing my photos myself, mat the prints, and frame them. And then they turn from a photography to an artwork. And this in unbelievably exciting and satisfying. I will always remember the first framed print where everything was handmade by myself. 😊
As normal, really interesting video, and it's always great to hear your perspective Adam. Not sure I agree that hobbyist photographers will be impacted so much. You talk about people caring about the images you create. Most of us (outside of close family/friends) don't have big Instagram / TH-cam / insert other platforms communities currently and we do it for the love of getting out there and being in the moment, something that won't be significantly affected, at least in the short term by AI. The sad truth is many (most?) people on platforms like Instagram don't really care if something is real or not, probably due to the perceived value of an online post being very tiny. Professional industries however are in for a major revolution. As someone with experience in the media/content industry, commercial requirements are the right level of quality at the lowest possible price. Throw in less/no legal implications and the idea of having an AI model where the clothes/scene can be changed in seconds, no copyright concerns, and no need for a whole team to support sounds fantastic, and to be able to do it cheaper and far quicker and I can't see that not having a major impact. The cost benefits alone will mean that once a few competing companies begin using this, everyone else won't be able to afford not to. I don't think photography will die but certain genres will become much more niche, just like painting became, just like film became. It's rarely an all-or-nothing outcome.
I do agree with what you have said. However, I think we all have a fear of change. When I first picked up a camera (1960's), it had nothing to help the photographer. You had to know what settings were required, you had to manually focus with the aid of split screen. Wait for the film to be processed to figure out if you actually had the correct settings, or focused properly. I remember when digital first hit the market and everyone said that it was not true photography. Yet here we are today with primarily digital cameras. Cameras that can tell us if our settings are incorrect, that can tell us if we are out of focus. I also believe that there will continue to be a market for photography. It may be smaller, but it will remain. Just like paintings are still desired, so will the fine art photographs that can be printed, as you noted in your discussion. I guess that I am lucky in that my photography is strictly for my own enjoyment, and don't rely on it for any sort of income. Another great video and discussion. Cheers.
Great stuff Adam. My take. Certainly AI will affect photography to some extent, but not as much as some assume, IMO. As an enthusiast photographer, I have zero interest in sitting at a computer to generate images. I do photography because it's personal. I do a lot of bird photography, but I can, even now, go on line and find images vastly superior to anything I am capable of. But I don't, and the fact that I can, doesn't dampen my enthusiasm even a little bit. There is no personal component of AI images, and so, I feel, it will be of little or no interest to others like myself. AI can't document MY travels, or MY family events, or MY grandchildren. I can't see AI affecting wedding photography, event photography, street photography or even fine art /landscape photography. Commercial photography (advertising etc,) sure. I'm going to go out on a limb Adam, and guess that only a small portion of your income is from sale of your images to anyone other than people who admire you and are fans your channel. Your wisdom, knowledge and your personality are what is valuable. My guess, it will be like 3D movies or HDR photography. Amusing for a while, but that's it. We'll see. Just my opinion.
almost the whole industry of professional image creations becomes obsolete pretty quickly. If Pros stop shooting due to lack of payment, and consumers shoot with amazing camera phones, no camera brand will be able to bring cameras or lenses to the market with somehow payable prices. Ad campaigns "for free" can even be one third worse than real one - but no marketing company will be able to afford "real photographers" and the related staff anymore. Quantity beats quality - but here we get images that simply can't be done in reality anymore. Enjoy your photography but be aware that real images will look terribly boring very, very soon.
@@RonK You are very naive when it comes to professional image creation (and AI in general) - it is a much more complex process than you seem to think. It was said that CGI rendering would replace photography - but it didn't in high-end applications (not even in low-end ones, because it is expensive); instead it is often combined with photography to get the perfect result (Karl Taylor made a video about this). The low end of product photography might be affected - or not, since there has to be product shots (or CGI renderings) in the first place. If you have the 3D models of the products, CGI (combined with AI) might take over - but what if there's no model? Then you need shots of the real product (and with food it get's even harder to create a 3D model), so you can do "the real thing" anyways (and use AI to improve or modify where necessary, instead of taking multiple shots). You remind me of a (then rather young) dude who claimed that drummers would go out of business, because drum machines are so incredibly good (this was in the 80s) - drummers are still in business, even though drum machines have become much better over the decades; it is just that drummers are no longer needed for every single recording, and some musical styles (like Techno, House etc.) are better suited for drum machines than others. And then there was AI generated music (hyped a few years ago, never heard of it again) - yes, it might replace some music production (like Muzak), but having a band playing on the stage is a completely different matter. And regarding smartphone cameras - still decades away from being really useful. Yes, the market for "real" cameras will shrink and only few brands will survive, but it will not be "all or nothing", more in the way of adapting to the changing needs.
AI will take away a lot of the photography market, sure, but strangely, it's also going to make personal art more valuable as it'll be rarer. The more we can lean into the personal-"That photograph? I bought it because it's of my home area." or "Oh yeah, that's an Adam Karnacz original"-the better off we're going to be. The loss will probably outweigh the increased value of personal art, but I don't give a shit, the latter will still happen. I'm also going to keep doing what I'm doing, helping where I can to support everyone else doing the same.
We are beginning to reach a point of uncertainty as to what is digitally authentic. It is cause for pause, yet with each technical advancement, there is opportunity. We need to be open to possibilities and prepared to jump on them as they appear. I take landscape photos as an enthusiast and have never sold or tried to sell a photo. Photography allows me to get outside to beautiful places and unplug from my work week; nothing AI produces will change that. Creating videos, telling a story of the journey, and what went into getting that great photo will always have value if captured and presented well. AI can't compete with effort and sacrifice, and there will always be a market for that. The market will shrink, but I hope that camera makers will develop new technology that will take photography and videography to the next level, whatever that may be.
Many future consumers will want and even demand transparent authenticity. That isn’t where AI adds value and it isn’t where photographers capture value. Marketing is a system for bringing producers (in this case photographers) and consumers together. It facilitates what we marketers refer to as a two-way search. AI might facilitate the search but in photographic terms it simply another offering, another competitor. Situation normal. That’s why we have innovation. For example, similar so-called technology advancement trends can be referenced in alternative proteins, EVs, and even online shopping. If there is an apocalypse it will be an apocalypse of marketing expertise. The basics never change. Know your customer. Create a business model that meets their needs. You’re on the right track with the RAW room. Well done. I’m not sure about everything going to zero. Core technologies do enable downward pricing but a Ferrari is still a Ferrari. Many people talk about creating value or delivering value when the core issue is really about capturing value. Different rabbit hole. Good luck. PS: Please check that your RAW room videos are all playing. My iPad is having issues. Thanks. 👍😁
Maybe photography will come back to it's origin, where the picture is made at the source and not behind the computer. In the end a human will never win against AI when perfection is the end goal
Maybe stock/illustration photography will be affected, but honestly I don't think that it will be a replacement for human work in art, journalism, nature, family, etc, I mean, it is simply a new toy that will find it's place for sure, but seriously it is an engine that makes a product knowing that's fake from start. We have movies with CGI actors, Star Wars or Irishman, but still we need actors as our heroes, cartoons are cartoons... As a result of expansion of Ai in photography film/analog will be back to future, I could bet on it.
I totally agree Adam, I worked in the printing industry for forty years and when digital printing first appeared it was very low quality and no one thought it would be any threat. But beware of new technologies at your peril. The improvement in this printing quality was just over a few years and most normal printing companies just vanished.
Hi Adam photography for me is a serious hobby atm (getting up at all hour chasing light etc) I have sold a few prints but still a hobby. The way I see for me to sell more photos and create a business in the future is to become a story teller & what I mean by this is to evolve into a videographer & photographer (like you but not having to get a youtube Channel) at the same time. I have noticed more and more people don't just want to see a photo they want to experience it also by travelling with you to see how & what you did to get that photo in Stories, Reels, Shorts, tiktok or whatever. This is why more and more photographers are making short videos of their photo shoots for example I post on insta feed and i'm lucky to get 50 likes but on Stories that doubles and on Reels I get over 1000 views! I love tech & I use AI in my business. AI can make pictures but it will never be able to replace the human interaction we just need to change and evolve in the way we do things in the future because AI is here to stay we need to learn to live with it. Cheers Eric
I've also been wondering lately where the world of photography is heading due to AI, and if indeed it is even worth pursuing the art anymore and investing the time to learn it. At the end of the day the only reason I can see for photography is personal use and reportage/journalism. Making money off photography, well that's almost an impossibility now let alone trying to sell someone a product that they can easily generate themselves in a few minutes. I think to sell prints of original photography in the coming years you'd need to be the kind of salesman that could sell ice to the Eskimos lol. Another consideration is how Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom and other similar software is going to fare? I mean Photoshop has really gained traction now for just how easy it has made sky replacements etc; but who's going to even bother with that when they can just AI the image to begin with? The mind boggles 🤔
I just returned my first ever mirrorless camera I bought from Amazon because AI is taking all the value out of hobbyist photography. AI killed my hobby before it even began. Lol
Thanks Adam for the video. I also commented on Twitter about this. On your page. I will say this and I'm a pretty experience photographer in Australia. And a few of my friends have taken up artificial art as well. It is trendy it is NEW it is shiny. It is fun and it is funky. But I guarantee this in three years it will not be fun. It will not be funky and it will be Deadset boring because we have seen it all before. The beauty of photography is that you go out and you shoot something that is real but no one else has ever seen in that moment now they may have seen that beach shore that place or that mountain shore. But they haven't seen that moment in time. Photography is about capturing moments in time that will never be repeated and yes that line is stolen from another photographer who commented that that's what Photography is. Artificial art..... Is not capturing a moment in time it is generating an image from data that has been compressed and programmed, and then it spits out an image. And I think that's the difference is that us photographers go out and capture a moment in time, so I'd like the photography fraternity to start using terms like capturing moments in time. Not see this as a threat, but actually reinstate our stance as photographers. I don't want to benefit from something a computer generated I said in my day job in front of a computer for much of my day, and he's actually taken away from the very cool work that I used to do. The last thing I want to be doing is sitting in front of a computer generating images that's what the space outside is for sure. We edit our photos but that is different as that is a reinstatement of what we just did. I would argue that artificial art is just that it's artificial. It's fake sugar it's not real. and yes it's trending right now but give it a year or two and it will not be trendy. It will be Deadset boring and everyone will be over it and yes something else will come along as it always does. Thanks for your videos Adam - always insightful and love your photography. In fact, from now on every post I do on a social media site. I'm going to put in in inverted commas a moment in time. Photography is about capturing a moment that will never be repeated. Artificial art cannot do that, and it will never be able to do that because it didn't happen, and that is the difference.
