Generative AI might have hit the creative industry like a freight train over the past couple of years, but there’s no doubting the positive effect artificial intelligence has had on photographic technology. It’s changed the way we capture, organize, and edit our photos, but I’m afraid it might be changing our perception of photography for the worse.
First of all, I want to address the elephant in the room. Generative AI does directly threaten photography but the impact won’t be quite as big as you might think. I believe commercial photography and stock photography will be hit hardest, because as generative AI improves, it will provide companies with a cost-effective alternative to expensive location shoots, studio time, or imagery to advertise their latest wears or populate their websites and socials.
But here’s the thing, artificial intelligence can’t generate a real photograph. You need a light-gathering device to expose a photosensitive surface to create a photograph. And the vast majority of photography is about capturing a moment in time. Until AI robots start walking around with cameras, traditional photography will prevail in some sense. How else are you going to document a wedding or newsworthy event?
How is AI affecting photography for the better?
AI-powered technology is being used to enhance both cameras and image-editing software. Deep-learning AI can train autofocus systems to recognise specific subjects, so the camera knows the difference between a human’s face, a dog’s face, and a car, for example. Similarly, AI can be used to control variables such as exposure and white balance, depending on the scene being photographed. And the best phones are using computational photography to make intelligent enhancements such as tonal changes, sharpening, and noise reduction, instantly, as the photograph is being taken.
The best photo editor software has embraced artificial intelligence, too. Applications such as Skylum Luminar Neo feature a range of AI-powered tools, providing photographers with the ability to, say, select and replace a drab sky. While Adobe has – somewhat controversially – embraced generative-AI tools powered by its proprietary Adobe Sensei AI. Heck, Adobe Lightroom Classic plug-in, Neurapix, can even learn your own personal editing style and essentially anticipate what edits you’d make to 1,000 images per minute. And that’s before you consider enhanced image organization thanks to facial recognition and automatic geotagging.
But perhaps the biggest effect AI has had on image editing is noise-reduction software (which reduces the lurid grain experienced at high ISOs). This has revolutionized low-light photography, redefining the boundaries of what is and isn’t a usable image when it comes to noise. There is an argument, then, that we have reached – or are about to reach – optimum AI saturation within the photography industry. It’s changed the process of capturing a photo for the better, without encroaching too much on the creative process.
Maybe that’s about to change…
Why do I think AI has changed photography for the worse?
The old adage: “the camera never lies” has seemed obsolete for decades. From early image manipulation in the darkroom to hoaxes such as the 1934 ‘Surgeon’s Photograph’ of the Loch Ness Monster to the rise of digital image manipulation, society has long been skeptical of the authenticity of photographs. But during a time where a simple text prompt can generate a convincing image in seconds, we risk becoming more suspicious of photography than ever. And within the midst of a misinformation crisis, that’s not good news.
As AI-generated imagery becomes the norm, I think it will perpetuate unrealistic expectations when it comes to what a photographer can and cannot achieve. This has already proven problematic, thanks to the rise of social media. Wedding photographers are particularly vulnerable, with elite weddings and staged shoots helping to set expectations sky high. Suffice to say, photographs from a $200,000 wedding reception in Santorini aren’t going to look the same as photographs captured at your local golf resort. And AI is only going to send expectations soaring, with photorealistic images that may not even be possible for a photographer to capture.
AI-image generation will also cheapen photography, even further. Photographers are already lambasted for the fees they charge, despite the high cost of professional photography equipment and the hours they spend editing after the fact. There are many reasons why imagery has become less valued in society, but arguably the biggest reason is the prevalence of the smartphone.
Smartphones — jam-packed with computational photography — have allowed anyone to take a half-decent photograph. This has allowed businesses and individuals to question why they’re paying a professional photographer or videographer. You need look no further than social media to see that many brands and outlets opt for ‘lo-fi’ content as opposed to professional-grade content. And while stock library giants have already been accused of negatively impacting stock photographers’ livelihoods, AI-generated imagery will surely land the final blow as would-be customers turn to cheaper (or free) AI image generation.
And that leads me to the final reason why I think AI has changed photography for the worse. Hiring a creative isn’t just about delivering the final product, it’s also about gaining access to their unique creative perspective. We’ve all seen AI adverts populating the web that dial the uncanny valley up to 100. As it stands, this imagery cannot hold a candle to what a skillful human can muster. Part of the problem is that AI cannot cultivate a unique style. Think Henri Cartier-Bresson, Annie Leibovitz, and beyond photography, Andy Warhol, and Stanley Kubrick. These are all creatives defined by their unique styles.
The fact is, there’s a difference between a unique artistic vision and somebody just heading online and prompting an AI-generated image. We are going to see photographers and artists alike embrace the powers of AI and create fantastic creative works that we cannot even conceive. But it’s the human element that’s the key. Ultimately, I always come to the same conclusion, when it comes to AI’s relationship with photography or the wider creative industry.
Artificial intelligence must not be seen as an alternative to the human creative, but a tool that bolsters their creativity. The photography industry – so far – has gotten that bit right. I just hope everyone else shares the same sentiment.
