A.I. vs. The Photographer

The A.I. (abbreviation for artificial intelligence) disruption in art has begun. It’s not like other revolutions in art, this one has the potential to upend creative skillsets. To understand it’s impact on photography, we have to take a walk back through history. Ansel Adams, one of the pioneers of landscape photography, often used a huge V-series Hasselblad camera to produce his images. In addition to this, he’d often spend hours in the darkroom, perfecting techniques that enhanced the contrast of his images. I’ve never used an 8 X 10, 35mm camera, but from the images of Ansel, working in the field, it seems as though portability was a huge concern, since he modified his car to transport it from place to place. To take his images, required using an external light meter, fine tuning the focus and exposure time precisely, and then, after pressing the shutter, not knowing what you were getting until the film was developed. Fast forward to today, we have 5 X 7 camera phones that can immediately produce images comparable to Ansel’s in terms of image quality (not the same as artistic talent). In between all this, we have the progression of technology, that ushered in film DSLRs, to digital DSLRs, to mirrorless DSLRs etc.. Furthermore, all the behind the scenes darkroom processing, has been replaced with software, that can manipulate an image in whatever way its creator desires. So what do A.I. platforms like DALL-E have in store for us?

First, these programs rely on a library of images in order to “train” the software, to produce an image that is usually a representation of the images curated by the user. Training seems to have occurred using the billions of images available online. Now, whether or not the sources of these images were all copyright free or just free to use in general remains unclear, and it also begs the question, as to whether or not the multitude of public posts by photographers on Instagram, Facebook, Flickr, etc., was exploited by these companies. What it is certain, is that the creative skills embedded in those images, used to train the software, is being leveraged by these companies with no compensation to the creators. The software passes that creative edge on to a consuming public for a small fee. It feels cheap, underhanded and wrong, and trust me, it does undermine the value of our art. I do not believe we can stop this trend, progress is inevitable, whether we like its form or not.

An A.I. image of Mt. Adams during sunrise, generated using DALL-E, and several images from my portfolio. Undoubtedly this will get better and more realistic over time

What I recall, just a few years ago, was a big debate in the community as to whether or not using Photoshop and Lightroom was akin to cheating. Purists argued that using processing software meant that you’d crossed the line from photography to digital media, they wouldn’t dare call it art. In fact some folks still debate whether photography is art. I digress, but the point is that progress, and specifically progress in the digital realm has always been met with criticism and angst but the community. Marc Adamus, one of the world’s best photographers and digital artists, was condemned for his use of Photoshop to enhance his images. To the point where a site was erected to specifically troll him for years. I won’t post a link because of how toxic it is. So where do we draw the line on what is authentic photography, which I believe is a valid art form, and what is not. I think A.I. generated images are that line. Hear me out. Until now, even the most Photoshop intense users, who replaced skies, moved trees, added Orton to the background etc., did it all using their skill, talent and creativity, with the help of software. We all chose whether our challenge was to get the best photo possible in-camera, or to rely on post-processing to perfect our craft. Now content creators can produce competitive images with the click of a button. This is exactly why we need to separate ART, from content creation, because there is no part of the process that requires the unique human element. What is art, except for us exposing our souls, in an attempt to connect with one another? That is not the purpose of A.I. images and we have to brand it as such.

So to me, there is no debate, but there are actionable steps. One is, we have to control the narrative and separate ourselves from A.I. produced images. We cannot fight this new form of media, but we can re-evaluate the price and value we place on our images. We’ve devalued our work enough, throwing it on to social media cheaply and half-assed, will only further accelerate our demise. We need to continue to elevate it as an art form, emphasize the human component and celebrate all forms of creativity, whether it’s done fully in the camera or in Lightroom.

Secondly we can think of ways of harness Artificial Intelligence. Topaz’s Software Suite already uses A.I. effectively and without compromising creativity, and of course so does Adobe and other imaging programs. Their focus, should remain on further enhancing the creative ability of the artists they serve. By this I mean intelligent automation vs artificial intelligence. Using the software as a tool, not as a substitute for art.

Lastly, curate your images as a true artist does. At the end of the day, an artist needs to have a body of work that can stand on its own. I feel like even though some of us are called to photography, we don’t explore what it means to be an artist. Being an artist is similar to being an investigator or explorer. Creativity comes through when you, the unique person that you are, are exposed to a situation or experience, and you through whatever media, you capture the moment from your own perspective. So take that same pull that called you to the camera, and follow it to the ends of the earth, and then uncompromisingly create a timeless masterpiece. I don’t care how you do it, that’s your business. I just want to be inspired by it, and so do the people who are searching for ART. Inspiration and value, this is the way.