I agree with much of what you say Adam, and I've addressed this point in the fstoppers piece you referenced. The fear is that photography is going to lose its value. And it may well do in any context where the goal is simply selling a product. But no amount of software or technology can turn an image - however beautiful it may appear - into art, because art is a *communicative act between one person and others*. It connects people. Consider poetry. Which poem has more value to you: something written with love by your child to you on your birthday, complete with odd rhymes and poor scansion, or something that mimics the crystalline structure of a Shakespearean sonnet that is generated by a computer program with the click of a button? The latter might even sell for more, but the former has value far greater to you, I am sure. Because it is an expression of love. Because it connects you to someone else. Photography is little different. I create images not to make money, but to share myself and my experiences with others. So long as we focus on that, photography as an art form will survive.
This is a difficult one, I starting thinking about posters, prior to posters people had to buy paintings, with the posters a company could pay an artist to make a master, and then they could duplicate it in the thousands and sell them with high profit. I guess younger people will not see this as a problem, they have grown up with "everything, available, now". I do not really care, the last years we have seen people using PS to modify/change photos to the point where it no longer look like the original subject (cloud replacement comes to mind). And I've more or less stopped sharing my photos, I print the nice ones and hang them in my home ...
People are still using 8x10 film view cameras with manual exposure timing, so I'm not really worried that technology will soon replace people. We seem to hang on or even thrive on "homemade" rather than always cheap and better tech-production.
As a professional art photographer it may well impact your business. However as an amateur hobbyist it will only allow easier transition of relatively mundane images into rather spectacular ones. I suspect though that people will soon tire of it. No industry supports my photography currently and nobody except myself really cares about it currently. Basically I may be a dinosaur that lives in an era that precedes social media and we all lived happily at the time without it. No, it’s mainly an issue for those trying to scrape a living from photography. Few manage it today unless they do weddings or commercial contracts. Fewer will manage it in future.
It scares me what AI will be able to do in a few short years. As a photographer, and a person who loves writing, I am worried about what will be valued about my work or anyone else to be honest. I wonder what artist that drew or painted landscapes felt when photographs started showing up, did they feel the same as we do at this moment? We live in a world of instant gratification and consumerism, that will drive AI in my opinion and that, is very scary.
Yeah that’s a good point. I still love paintings but I’m not interested in landscape paintings at all. "Old" and “out of date” jumps to mind. I hope that is not the fate of landscape photography.
I once saw a TH-cam video that said something on why I think amateur (at least) photography won't suffer as much. Rarely people who like photography likes _photography_ , most people like what they are photographing, photography is just an excuse or the cherry on top. I don't think I'd stop meandering looking for lovely photos because I could do it all from the comfort of my house, because I don't think I'd stop meandering. Now, maybe people who care more about popularity or results might drop from the hobby, but I don't think that's gonna be the greater majority, more like a minority. One of the reasons I decided to finally buy a camera was because I wanted to be able to take photos and to share to my best friend what was the world like through my eyes. Now I've noticed that my camera is not just what my eyes can see but also what they can't, they are an extension and a way for me to create the images I really love, but it's what *I* see. I wouldn't have any connection to an AI work because I care more about showing the beauty that I see than showing something perfect (I still work hard to make something good 😅).
There are areas where AI generated content can't compete: Personal imaging and authentic storytelling. Sure, there will be artists that do storytelling with AI generated images (I can imagine graphic novels being produced this way), but it might be much harder than it sounds, as all images would need to have a very consistent style - it would need an AI that is trained by the artist to do everything in the desired, maybe even personal style, a big task in itself. Maybe one day, but I would think of decades rather than years. Meanwhile I continue to take the shots I'm after, using whatever camera suits me best (from smartphone to 4x5) …
@@jichaelmorgan3796 That's a good comparison, didn't think about that! Comparable to the way Disney cartoons where created. I think it was not only Rubens, it was quite common back then to have such workshops (it was a business, after all ;-)).
Was there not a time when landscape and portrait painters viewed photography as a threat to their art. I was once told that anyone can take a photograph… to which I replied anyone can play the piano too…. Interestingly now anyone can design a website or a brochure and they look on… however when you ask an experienced creative to do the work for you it knocks the homespun creation out of the park… You get what you pay for I believe. Ai will be ok and have a place but it wont replace mastery
Great great video a couple of points I would like to hear you touch on, when it comes to the value of the photo there is a risk element, and that risk element affects the value as well. I’m speaking of the risk of the photo not coming out properly. There is also the supply and demand aspect of AI photos are created by the millions and handcrafted photos are only the hundreds. The chances are the handcrafted photos will increase in value?
I'll be OK. People still shoot film for whatever reason. I know it's never been a popular stznce with those who confuse landscape photography with art but I can continue documenting the real world despite whatever AI brings.
As a hobbyist I don't rely on photography for any sort of income. As for my 'audience'... even though I am on the socials, I have never been fully invested in it, so most of my followers are friends, family and a few photographers that have 'followed me back'. The only other people that see my images are my friends at the camera club, and they are all equally as nerdy about photography as the rest of us. I understand the threat to professional photography, which is a massive downer as not only can it affect peoples income and livelihood, but it is also a big pool of inspiration for newcomers and seasoned hobbyists as well as people that are thinking of breaking in to the profession. Professional photography is needed now for there to be pro photographers in the near future, who will in turn be an inspiration for more etc.
The comparison can be drawn to the sponsor of your video. Ten years ago to get a good website you would need someone with the skills and knowledge to develop it, now there is intelligent software that does it for you. Web developers are now only needed for complex/bespoke tasks. AI will have its place as will all technology, it will be harder to make a good living, unless you are doing the “complex/bespoke” tasks. Nice video, I’m not worried about AI just treat it like any competitor. Mike
I agree with most of your comments but think there will always be a place for hobbyists. Don’t forget there are two aspects wanting to make a good picture but also enjoying the activity of making the picture going out with the camera and doing the stuff. I lost some of the fun when everything went digital now getting that back. No fun or activity in using AI. When AI starts taking away from the need for a photographer will it then start wondering about the need for a human?
Interesting video, but I do think you forgot to talk about the experience of photography. Maybe the price of the imagery will go down, but AI cannot replace the act of doing photography. Most hobbyist photograph, because they want to make something and AI cannot change that experience. Maybe it will actually help boost the resurgence of analog photography, cause you can prove that you made the photo yourself. Who knows...
I totally understand where you are at with this Adam, but as a hobbyist, I don't care about AI or what others think of my photos, whether that's my work being irrelevant or uninteresting because AI can produce something better. I enjoy photography for many reasons, the creative aspect, being out in nature, seeing new places and recharging my soul. AI can't take that away from me as it can't replace those feelings or the physicality of being out in nature itself. I do believe that AI produced images, will reach their zenith and then fall away due to them being 'too good' which is unnatural, and human beings really do prefer natural experiences and emotions. Eventually, after the initial WOW phase, AI produced images will settle into it's place alongside human made images and although professional photographers will suffer for a period of time, I believe that natural, human generated images will have a highly respected place along side them also.
I like your “Printing Your Work” explanation…. I am motivated on that very thing and hope to start putting my list of the things I want to invest in as far as the printer goes and upgrading my Mac Laptop/Desktop…etc…. I apple at your advice and talks on your videos Adam…. It doesn’t go left unnoticed by me atleast….press on as always….
I’d assume many other commentators have mentioned this already, but most of us already take photos that no one else either cares about, or even sees. I’d assume that the vast majority of photographers do it for the love of photography and all this AI stuff won’t actually affect their enjoyment of photography whatsoever?
Excellent presentation, thank you. First a disclaimer; I am by no means a professional photographer; I do not make a living with it. And I do not consider myself a hobbyist either, I have displayed in local galleries when I can and sold prints. I like to think of myself as an independent photographer doing my passion and my thing. Having said that, when I first heard of this AI thing while listening to NPR a few weeks ago I was not all that concerned. It is another tool for creating images, quick, down and dirty, with no soul. For me, it is (my opinion only) a lazy man’s or woman, tool. And yet, it has its purposes within certain societies requiring images, quick, down and dirty, with no soul. It is a giving known as progress and a small segment of photography will be affected. My believe is; it will be the photographers in many other disciplines keeping it alive with heart, soul, and stories of their exploits that AI could not possibly do. Wedding photographers, portrait photographers, documentary photographers, street photographer, combat photographers, even landscape photographers, to name a few that will keep photography alive. Closing on my old man jabbering, I like to remind everyone there was a time we thought film was dead. Digital was king, heck I even thought so; yet, there is a renaissance among the young folks turning their backs on digital and photographing with film. On top of that, Leica reintroduced its M6 and Ricoh/Pentax will be developing a film camera as well due to what is happening with film. In short, I don’t worry about this AI thing, I am hopeful, and I believe the young folks, my opinion, will keep the AI images in check.
Fast forward a few years and the only jobs will be barista (maybe) nail salon/hair salon worker and clerk at the dry cleaners (maybe). OTOH, video now seems more important to many people than stills and I’m not seeing AI generating 4k vids yet for the TH-camrs and TikTockers.
In 1997 Kasparov was soundly beaten by Deep Blue, at that point the world of chess groaned and the soothsayers predicted the end of the pursuit as a digital monster could crush all before it. Fast forward to today and chess is still going strong, with tournaments and competitions raking in many hundreds of thousands of dollars. The industry did not die as predicted. The artistry of the participants is just as lauded today as in previous years. In the same vein, I envisage that the aesthetic beauty of photography created by a human will continue to have value and will continue to be appreciated by others too, I think you correctly surmised that it will be in a physical form too. You are probably also on the money, in that some companies and marketeers may prefer an AI driven computer generated image (cost, ease of use etc), and that some areas of the photography business will have to change as a result. But there will still be a place for the photographer, unless an AI is going to create your wedding album for you for instance. An authentic photographic image may become scarcer in a future marketing world, but won't that just increase its value?
I have a big enough problem with people using the Topaz AI Focus stuff let alone fully generating an image from keywords,. Right now we're at this really strange tipping point where the commodity cameras are so good they remove most of the talent required to make a great image. You're 100% correct in saying the narrative is going to be our saving grace, without the image telling a story and the background information behind it, we will become fully irrelevant .
Interesting topic. As a pro I'd be worried indeed. As an amateur, I guess the effect of AI depends on why you take pictures in the first place. If you do it for followers on social media, then you should be worried too. If you, like me, do it for the experience of being out there and/or create something original and "of your own", no worries.
I think the reason AI will never destroy photography, at least to me, is that photography is all about capturing memories. Isn't this why photography exists in the first place? Generating a photograph with a computer has no story, no struggle and no memory attached to it. I noticed that increasingly more people want to know what went behind a certain capture, they want to know the story of the photograph. Additionally, a photograph is strengthened a lot by sharing that story behind it. These stories can also inspire other people. AI photography will never have that and that's why it will never replace or destroy photography. What I do have a problem with though is people passing off AI and composite photograph as something that's real and as something they witnessed. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms...
Well, personally, I don't do photography because I want to make money or have it seem by as many people as possible. I do it because I enjoy it and, well, if anyone else sees it and likes it, all well and good. And the AI that produces quality images will be monetised, like everything else is. It won't be free. Eventually, as well, there'll be a pushback from consumers who realise that they want something more involving. Like CDs/digital downloads have only actually served to make many realise they want to imperfection and experience of vinyl. And it's happening already in photography. Film is making something of a comeback and, now, even old digital cameras are appreciating in value and people are enjoying the limited results they can produce, not for the quality of the image in absolute terms (resolution, etc), but because of the feel of the images they produce. I have headed down this path myself, looking to pick up old digicams for that very reason.
The thing the people doesn’t get about AI images is that it’s just based on billions of photographs and paintings. These algorithms doesn’t make anything without a dataset, and the dataset is other’s works. The story about reinforcing learning, using AI images to create new AI images is limited and will become boring. Trust me, I worked with this. Besides that, in art as you said we have a thing called exclusivity, people who buy art, put exclusivity as a great motivator. people can even have an AI-generated photograph or art, just as today people can print a Monet painting, frame it and hang it in their living room. But the human and limited (exclusive) aspect will continue to play a primary role. There’s another thing that people must be aware. The AI algorithms use like 5.8 billions images as an input (the dataset) and there’s a lot of proprietary images/arts inside (without concern of the authors). The big players on AI solutions says that it’s just inspiration but us, that work on the area knows that is just a bullsh*t. The algorithms is trained to replicate the inputs if necessary. So, there’s copyright issues with this technology that people unfortunately didn’t care now because it’s “so funny, so beautiful make AI images” (in music they did, oh yes).
There is no doubt that some areas of commercial photography will be replaced, especially online. How much, who can tell. Who thought cameras could do what they do now 20 even 10 years ago. I started to print my film photos in the 60's (darkroom) and after transitioning to digital continued to print my work although at a reduced rate. More discerning I'd like to think. AI won't replace the family photos nor photojournalism, I think its more advertising that we will see a change. It won't effect celebrity photography or where we need to see real people. Having said that I assume a future development will be to upload a photo of yourself and then be placed in a myriad of scenarios. So does it effect me, not in the slightest. I do photography for me, the process, the editing. If I make a few bucks then fine however it is not the primary goal.
The game will change, for sure. The worry is, if AI kills off a lot of the pro market, the camera industry itself struggles, and if those companies get out, then we’re all bang in trouble. When it’s not profitable for Canon or NIkon, they’re gone. We then end up using old gear, or phones - and I do believe phones will remain and will continue to push the tech forward as people love to tell their own stories, be that holiday snaps on Facebook, drunk night out snaps, selfies, or more considered shots of a hike or a trip. Humans want other humans to see what they’re up to. AI can’t replicate that. However, if that’s what we end up reduced to, that would be a sad thing indeed. I hope I’ll still shoot when no one cares - after all, that’s pretty much where I’m at now. I shoot for me, no one else. I’m lucky that I pay the bills in another way in that regard.
Original art, Original thought, Original thinking will have a slippery slope to overcome with AI. Within the next 12 months we will see AI in Microsoft Office products, in Google Assistant results, in creating a stock image and more and more post editing software that will replace everything important in your image and replace it, enhance it or tweak it to a point that it's no longer close to what you saw when the image was taken.
Ultimately, as far as personal artwork goes, including photography, I hope that AI has a stigma attached to it. That an artists signature makes all the difference in distinguishing a piece of art as "real". Such that an expensive handbag is or designer clothing is expensive because of the name and quality, AI might be known as a cheap knock-off. When someone sees a piece of art on your wall, they ask, "Is that real?", referring to 'Is it not AI'. I think it's up to us as artists and humans to create such a stigma, and I think it brings hope to the matter. But I agree, it is rather depressing thinking of the capabilities of future technology sometimes. Thank you always Adam for your insight in your videos!
Most comments fail to distinguish professional photography from 'capture the moment' artsy or hobbyist stuff. AI will definitely have a huge impact on commercial services, clients want to save money and couldn't care less about the relation of photographer and it's subject. It's not about that.
I hate to think that things will get to that point but I'm afraid they are. Unfortunately, in this day and age, many people are more than willing to forego burning boot leather to find and make landscape images in exchange for taking the easy way out. Unfortunately, again, that is just human nature. It's also human nature to want to impress others with "Hey, look at the image I took", and the desire for acceptance and admiration from others is stronger than the desire for self-satisfaction derived from sacrifice and hard work to get that image. On the flip side (although much less likely given the current state of the world), it could get to the point where "real" images, created by real photographers using real cameras, become much more valuable because they ARE the REAL thing. Kinda like art created by the old masters. Just food for thought. Great video Adam. Thank you.
If its not shot on a camera, it's not photography. AI is creating images (not photographs) the same way visual artist do, why are we even talking about it? I can see how AI could help you with composition and setting in the future by having it integrated with the camera but that's meaningless.
Marketing campaigns without Photographer, Model, Art-designer, Graphic-designer, light-assistant etc. No one will be able to afford paying "real" humans for all that anymore. Same for product photography, fashion photography, architecture etc. A.I. portrait-images are breathtaking stunning already, easily useable for print- and digital commercials. Creating digital output will be as easy as it gets. Getting paid a dime will be impossible, except maybe for the (very soon to be overcrowded) markets of wedding- and event-photography (which will be cornered very soon by better and better phone cameras). No way out, photography will die running, except for the rare enthusiast.
Sadly I think the future of photography as an art form is over with, or will be in a very short time. It's not going to take 5 years, that's old school thinking. I can't imagine how it could take over genres such as wedding photography, or sports or anything in real time. However, the images captured on a smart phone, will be easily manipulated with AI, and have great resolution for enlarging to prints. I hope I'm entirely wrong, but I'm afraid most of the photography creatives, with the exception of maybe a select few, will become obsolete.
3D programs already are killing some niches, such as product photography ie, not to mention AI. The thing that will save(?) and maintain photography alive is anything related to the heart/human memory and the fear of losing it, such as social events, trips or family. As a hobby photography still has a long life (including mobile and not only pro equip), imho. AI is a hype/trend now, and as such eventually it will fade and become common. Tv did not kill radio, nor AI will kill photography. It will only become a more niche thing.
I would like to think you are crazy and don’t know what you are talking about. But you are likely spot on. I have no interest in trying AI like sky replacement. I think for most of us, we will be fine. But there is a segment of photographers and non photographers who would be willing to not even question AI. I see fake photos all the time on FB, most viewers don’t know when they are fake or even care. It seems to matter more of who you are than an actual fine photo. As a photographer and birder, both of which I started in the 1970s. I can see a parallel between the two as people have changed. Birders rely on an app for bird identifications, not those with 40+ years experience. They see and share nest location to other birders and photographers with no consideration to the welfare of the bird. The appreciation and learning is simply not there. But a lot of us are different and enough of us to still enjoy the hobby. We just have to ignore those who lack the appreciation. They are a minority.
You ask as a hobbyist will you continue to take photos if nobody is looking at them? Isn't that the case now? Nobody interacts or spends a fraction of a second as they scroll through as it is! It will continue as to many people, taking a photo isn't the be all and end all. It's the adventure, exploration, spending time in nature and the enjoyment that brings, it also gives the story that gets people. Many are stepping back to film to get away from tech as it is so getting AI to create something isn't on many peoples agendas. Maybe I'm an optimist 🤣
Really interesting video and I think you are right about the value aspect of photography and in particular the physical product. One thing that I personally think will preserve the value of photography over AI is actually one of the reasons photography exists today and that is capturing the moment. Even the best AI landscape in the world will not have the value of the actual moment the image was captured. Its merely an amalgamation of multiple moments past and future. The moment value in real photography is that it happened, for real and in a real world and for that reason I am not too pessimistic about the advent of AI
I basically blame Adobe, for making editing so difficult and segregated a percentage of photographs from being able to use it. But then along came AI and all the software that came with it. I let go of my Adobe contract and have now got 4 software progs now on my comp. With Ai it is now making photography very one dimensional. A rubbish shot as long as it has a good composition can now be made into a good photograph. So the bullseye is the composition. without this no matter how good the editing is, it will not work. So composition wins every time, not the editing.
I do agree with much of what you say, This is actually a very old argument, this is exactly what painters were told at the dawn of photography. In some cases if there are fewer photographers the value of the photographic artist and their created works may actually increase as the skill becomes concentrated in a fewer number of skillful individuals. Keep making your videos I enjoy them so much.
They say you reap what you sow, for years photographers wanted easier and easier ways to edit photographs and it this that has led to the creation of AI. It doesn’t seem that long ago I would listen to landscape photographers on you tube, and almost all of them made the excuse for editing and enhancing their work that they were trying to create what they seen as they photographed. They were creating something beautiful but it almost never resembled what we seen in the video or if we were lucky enough to travel to the location we soon realised we would need to get very good at editing “very quick” and AI is helping many to achieve this. I’m not saying who’s wrong or who’s right , but photography may need to reinvent itself and I’m sure it will.
AI isn't a threat to art - its a potential threat to corporate imagery for those who cannot adapt. If you are a landscape photographer making money from TH-cam, workshops, art galleries, prints - AI wont be a major issue. The market is already over saturated which images, and what is "good" at the top is subjective. People buy art not just because they like an image, but because they feel connect to it, and because they like the artist. There is a reason limited editions and signed prints sell best. Even for corporate imagery - its probably only creative imagery or stock photography at risk. Hotels for example are still going to preference or may even be legally preferences to show truthful depictions of certain things. So travel photography should be pretty safe too. Editorial and journalistic will be safe. Fine art should be safe. Keep in mind that the cost of AI generated images will increase over time as the quality improves - because higher levels of skill will be required for prompting etc - and whole specialist jobs are going to form like "AI prompt wizard". Art is valuable because it is made to feel special. AI imagery wont feel special the same way a hand painted oil painting would. Just how a hand made potter mug is nicer to drink from than a replica that doesn't have the same quirks. AI will hurt those who resist it and don't adapt. Even as prompts get better and results get better, its likely that editors will be needed to manualy manipulate the final result sof an AI prompted image to tweak it to the client's desires. Further - input images are still going to be necessary even as AI gets smarter - becasue it provides an extremely accurate baseline for the AI to work off. You may go out into the field and take an image, then edit that image with AI. "Make this image look xyz". This could create whole new opportunities for photographers on assignment. What if a an accurate representation was wanted for a neighborhood on fire? Take a good picture with correct aspects and even some real people of note in it, then ask AI to set the buildings on fire and add emergency vehicles.
My reach has dropped so much in the last two years that no one sees what I create now anyway compared to 2021, so adding AI makes no difference in that sense. The algorithm already killed my IG account. If I create now with my reach at just 10% of what it was at its peak, I'll probably always create for the love of it...
So interesting to me how we seem to have come full circle in a way. If you're interested, Adam, you might want to read Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He talks specifically about his fears of what producing photographs en masse during his time (1935 at publication) would do to the art world.
Neat. I have to chuckle where my initial knee-jerk response to this video was to be happy to keep playing with film, darkroom printing, and albumen printing; feels somewhat outdated in this age. I'm still pretty early in the reading but so far Benjamin seems to be rather concerned about film photography. "Their most powerful agent is the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage."
Great vid. I think that this will make more of an impact on landscape stock footage and product photography and companies looking for images for their websites etc. AI can’t be at a wedding for instance. I don’t make money from my photography, I only do it for the love of doing it so I’m not really bothered by AI. I also agree with actually having your work in print. I think that makes more impact
Good video Adam. As AI becomes even more sophisticated, it will be (if not already) the significant disruptive technology to commercial photography. Who will want to pay for photographer's efforts when images used for advertising, entertainment, etc., can more easily and cheaply be provided by AI? The art of photography will not die however. Just like painting, it will survive, but not in a professional/commercial sense. The challenge for "human photography" is to create images that are more unique and special than the typical misty woodland scenes that AI seems to create quite well based on your presentation.
Another thought provoking video. I keep coming back because of these thought provoking or inspirational videos and the great content. Thank you for sharing this one Adam and for all the hard work that you put into creating such videos.
eh I don't know... depends on the motivations for why you photograph. AI could create the most visually stunning scene, but that doesn't impact the enjoyment of hiking, camping, scouting, photographing, developing/editing, etc. Sure, if the only motivation someone has is to get social media likes, then sure they should feel threatened. Doesn't impact those that pursue it as a hobby though.
AI imagery may impact those who have corporate clients (a social media and marketing apprentice will make AI images instead oof external creatives and then tickling them up on Photoshop publishing them for their company). They may not have an impact as much on hobbyist photographers who will hopefully continue to do it for the love and that’s where professional photographers will be able to support them in providing that learning to help them fulfil their potential. They probably won’t post their images online because they’re competing against made up images. In my view any composite images AI images or other heavily manipulated images such as those with sky replacement should be marked as such so that people can tell how an image has been made.
My thoughts are AI generated images will have there place especially with rapid iteration artists, but it will never be authentic or personal, and will be forever limited by the database it draws from.
You made a really good point in there Adam. Sure, who cares what other people do - fine if they want to "create" AI images. There's even the possible upside of fewer people being out and about -it's great to be out, alone, at sunrise - the lazies can stay home and let AI do the work. The problem, like you say, is that the industry might suffer. If the market shrinks, will there be the same level of investment from the manufacturers?
Photography is simply moments in time that can't be recreated. Ai will never be able to do that! I wouldn't make videos instilling fear in the younger generation that didn't learn how to create works of art from scratch. I'm 44 yesterday, so I've seen bit. A "TRUE ARTIST" has no fear.
Respectfully, I'm firmly of the opinion that painted landscapes are far superior an experience when viewed in person vs flat, fake digital prints....and I enjoy and explore a *lot* with my camera where I have access both for landscapes as well as professional (product and advertising uses) and personal candids. This I expect the same will happen regarding AI faked images vs actual photography. I also live, work, and play in a very artistic world, though which has simply pointed out to me that it truly is about the "eye of the beholder". Those who are looking for flat, disposable images will be thrilled with the advent of AI photography....but anyone looking for a deeper experience will be turned off by those using such. It really is all about what and how you target your audience and their values, both as an amateur and as a professional.
I think an artist cares less about what others think and more about their own desire to create. If others appreciate their work, that is a welcome bonus.
Thanks for this important video. As with every technology advance throughout history, AI will introduce advantages/disadvantages in every discipline: art, education, science, politics, etc. It will require much discussion and reflection to sort everything out.
We freezing a moment in time, that will never ever ever come back. The memories we capture is something for us personally, even without a camera when you walk into the world your mind will see beauty what it sees. Ai will never go out on it's own or in a robot, maybe one day but will it be able to appreciate it? Cheers
AI cannot replace the experience of nature and sharing the story to inspire others. So, one can either stay indoors worrying that the sky is falling; or get out and walk beneath it.
A.I. will have a significant negative effect on a lot of industries across the board but, there are people who want to see the real thing and not just a computerised generation of a place or product. Another way of looking at things is, did the invention of the camera totally destroy the lively hood of artists painting landscapes or make their work less attractive? The difference with A.I. is the feeling of I wish I could be there turns to, but it's not real therefore the thoughts and feelings it provokes are also false. That sad thing about the time we live in is everything is becoming an automated service and A.I. will become the morn, having something other than the norm would hold a greater value. Art work made literally from the push of a button holds no value with me and I feel there's a lot of people out there that would share the same thoughts.
For me the fun is being there and capturing the moment. I don’t mind a bit of blending if you need to blend two exposures as long as the photographer is actually there capturing the pieces that he needs. What I oppose is creating photos from elements that were added in a program like sky replacement etc. For this reason I consider composites to be cheating and deceptive. Of course the way things are going people are going to live in a “fake” world like the metaverse and so on. Our reality is becoming so dystopian that we will take refuge in a fake world to ease our troubled lives and mind. Which if you think about it is tragic. Also there won’t be any need to buy cameras for that matter since people will eventually adopt all the new technologies.
AI generated images will probably destroy the stock photo business. My impression of stock photos are they are generic stand ins for something rather a photo taken with artistic intent.
Hello Adam, I do enjoy. watching these videos and seeing the approach others photographers take when creating there images. But even the rise of AI in smart phone photography is to some extent kill photography. I industry of photography has change so much in the short time I was taking images back in the 1980's I was getting paid £600+ expensive a day as a commercial photographer. Yes it was a amazing time and I love the job but hated the industry. But now you see so many Pro just go out a buy one of the amazing cameras on the market then stick in auto and of they go. So AI will hit to pro end quit hard I think. Will it impact live sport and event I think Yes may by not in the image cratetion but nore and more it the post prossesing of images. IE SKY replacement and object selection. For me now retired I just enjoy the process of just getting out there taking an image, editing, printing mounting and making a frame. It so staifying.
The lazy, the cheaters and the profiteers will use AI, very sad for them I think, but the autentic photographers, the ones who create pictures with a soul, who like to go out in nature will remain authentic and the public will decide what they want to put on their wall. We'll just have to defend ourselves a bit more and justify our know-how, which we already do when we have to fight against certain fake photos. I'm afraid, but I try to stay confident. Thank you Adam
It's going to be a complicated era. Already copyright holders like Getty images have sued AI companies for using copyrighted material to train their bots.
Great points Adam. As a serious hobbyist at the end of the day I do this for me. Capturing beauty helps me remember it, trains me to seek it, and incentivizes me to GET OUT.
fortunately, I am a hobbyist, and do not rely on photography to make a living. I will continue doing my thing. My current way of image making is to emphasize composition within the limits of the reality I am physically present in. When I process, I do minor edits a few tweaks, and minor crops. I constantly consume content on line by youtubers like yourself in an effort to improve my efforts. And I try to challenge myself by using a single prime lens, use fishing technique for street images, doing photo walks etc. I've dabbled with photoshop layering, luts and heavy filtering.. and i've grown past all of that. AI will definitely affect professional illustration for business purposes.. this will push people out of photography for business illustration.. but photography as a personal experience will remain.
Good insights. Another thing to take into account is the "memory capturing" ability of photographs. No one is going to want an AI generated image of their first wedding dance, or their favourite football team's winning World Cup goal, or their band's first/biggest concert etc. Art could well be the most impacted genre though.
Interesting insight. I do agree with the memory capturing aspect of photography (portrait will stay relevant either, and food photography might also be a genre that is not so easy for an AI to "do right"). With art I'm not so sure - painting might get even more interesting, but only as an original (prints not so much).
You are right, yet a smart drone released by a "geeky uncle" paired with a online service upscaling, denoising and whatever will be able to do a lot. Even less fantastical and faster to implement imho will be a app that sends real time snapshots from cellphones or some rebel cameras frrom peoiple watching the first dance and so on, in to the web where AI will do its magic. Everybody will be happy only not the photographer. I dont know maybe im to pesimistic...
Its the whole process that I enjoy. Walking and looking, picking a subject, working out a composition then taking a photo and developing it in Lightroom. I don`t want instant Images from text inputs or presets or 1 click solutions. Keep on showing your process and don't worry.
I think we'll see a shift to different ways in which photography is treated and consumed. Similar to how streaming platforms completely changed how music is consumed, we have seen the flip-side where there is a growing demand for vinyl records - products that are tangible, real, physically owned, and hold emotional value to the purchaser.
Given how readily available AI art and photographs will be I think we will see a similar sort of flip-side where people will add extra value to 'human-made' art and photographs. I certainly agree that many advertisers and such will start to rely on the use of AI generated art etc, however I feel there will always be a place for authentic products.
Furthermore I think we may also see more of a revival of film photography. Not to say that it's not popular now, but I think more people will be inclined to take photos that have a creative process, images that have unique imperfections, and something that is tangible.
It's undeniable that a lot of changes are coming, for better or for worse, however I will continue with photography and I imagine many others will too (both hobbyists and professionals)
I'm not so sure about an even greater film revival (I would like it, since I'm already mostly shooting on film, and larger demand will keep production afloat and might even lead to "new" high-quality analog cameras being made - beyond large format and Leica ;-)).
As someone who takes only bad photos I am still very opinionated on this. I belonged to a photo group and someone actually took a picture at mid day and then replaced the blown out sky with a template to make it sunrise. The comment bothered me not the act. She said that it was a waste to get up in time for a sunrise, you can just add it in post. (she also lied to the person she sold it to and called it an original photo but that's a different story) It's this attitude that concerns me more than the ability to do it.
I do hope that the novelty will wear off and actual photography will be valued for the art. Same as painting was not replaced by photography.
Your comments are very interesting and in some sense asks the question: Does editing images in post make some images basically analog versions of an AI images? What is real and what isn't when you see a published photographic image?
Great comments that I agree with. The software I utilize lets me modify anything to do with the image. Personally I believe that a good photo should require minimal editing. Like you, I have have run into some whopping great fakes. Those people are not photographers, they are graphic artists.
Lying about the capture is a different topic, however, sky replacement is not. How many of the different photo editing software companies promote their ability to easily replace a sky. They are the people responsible for enabling some photographers to think it must be okay. That this woman was able to convince a buyer that the image was taken at sunrise means she must have done a lot more to the image than add a sky. I'm not sure what you mean by a template. That of course does not make it okay. I wonder if the sky was one she took rather than someone else's sky. Thats also an issue.
People will do what people do, all we can do is be true to ourselves with how we edit our images. As I in the most part do images for me there is no point in adding a spectacular sky. I do have several fantastic images where I wish I had a better sky. If I put one in and then hang the print on my wall, I'll always know so there is no point for me.
@@Mark-qn9xl Some AI software can drastically alter the whole photograph (Luminar AI advertises this ability) - not only the sky, but the whole lighting of the scene. Even my iPhone can do this to a portrait (changing the lighting, not replacing the sky ;-)).
I mostly agree. It will become harder to strive for authenticity, originality, and overall quality as a distinguishing factor. Using editing tools (and AI) is not bad in itself, rather how they are used.
Don't forget, nowdays everybody is photographer. I doubt photography will fade, most of people make photos of friends, relatives, places they visit. AI can't replace this, it can't illustrate your own memories.
And for amateur photograper the most important aspect of photography is quest for making good photo. Hunting reality for the moment and place when and where it suddenly turns beautiful.
It will definitely do that and more. You’ll be able recreate 3D models of the things you’ve experienced. like I said, not sure of the time frame.
No fun making an Ai photo. One is not out enjoying nature or interacting with others.
nobody pays you because you were in the nature at the moment of creation. And no one will look at real photos anymore because they will feel "boring" very soon compared to A.I-images, see thumbnail of this video, how to take that with a camera?
@@RonK I'm not so impressed by the thumbnail image, and also the images shown in the video are quite boring - they remind me of the generic images you can buy at Ikea (together with the frame). Yes, AI images will take over certain market segments, but authentic photographs will remain interesting for lots of people (not for those who don't care anyways).
@@RonKtell me you dont know how to be creative without ai, without telling me
@@RonK your comment is spot on. At the end of the day all that matters is what the client wants and what they are willing to pay for.
I’m 73… my first camera was a Nikon F Photomic FTn. My new Nikon Z7ll would have been considered how we feel about AI today. Technology moves on. If a photographer takes a odd rock, or a traffic sign, or even adds a moody dark sky to his photo in Lightroom or Photoshop, then what is that? I have no conclusion. How are we going to control it, or can AI even be controlled? Thank you Adam for another thought provoking video. (No, my FTn is not for sale)
I think AI will definitely have an impact and it will have different levels of repercussions based on the various creative industries, some of which you discussed Adam. Unfortunately there will be some who may see their part of the market being swamped in a short space of time. The value of photography which I know is a subject close to you heart will also become more prevalent as there will still be those who want more than just seeing an end product and will still be looking for that emotional connection and the personal journey to accompany the product itself.
No AI will ever take away the fun of going on photo trips, enjoying nature and tranquility and the excitement of what scenes will arouse my interest, what good or bad conditions come my way. Sometimes alone, sometimes in great company of friend photographers.
And then images emerge, of locations, objects and people that exist in reality. But with photography, editing or AI, everyone can do as they like. I like it rather authentic.
And besides that I started printing my photos myself, mat the prints, and frame them. And then they turn from a photography to an artwork. And this in unbelievably exciting and satisfying. I will always remember the first framed print where everything was handmade by myself. 😊
As normal, really interesting video, and it's always great to hear your perspective Adam.
Not sure I agree that hobbyist photographers will be impacted so much. You talk about people caring about the images you create. Most of us (outside of close family/friends) don't have big Instagram / TH-cam / insert other platforms communities currently and we do it for the love of getting out there and being in the moment, something that won't be significantly affected, at least in the short term by AI. The sad truth is many (most?) people on platforms like Instagram don't really care if something is real or not, probably due to the perceived value of an online post being very tiny.
Professional industries however are in for a major revolution. As someone with experience in the media/content industry, commercial requirements are the right level of quality at the lowest possible price. Throw in less/no legal implications and the idea of having an AI model where the clothes/scene can be changed in seconds, no copyright concerns, and no need for a whole team to support sounds fantastic, and to be able to do it cheaper and far quicker and I can't see that not having a major impact. The cost benefits alone will mean that once a few competing companies begin using this, everyone else won't be able to afford not to.
I don't think photography will die but certain genres will become much more niche, just like painting became, just like film became. It's rarely an all-or-nothing outcome.
I do agree with what you have said. However, I think we all have a fear of change. When I first picked up a camera (1960's), it had nothing to help the photographer. You had to know what settings were required, you had to manually focus with the aid of split screen. Wait for the film to be processed to figure out if you actually had the correct settings, or focused properly. I remember when digital first hit the market and everyone said that it was not true photography. Yet here we are today with primarily digital cameras. Cameras that can tell us if our settings are incorrect, that can tell us if we are out of focus. I also believe that there will continue to be a market for photography. It may be smaller, but it will remain. Just like paintings are still desired, so will the fine art photographs that can be printed, as you noted in your discussion. I guess that I am lucky in that my photography is strictly for my own enjoyment, and don't rely on it for any sort of income. Another great video and discussion. Cheers.
Great stuff Adam. My take. Certainly AI will affect photography to some extent, but not as much as some assume, IMO. As an enthusiast photographer, I have zero interest in sitting at a computer to generate images. I do photography because it's personal. I do a lot of bird photography, but I can, even now, go on line and find images vastly superior to anything I am capable of. But I don't, and the fact that I can, doesn't dampen my enthusiasm even a little bit. There is no personal component of AI images, and so, I feel, it will be of little or no interest to others like myself. AI can't document MY travels, or MY family events, or MY grandchildren. I can't see AI affecting wedding photography, event photography, street photography or even fine art /landscape photography. Commercial photography (advertising etc,) sure. I'm going to go out on a limb Adam, and guess that only a small portion of your income is from sale of your images to anyone other than people who admire you and are fans your channel. Your wisdom, knowledge and your personality are what is valuable. My guess, it will be like 3D movies or HDR photography. Amusing for a while, but that's it. We'll see. Just my opinion.
almost the whole industry of professional image creations becomes obsolete pretty quickly. If Pros stop shooting due to lack of payment, and consumers shoot with amazing camera phones, no camera brand will be able to bring cameras or lenses to the market with somehow payable prices. Ad campaigns "for free" can even be one third worse than real one - but no marketing company will be able to afford "real photographers" and the related staff anymore. Quantity beats quality - but here we get images that simply can't be done in reality anymore. Enjoy your photography but be aware that real images will look terribly boring very, very soon.
@@RonK You are very naive when it comes to professional image creation (and AI in general) - it is a much more complex process than you seem to think. It was said that CGI rendering would replace photography - but it didn't in high-end applications (not even in low-end ones, because it is expensive); instead it is often combined with photography to get the perfect result (Karl Taylor made a video about this). The low end of product photography might be affected - or not, since there has to be product shots (or CGI renderings) in the first place. If you have the 3D models of the products, CGI (combined with AI) might take over - but what if there's no model? Then you need shots of the real product (and with food it get's even harder to create a 3D model), so you can do "the real thing" anyways (and use AI to improve or modify where necessary, instead of taking multiple shots).
You remind me of a (then rather young) dude who claimed that drummers would go out of business, because drum machines are so incredibly good (this was in the 80s) - drummers are still in business, even though drum machines have become much better over the decades; it is just that drummers are no longer needed for every single recording, and some musical styles (like Techno, House etc.) are better suited for drum machines than others. And then there was AI generated music (hyped a few years ago, never heard of it again) - yes, it might replace some music production (like Muzak), but having a band playing on the stage is a completely different matter. And regarding smartphone cameras - still decades away from being really useful. Yes, the market for "real" cameras will shrink and only few brands will survive, but it will not be "all or nothing", more in the way of adapting to the changing needs.
AI will take away a lot of the photography market, sure, but strangely, it's also going to make personal art more valuable as it'll be rarer. The more we can lean into the personal-"That photograph? I bought it because it's of my home area." or "Oh yeah, that's an Adam Karnacz original"-the better off we're going to be.
The loss will probably outweigh the increased value of personal art, but I don't give a shit, the latter will still happen. I'm also going to keep doing what I'm doing, helping where I can to support everyone else doing the same.
We are beginning to reach a point of uncertainty as to what is digitally authentic. It is cause for pause, yet with each technical advancement, there is opportunity. We need to be open to possibilities and prepared to jump on them as they appear. I take landscape photos as an enthusiast and have never sold or tried to sell a photo. Photography allows me to get outside to beautiful places and unplug from my work week; nothing AI produces will change that.
Creating videos, telling a story of the journey, and what went into getting that great photo will always have value if captured and presented well. AI can't compete with effort and sacrifice, and there will always be a market for that. The market will shrink, but I hope that camera makers will develop new technology that will take photography and videography to the next level, whatever that may be.
Many future consumers will want and even demand transparent authenticity. That isn’t where AI adds value and it isn’t where photographers capture value. Marketing is a system for bringing producers (in this case photographers) and consumers together. It facilitates what we marketers refer to as a two-way search. AI might facilitate the search but in photographic terms it simply another offering, another competitor. Situation normal. That’s why we have innovation. For example, similar so-called technology advancement trends can be referenced in alternative proteins, EVs, and even online shopping. If there is an apocalypse it will be an apocalypse of marketing expertise. The basics never change. Know your customer. Create a business model that meets their needs. You’re on the right track with the RAW room. Well done. I’m not sure about everything going to zero. Core technologies do enable downward pricing but a Ferrari is still a Ferrari. Many people talk about creating value or delivering value when the core issue is really about capturing value. Different rabbit hole. Good luck.
PS: Please check that your RAW room videos are all playing. My iPad is having issues. Thanks. 👍😁
Maybe photography will come back to it's origin, where the picture is made at the source and not behind the computer.
In the end a human will never win against AI when perfection is the end goal
Good point. I'm more compelled than ever to return to film.
Maybe stock/illustration photography will be affected, but honestly I don't think that it will be a replacement for human work in art, journalism, nature, family, etc, I mean, it is simply a new toy that will find it's place for sure, but seriously it is an engine that makes a product knowing that's fake from start. We have movies with CGI actors, Star Wars or Irishman, but still we need actors as our heroes, cartoons are cartoons... As a result of expansion of Ai in photography film/analog will be back to future, I could bet on it.
I totally agree Adam, I worked in the printing industry for forty years and when digital printing first appeared it was very low quality and no one thought it would be any threat.
But beware of new technologies at your peril.
The improvement in this printing quality was just over a few years and most normal printing companies just vanished.
Nice video Adam, valid points and information
Cheers Tom
Well done, Adam. Thought-provoking for sure!
Hi Adam photography for me is a serious hobby atm (getting up at all hour chasing light etc) I have sold a few prints but still a hobby. The way I see for me to sell more photos and create a business in the future is to become a story teller & what I mean by this is to evolve into a videographer & photographer (like you but not having to get a youtube Channel) at the same time. I have noticed more and more people don't just want to see a photo they want to experience it also by travelling with you to see how & what you did to get that photo in Stories, Reels, Shorts, tiktok or whatever. This is why more and more photographers are making short videos of their photo shoots for example I post on insta feed and i'm lucky to get 50 likes but on Stories that doubles and on Reels I get over 1000 views! I love tech & I use AI in my business. AI can make pictures but it will never be able to replace the human interaction we just need to change and evolve in the way we do things in the future because AI is here to stay we need to learn to live with it. Cheers Eric
I've also been wondering lately where the world of photography is heading due to AI, and if indeed it is even worth pursuing the art anymore and investing the time to learn it.
At the end of the day the only reason I can see for photography is personal use and reportage/journalism.
Making money off photography, well that's almost an impossibility now let alone trying to sell someone a product that they can easily generate themselves in a few minutes.
I think to sell prints of original photography in the coming years you'd need to be the kind of salesman that could sell ice to the Eskimos lol.
Another consideration is how Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom and other similar software is going to fare?
I mean Photoshop has really gained traction now for just how easy it has made sky replacements etc; but who's going to even bother with that when they can just AI the image to begin with?
The mind boggles 🤔
I just returned my first ever mirrorless camera I bought from Amazon because AI is taking all the value out of hobbyist photography. AI killed my hobby before it even began. Lol
Thanks Adam for the video. I also commented on Twitter about this. On your page. I will say this and I'm a pretty experience photographer in Australia. And a few of my friends have taken up artificial art as well. It is trendy it is NEW it is shiny. It is fun and it is funky. But I guarantee this in three years it will not be fun. It will not be funky and it will be Deadset boring because we have seen it all before. The beauty of photography is that you go out and you shoot something that is real but no one else has ever seen in that moment now they may have seen that beach shore that place or that mountain shore. But they haven't seen that moment in time. Photography is about capturing moments in time that will never be repeated and yes that line is stolen from another photographer who commented that that's what Photography is. Artificial art..... Is not capturing a moment in time it is generating an image from data that has been compressed and programmed, and then it spits out an image. And I think that's the difference is that us photographers go out and capture a moment in time, so I'd like the photography fraternity to start using terms like capturing moments in time. Not see this as a threat, but actually reinstate our stance as photographers. I don't want to benefit from something a computer generated I said in my day job in front of a computer for much of my day, and he's actually taken away from the very cool work that I used to do. The last thing I want to be doing is sitting in front of a computer generating images that's what the space outside is for sure. We edit our photos but that is different as that is a reinstatement of what we just did. I would argue that artificial art is just that it's artificial. It's fake sugar it's not real. and yes it's trending right now but give it a year or two and it will not be trendy. It will be Deadset boring and everyone will be over it and yes something else will come along as it always does. Thanks for your videos Adam - always insightful and love your photography. In fact, from now on every post I do on a social media site. I'm going to put in in inverted commas a moment in time. Photography is about capturing a moment that will never be repeated. Artificial art cannot do that, and it will never be able to do that because it didn't happen, and that is the difference.
I agree with much of what you say Adam, and I've addressed this point in the fstoppers piece you referenced. The fear is that photography is going to lose its value. And it may well do in any context where the goal is simply selling a product. But no amount of software or technology can turn an image - however beautiful it may appear - into art, because art is a *communicative act between one person and others*. It connects people. Consider poetry. Which poem has more value to you: something written with love by your child to you on your birthday, complete with odd rhymes and poor scansion, or something that mimics the crystalline structure of a Shakespearean sonnet that is generated by a computer program with the click of a button? The latter might even sell for more, but the former has value far greater to you, I am sure. Because it is an expression of love. Because it connects you to someone else. Photography is little different. I create images not to make money, but to share myself and my experiences with others. So long as we focus on that, photography as an art form will survive.
This is a difficult one, I starting thinking about posters, prior to posters people had to buy paintings, with the posters a company could pay an artist to make a master, and then they could duplicate it in the thousands and sell them with high profit. I guess younger people will not see this as a problem, they have grown up with "everything, available, now". I do not really care, the last years we have seen people using PS to modify/change photos to the point where it no longer look like the original subject (cloud replacement comes to mind). And I've more or less stopped sharing my photos, I print the nice ones and hang them in my home ...
People are still using 8x10 film view cameras with manual exposure timing, so I'm not really worried that technology will soon replace people. We seem to hang on or even thrive on "homemade" rather than always cheap and better tech-production.
As a professional art photographer it may well impact your business. However as an amateur hobbyist it will only allow easier transition of relatively mundane images into rather spectacular ones. I suspect though that people will soon tire of it. No industry supports my photography currently and nobody except myself really cares about it currently. Basically I may be a dinosaur that lives in an era that precedes social media and we all lived happily at the time without it.
No, it’s mainly an issue for those trying to scrape a living from photography. Few manage it today unless they do weddings or commercial contracts. Fewer will manage it in future.
It scares me what AI will be able to do in a few short years. As a photographer, and a person who loves writing, I am worried about what will be valued about my work or anyone else to be honest. I wonder what artist that drew or painted landscapes felt when photographs started showing up, did they feel the same as we do at this moment? We live in a world of instant gratification and consumerism, that will drive AI in my opinion and that, is very scary.
Yeah that’s a good point. I still love paintings but I’m not interested in landscape paintings at all. "Old" and “out of date” jumps to mind. I hope that is not the fate of landscape photography.
Just when I wanted to start a Photography business!!
I once saw a TH-cam video that said something on why I think amateur (at least) photography won't suffer as much. Rarely people who like photography likes _photography_ , most people like what they are photographing, photography is just an excuse or the cherry on top. I don't think I'd stop meandering looking for lovely photos because I could do it all from the comfort of my house, because I don't think I'd stop meandering.
Now, maybe people who care more about popularity or results might drop from the hobby, but I don't think that's gonna be the greater majority, more like a minority.
One of the reasons I decided to finally buy a camera was because I wanted to be able to take photos and to share to my best friend what was the world like through my eyes. Now I've noticed that my camera is not just what my eyes can see but also what they can't, they are an extension and a way for me to create the images I really love, but it's what *I* see. I wouldn't have any connection to an AI work because I care more about showing the beauty that I see than showing something perfect (I still work hard to make something good 😅).
Excellent thoughts and probably very accurate!
There are areas where AI generated content can't compete: Personal imaging and authentic storytelling. Sure, there will be artists that do storytelling with AI generated images (I can imagine graphic novels being produced this way), but it might be much harder than it sounds, as all images would need to have a very consistent style - it would need an AI that is trained by the artist to do everything in the desired, maybe even personal style, a big task in itself. Maybe one day, but I would think of decades rather than years. Meanwhile I continue to take the shots I'm after, using whatever camera suits me best (from smartphone to 4x5) …
Interesting. Rubens was training teams of his h.i. (human intelligence) his style hundreds of years ago to help him create his masterworks.
@@jichaelmorgan3796 That's a good comparison, didn't think about that! Comparable to the way Disney cartoons where created. I think it was not only Rubens, it was quite common back then to have such workshops (it was a business, after all ;-)).
Was there not a time when landscape and portrait painters viewed photography as a threat to their art. I was once told that anyone can take a photograph… to which I replied anyone can play the piano too…. Interestingly now anyone can design a website or a brochure and they look on… however when you ask an experienced creative to do the work for you it knocks the homespun creation out of the park… You get what you pay for I believe. Ai will be ok and have a place but it wont replace mastery
Thats my hope too.
Great great video a couple of points I would like to hear you touch on, when it comes to the value of the photo there is a risk element, and that risk element affects the value as well. I’m speaking of the risk of the photo not coming out properly.
There is also the supply and demand aspect of AI photos are created by the millions and handcrafted photos are only the hundreds. The chances are the handcrafted photos will increase in value?
I'll be OK. People still shoot film for whatever reason. I know it's never been a popular stznce with those who confuse landscape photography with art but I can continue documenting the real world despite whatever AI brings.
As a hobbyist I don't rely on photography for any sort of income. As for my 'audience'... even though I am on the socials, I have never been fully invested in it, so most of my followers are friends, family and a few photographers that have 'followed me back'. The only other people that see my images are my friends at the camera club, and they are all equally as nerdy about photography as the rest of us.
I understand the threat to professional photography, which is a massive downer as not only can it affect peoples income and livelihood, but it is also a big pool of inspiration for newcomers and seasoned hobbyists as well as people that are thinking of breaking in to the profession. Professional photography is needed now for there to be pro photographers in the near future, who will in turn be an inspiration for more etc.
Oops, forgot I was logged in on the club account. The above is all my views.
The comparison can be drawn to the sponsor of your video. Ten years ago to get a good website you would need someone with the skills and knowledge to develop it, now there is intelligent software that does it for you. Web developers are now only needed for complex/bespoke tasks. AI will have its place as will all technology, it will be harder to make a good living, unless you are doing the “complex/bespoke” tasks. Nice video, I’m not worried about AI just treat it like any competitor. Mike
I take photos because I like going out and taking them. They're for me. It gets me out. AI will have no effect on me.
I agree with most of your comments but think there will always be a place for hobbyists. Don’t forget there are two aspects wanting to make a good picture but also enjoying the activity of making the picture going out with the camera and doing the stuff. I lost some of the fun when everything went digital now getting that back. No fun or activity in using AI. When AI starts taking away from the need for a photographer will it then start wondering about the need for a human?
Interesting video, but I do think you forgot to talk about the experience of photography. Maybe the price of the imagery will go down, but AI cannot replace the act of doing photography. Most hobbyist photograph, because they want to make something and AI cannot change that experience. Maybe it will actually help boost the resurgence of analog photography, cause you can prove that you made the photo yourself. Who knows...
I totally understand where you are at with this Adam, but as a hobbyist, I don't care about AI or what others think of my photos, whether that's my work being irrelevant or uninteresting because AI can produce something better. I enjoy photography for many reasons, the creative aspect, being out in nature, seeing new places and recharging my soul. AI can't take that away from me as it can't replace those feelings or the physicality of being out in nature itself. I do believe that AI produced images, will reach their zenith and then fall away due to them being 'too good' which is unnatural, and human beings really do prefer natural experiences and emotions. Eventually, after the initial WOW phase, AI produced images will settle into it's place alongside human made images and although professional photographers will suffer for a period of time, I believe that natural, human generated images will have a highly respected place along side them also.
I like your “Printing Your Work” explanation…. I am motivated on that very thing and hope to start putting my list of the things I want to invest in as far as the printer goes and upgrading my Mac Laptop/Desktop…etc…. I apple at your advice and talks on your videos Adam…. It doesn’t go left unnoticed by me atleast….press on as always….
I’d assume many other commentators have mentioned this already, but most of us already take photos that no one else either cares about, or even sees. I’d assume that the vast majority of photographers do it for the love of photography and all this AI stuff won’t actually affect their enjoyment of photography whatsoever?
Excellent presentation, thank you. First a disclaimer; I am by no means a professional photographer; I do not make a living with it. And I do not consider myself a hobbyist either, I have displayed in local galleries when I can and sold prints. I like to think of myself as an independent photographer doing my passion and my thing. Having said that, when I first heard of this AI thing while listening to NPR a few weeks ago I was not all that concerned. It is another tool for creating images, quick, down and dirty, with no soul. For me, it is (my opinion only) a lazy man’s or woman, tool. And yet, it has its purposes within certain societies requiring images, quick, down and dirty, with no soul. It is a giving known as progress and a small segment of photography will be affected. My believe is; it will be the photographers in many other disciplines keeping it alive with heart, soul, and stories of their exploits that AI could not possibly do. Wedding photographers, portrait photographers, documentary photographers, street photographer, combat photographers, even landscape photographers, to name a few that will keep photography alive. Closing on my old man jabbering, I like to remind everyone there was a time we thought film was dead. Digital was king, heck I even thought so; yet, there is a renaissance among the young folks turning their backs on digital and photographing with film. On top of that, Leica reintroduced its M6 and Ricoh/Pentax will be developing a film camera as well due to what is happening with film. In short, I don’t worry about this AI thing, I am hopeful, and I believe the young folks, my opinion, will keep the AI images in check.
Fast forward a few years and the only jobs will be barista (maybe) nail salon/hair salon worker and clerk at the dry cleaners (maybe).
OTOH, video now seems more important to many people than stills and I’m not seeing AI generating 4k vids yet for the TH-camrs and TikTockers.
Jobs providing a physical service will remain unless the Ai robots take over. By that point, non of this will matter anyway.
Nothing will change for me, as I give friends and family my nice shots of them. Reality, community, memories.
In 1997 Kasparov was soundly beaten by Deep Blue, at that point the world of chess groaned and the soothsayers predicted the end of the pursuit as a digital monster could crush all before it. Fast forward to today and chess is still going strong, with tournaments and competitions raking in many hundreds of thousands of dollars. The industry did not die as predicted. The artistry of the participants is just as lauded today as in previous years.
In the same vein, I envisage that the aesthetic beauty of photography created by a human will continue to have value and will continue to be appreciated by others too, I think you correctly surmised that it will be in a physical form too. You are probably also on the money, in that some companies and marketeers may prefer an AI driven computer generated image (cost, ease of use etc), and that some areas of the photography business will have to change as a result. But there will still be a place for the photographer, unless an AI is going to create your wedding album for you for instance.
An authentic photographic image may become scarcer in a future marketing world, but won't that just increase its value?
I have a big enough problem with people using the Topaz AI Focus stuff let alone fully generating an image from keywords,. Right now we're at this really strange tipping point where the commodity cameras are so good they remove most of the talent required to make a great image. You're 100% correct in saying the narrative is going to be our saving grace, without the image telling a story and the background information behind it, we will become fully irrelevant .
Interesting topic. As a pro I'd be worried indeed. As an amateur, I guess the effect of AI depends on why you take pictures in the first place. If you do it for followers on social media, then you should be worried too. If you, like me, do it for the experience of being out there and/or create something original and "of your own", no worries.
I think the reason AI will never destroy photography, at least to me, is that photography is all about capturing memories. Isn't this why photography exists in the first place? Generating a photograph with a computer has no story, no struggle and no memory attached to it. I noticed that increasingly more people want to know what went behind a certain capture, they want to know the story of the photograph. Additionally, a photograph is strengthened a lot by sharing that story behind it. These stories can also inspire other people. AI photography will never have that and that's why it will never replace or destroy photography.
What I do have a problem with though is people passing off AI and composite photograph as something that's real and as something they witnessed. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms...
Well, personally, I don't do photography because I want to make money or have it seem by as many people as possible. I do it because I enjoy it and, well, if anyone else sees it and likes it, all well and good. And the AI that produces quality images will be monetised, like everything else is. It won't be free.
Eventually, as well, there'll be a pushback from consumers who realise that they want something more involving. Like CDs/digital downloads have only actually served to make many realise they want to imperfection and experience of vinyl. And it's happening already in photography. Film is making something of a comeback and, now, even old digital cameras are appreciating in value and people are enjoying the limited results they can produce, not for the quality of the image in absolute terms (resolution, etc), but because of the feel of the images they produce. I have headed down this path myself, looking to pick up old digicams for that very reason.
The thing the people doesn’t get about AI images is that it’s just based on billions of photographs and paintings. These algorithms doesn’t make anything without a dataset, and the dataset is other’s works. The story about reinforcing learning, using AI images to create new AI images is limited and will become boring. Trust me, I worked with this. Besides that, in art as you said we have a thing called exclusivity, people who buy art, put exclusivity as a great motivator. people can even have an AI-generated photograph or art, just as today people can print a Monet painting, frame it and hang it in their living room. But the human and limited (exclusive) aspect will continue to play a primary role.
There’s another thing that people must be aware. The AI algorithms use like 5.8 billions images as an input (the dataset) and there’s a lot of proprietary images/arts inside (without concern of the authors). The big players on AI solutions says that it’s just inspiration but us, that work on the area knows that is just a bullsh*t. The algorithms is trained to replicate the inputs if necessary. So, there’s copyright issues with this technology that people unfortunately didn’t care now because it’s “so funny, so beautiful make AI images” (in music they did, oh yes).
There is no doubt that some areas of commercial photography will be replaced, especially online. How much, who can tell. Who thought cameras could do what they do now 20 even 10 years ago.
I started to print my film photos in the 60's (darkroom) and after transitioning to digital continued to print my work although at a reduced rate. More discerning I'd like to think. AI won't replace the family photos nor photojournalism, I think its more advertising that we will see a change. It won't effect celebrity photography or where we need to see real people. Having said that I assume a future development will be to upload a photo of yourself and then be placed in a myriad of scenarios.
So does it effect me, not in the slightest. I do photography for me, the process, the editing. If I make a few bucks then fine however it is not the primary goal.
The game will change, for sure. The worry is, if AI kills off a lot of the pro market, the camera industry itself struggles, and if those companies get out, then we’re all bang in trouble. When it’s not profitable for Canon or NIkon, they’re gone. We then end up using old gear, or phones - and I do believe phones will remain and will continue to push the tech forward as people love to tell their own stories, be that holiday snaps on Facebook, drunk night out snaps, selfies, or more considered shots of a hike or a trip. Humans want other humans to see what they’re up to. AI can’t replicate that. However, if that’s what we end up reduced to, that would be a sad thing indeed.
I hope I’ll still shoot when no one cares - after all, that’s pretty much where I’m at now. I shoot for me, no one else. I’m lucky that I pay the bills in another way in that regard.
Original art, Original thought, Original thinking will have a slippery slope to overcome with AI. Within the next 12 months we will see AI in Microsoft Office products, in Google Assistant results, in creating a stock image and more and more post editing software that will replace everything important in your image and replace it, enhance it or tweak it to a point that it's no longer close to what you saw when the image was taken.
Ultimately, as far as personal artwork goes, including photography, I hope that AI has a stigma attached to it. That an artists signature makes all the difference in distinguishing a piece of art as "real". Such that an expensive handbag is or designer clothing is expensive because of the name and quality, AI might be known as a cheap knock-off. When someone sees a piece of art on your wall, they ask, "Is that real?", referring to 'Is it not AI'. I think it's up to us as artists and humans to create such a stigma, and I think it brings hope to the matter. But I agree, it is rather depressing thinking of the capabilities of future technology sometimes. Thank you always Adam for your insight in your videos!
Most comments fail to distinguish professional photography from 'capture the moment' artsy or hobbyist stuff. AI will definitely have a huge impact on commercial services, clients want to save money and couldn't care less about the relation of photographer and it's subject. It's not about that.
I hate to think that things will get to that point but I'm afraid they are. Unfortunately, in this day and age, many people are more than willing to forego burning boot leather to find and make landscape images in exchange for taking the easy way out. Unfortunately, again, that is just human nature. It's also human nature to want to impress others with "Hey, look at the image I took", and the desire for acceptance and admiration from others is stronger than the desire for self-satisfaction derived from sacrifice and hard work to get that image. On the flip side (although much less likely given the current state of the world), it could get to the point where "real" images, created by real photographers using real cameras, become much more valuable because they ARE the REAL thing. Kinda like art created by the old masters. Just food for thought. Great video Adam. Thank you.
If its not shot on a camera, it's not photography. AI is creating images (not photographs) the same way visual artist do, why are we even talking about it? I can see how AI could help you with composition and setting in the future by having it integrated with the camera but that's meaningless.
Marketing campaigns without Photographer, Model, Art-designer, Graphic-designer, light-assistant etc. No one will be able to afford paying "real" humans for all that anymore. Same for product photography, fashion photography, architecture etc. A.I. portrait-images are breathtaking stunning already, easily useable for print- and digital commercials. Creating digital output will be as easy as it gets. Getting paid a dime will be impossible, except maybe for the (very soon to be overcrowded) markets of wedding- and event-photography (which will be cornered very soon by better and better phone cameras). No way out, photography will die running, except for the rare enthusiast.
“Hey AI, give me a picture of my dog with his new toy!” Not happening. And that’s all I want, essentially. Things I know, see, create, live with.
What is the value of knowing that a photograph is from a real place?
Now that is the question!! I'm confident we'll find out, one way or the other.
Sadly I think the future of photography as an art form is over with, or will be in a very short time. It's not going to take 5 years, that's old school thinking. I can't imagine how it could take over genres such as wedding photography, or sports or anything in real time. However, the images captured on a smart phone, will be easily manipulated with AI, and have great resolution for enlarging to prints. I hope I'm entirely wrong, but I'm afraid most of the photography creatives, with the exception of maybe a select few, will become obsolete.
3D programs already are killing some niches, such as product photography ie, not to mention AI. The thing that will save(?) and maintain photography alive is anything related to the heart/human memory and the fear of losing it, such as social events, trips or family. As a hobby photography still has a long life (including mobile and not only pro equip), imho. AI is a hype/trend now, and as such eventually it will fade and become common. Tv did not kill radio, nor AI will kill photography. It will only become a more niche thing.
I would like to think you are crazy and don’t know what you are talking about. But you are likely spot on. I have no interest in trying AI like sky replacement. I think for most of us, we will be fine. But there is a segment of photographers and non photographers who would be willing to not even question AI. I see fake photos all the time on FB, most viewers don’t know when they are fake or even care. It seems to matter more of who you are than an actual fine photo. As a photographer and birder, both of which I started in the 1970s. I can see a parallel between the two as people have changed. Birders rely on an app for bird identifications, not those with 40+ years experience. They see and share nest location to other birders and photographers with no consideration to the welfare of the bird. The appreciation and learning is simply not there. But a lot of us are different and enough of us to still enjoy the hobby. We just have to ignore those who lack the appreciation. They are a minority.
You ask as a hobbyist will you continue to take photos if nobody is looking at them? Isn't that the case now? Nobody interacts or spends a fraction of a second as they scroll through as it is!
It will continue as to many people, taking a photo isn't the be all and end all. It's the adventure, exploration, spending time in nature and the enjoyment that brings, it also gives the story that gets people. Many are stepping back to film to get away from tech as it is so getting AI to create something isn't on many peoples agendas.
Maybe I'm an optimist 🤣
Really interesting video and I think you are right about the value aspect of photography and in particular the physical product. One thing that I personally think will preserve the value of photography over AI is actually one of the reasons photography exists today and that is capturing the moment. Even the best AI landscape in the world will not have the value of the actual moment the image was captured. Its merely an amalgamation of multiple moments past and future. The moment value in real photography is that it happened, for real and in a real world and for that reason I am not too pessimistic about the advent of AI
I basically blame Adobe, for making editing so difficult and segregated a percentage of photographs from being able to use it. But then along came AI and all the software that came with it. I let go of my Adobe contract and have now got 4 software progs now on my comp. With Ai it is now making photography very one dimensional. A rubbish shot as long as it has a good composition can now be made into a good photograph. So the bullseye is the composition. without this no matter how good the editing is, it will not work. So composition wins every time, not the editing.
I do agree with much of what you say, This is actually a very old argument, this is exactly what painters were told at the dawn of photography.
In some cases if there are fewer photographers the value of the photographic artist and their created works may actually increase as the skill becomes concentrated in a fewer number of skillful individuals.
Keep making your videos I enjoy them so much.
They say you reap what you sow, for years photographers wanted easier and easier ways to edit photographs and it this that has led to the creation of AI. It doesn’t seem that long ago I would listen to landscape photographers on you tube, and almost all of them made the excuse for editing and enhancing their work that they were trying to create what they seen as they photographed. They were creating something beautiful but it almost never resembled what we seen in the video or if we were lucky enough to travel to the location we soon realised we would need to get very good at editing “very quick” and AI is helping many to achieve this.
I’m not saying who’s wrong or who’s right , but photography may need to reinvent itself and I’m sure it will.
AI isn't a threat to art - its a potential threat to corporate imagery for those who cannot adapt. If you are a landscape photographer making money from TH-cam, workshops, art galleries, prints - AI wont be a major issue. The market is already over saturated which images, and what is "good" at the top is subjective. People buy art not just because they like an image, but because they feel connect to it, and because they like the artist. There is a reason limited editions and signed prints sell best. Even for corporate imagery - its probably only creative imagery or stock photography at risk. Hotels for example are still going to preference or may even be legally preferences to show truthful depictions of certain things. So travel photography should be pretty safe too. Editorial and journalistic will be safe. Fine art should be safe. Keep in mind that the cost of AI generated images will increase over time as the quality improves - because higher levels of skill will be required for prompting etc - and whole specialist jobs are going to form like "AI prompt wizard".
Art is valuable because it is made to feel special. AI imagery wont feel special the same way a hand painted oil painting would. Just how a hand made potter mug is nicer to drink from than a replica that doesn't have the same quirks.
AI will hurt those who resist it and don't adapt. Even as prompts get better and results get better, its likely that editors will be needed to manualy manipulate the final result sof an AI prompted image to tweak it to the client's desires. Further - input images are still going to be necessary even as AI gets smarter - becasue it provides an extremely accurate baseline for the AI to work off. You may go out into the field and take an image, then edit that image with AI. "Make this image look xyz". This could create whole new opportunities for photographers on assignment. What if a an accurate representation was wanted for a neighborhood on fire? Take a good picture with correct aspects and even some real people of note in it, then ask AI to set the buildings on fire and add emergency vehicles.
My reach has dropped so much in the last two years that no one sees what I create now anyway compared to 2021, so adding AI makes no difference in that sense. The algorithm already killed my IG account.
If I create now with my reach at just 10% of what it was at its peak, I'll probably always create for the love of it...
So interesting to me how we seem to have come full circle in a way. If you're interested, Adam, you might want to read Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He talks specifically about his fears of what producing photographs en masse during his time (1935 at publication) would do to the art world.
Neat. I have to chuckle where my initial knee-jerk response to this video was to be happy to keep playing with film, darkroom printing, and albumen printing; feels somewhat outdated in this age. I'm still pretty early in the reading but so far Benjamin seems to be rather concerned about film photography.
"Their most powerful agent is the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage."
Great vid. I think that this will make more of an impact on landscape stock footage and product photography and companies looking for images for their websites etc. AI can’t be at a wedding for instance. I don’t make money from my photography, I only do it for the love of doing it so I’m not really bothered by AI. I also agree with actually having your work in print. I think that makes more impact
It will never end taking photos. AI won't as people like real things and real things could even be a niche oneday.
Good video Adam. As AI becomes even more sophisticated, it will be (if not already) the significant disruptive technology to commercial photography. Who will want to pay for photographer's efforts when images used for advertising, entertainment, etc., can more easily and cheaply be provided by AI? The art of photography will not die however. Just like painting, it will survive, but not in a professional/commercial sense. The challenge for "human photography" is to create images that are more unique and special than the typical misty woodland scenes that AI seems to create quite well based on your presentation.
Another thought provoking video. I keep coming back because of these thought provoking or inspirational videos and the great content. Thank you for sharing this one Adam and for all the hard work that you put into creating such videos.
eh I don't know... depends on the motivations for why you photograph. AI could create the most visually stunning scene, but that doesn't impact the enjoyment of hiking, camping, scouting, photographing, developing/editing, etc. Sure, if the only motivation someone has is to get social media likes, then sure they should feel threatened. Doesn't impact those that pursue it as a hobby though.
AI imagery may impact those who have corporate clients (a social media and marketing apprentice will make AI images instead oof external creatives and then tickling them up on Photoshop publishing them for their company). They may not have an impact as much on hobbyist photographers who will hopefully continue to do it for the love and that’s where professional photographers will be able to support them in providing that learning to help them fulfil their potential. They probably won’t post their images online because they’re competing against made up images.
In my view any composite images AI images or other heavily manipulated images such as those with sky replacement should be marked as such so that people can tell how an image has been made.
My thoughts are AI generated images will have there place especially with rapid iteration artists, but it will never be authentic or personal, and will be forever limited by the database it draws from.
I don’t get the seed drill reference from Jethro Tull. I’ve listened to for 50 years. What song is he referring to?
The band took their name from a real person. He invented the seed drill that helped kick off the agricultural revolution and changed farming forever.
You made a really good point in there Adam. Sure, who cares what other people do - fine if they want to "create" AI images. There's even the possible upside of fewer people being out and about -it's great to be out, alone, at sunrise - the lazies can stay home and let AI do the work. The problem, like you say, is that the industry might suffer. If the market shrinks, will there be the same level of investment from the manufacturers?
Somebody has to keep updating the image warehouse for AI to access. Plus there’s always retro. Look at vinyl records.
Photography is simply moments in time that can't be recreated. Ai will never be able to do that! I wouldn't make videos instilling fear in the younger generation that didn't learn how to create works of art from scratch. I'm 44 yesterday, so I've seen bit. A "TRUE ARTIST" has no fear.
Respectfully, I'm firmly of the opinion that painted landscapes are far superior an experience when viewed in person vs flat, fake digital prints....and I enjoy and explore a *lot* with my camera where I have access both for landscapes as well as professional (product and advertising uses) and personal candids. This I expect the same will happen regarding AI faked images vs actual photography. I also live, work, and play in a very artistic world, though which has simply pointed out to me that it truly is about the "eye of the beholder". Those who are looking for flat, disposable images will be thrilled with the advent of AI photography....but anyone looking for a deeper experience will be turned off by those using such. It really is all about what and how you target your audience and their values, both as an amateur and as a professional.
I think an artist cares less about what others think and more about their own desire to create. If others appreciate their work, that is a welcome bonus.
Not quite, if they have to live from what they create. But overall I do agree.
@Christian Augustin I agree with your counterpoint. One could be commissioned in one way or another for their creative talent .
Thanks for this important video. As with every technology advance throughout history, AI will introduce advantages/disadvantages in every discipline: art, education, science, politics, etc. It will require much discussion and reflection to sort everything out.
We freezing a moment in time, that will never ever ever come back. The memories we capture is something for us personally, even without a camera when you walk into the world your mind will see beauty what it sees. Ai will never go out on it's own or in a robot, maybe one day but will it be able to appreciate it? Cheers
AI cannot replace the experience of nature and sharing the story to inspire others. So, one can either stay indoors worrying that the sky is falling; or get out and walk beneath it.
A.I. will have a significant negative effect on a lot of industries across the board but, there are people who want to see the real thing and not just a computerised generation of a place or product. Another way of looking at things is, did the invention of the camera totally destroy the lively hood of artists painting landscapes or make their work less attractive? The difference with A.I. is the feeling of I wish I could be there turns to, but it's not real therefore the thoughts and feelings it provokes are also false. That sad thing about the time we live in is everything is becoming an automated service and A.I. will become the morn, having something other than the norm would hold a greater value. Art work made literally from the push of a button holds no value with me and I feel there's a lot of people out there that would share the same thoughts.
For me the fun is being there and capturing the moment. I don’t mind a bit of blending if you need to blend two exposures as long as the photographer is actually there capturing the pieces that he needs. What I oppose is creating photos from elements that were added in a program like sky replacement etc. For this reason I consider composites to be cheating and deceptive. Of course the way things are going people are going to live in a “fake” world like the metaverse and so on. Our reality is becoming so dystopian that we will take refuge in a fake world to ease our troubled lives and mind. Which if you think about it is tragic. Also there won’t be any need to buy cameras for that matter since people will eventually adopt all the new technologies.
AI generated images will probably destroy the stock photo business. My impression of stock photos are they are generic stand ins for something rather a photo taken with artistic intent.
Hello Adam, I do enjoy. watching these videos and seeing the approach others photographers take when creating there images. But even the rise of AI in smart phone photography is to some extent kill photography. I industry of photography has change so much in the short time I was taking images back in the 1980's I was getting paid £600+ expensive a day as a commercial photographer. Yes it was a amazing time and I love the job but hated the industry. But now you see so many Pro just go out a buy one of the amazing cameras on the market then stick in auto and of they go. So AI will hit to pro end quit hard I think. Will it impact live sport and event I think Yes may by not in the image cratetion but nore and more it the post prossesing of images. IE SKY replacement and object selection. For me now retired I just enjoy the process of just getting out there taking an image, editing, printing mounting and making a frame. It so staifying.
The lazy, the cheaters and the profiteers will use AI, very sad for them I think, but the autentic photographers, the ones who create pictures with a soul, who like to go out in nature will remain authentic and the public will decide what they want to put on their wall.
We'll just have to defend ourselves a bit more and justify our know-how, which we already do when we have to fight against certain fake photos. I'm afraid, but I try to stay confident. Thank you Adam
It's going to be a complicated era. Already copyright holders like Getty images have sued AI companies for using copyrighted material to train their bots.
The only thing that will destroy photography is a negative mindset and an unwillingness to embrace change.
this is how a painter must have thought when photography was invented
Hahah good point
Went to my friend's home which I haven't done so in a while, he replaced all his frame prints with digital displays throughout his whole house ugh.