"Photography is dead" (AI), Peter McKinnon's latest video. Is it??

[stillviking]

"Photography is dead" (AI), Peter McKinnon's latest video, officially opened an identity crisis for me for the 2nd time in my life.

I always loved photography and all my free time was for photography and related to photography.

Then I was lucky to be a contributor to a sports magazine (not a newspaper, a magazine that sought to show the beauty of sports) for a few years. With the digital, the magazine closed and no one else cared to know anymore. It was the first time I felt lost, that was really what I liked, beautiful sports pictures. I sold all my photographic material and spent 2/3 years without knowing what to do with my life and identity.

3 years ago, I regained my passion for photography and found myself again, inspired by the "outdoor photographers" I saw on social media, I gained new courage and wanted to show how beautiful nature was and live for photography. I bought all the material again and started to travel and walk on trails looking for the best landscapes and lights, with all the joy and frustration when the result was not what was intended.

Now, watching Peter McKinnon's "photography is dead" video, I have a crisis again and want to sell everything. I just don't sell it because I think to myself "who am I if I'm not in love with photography?".

AI came to ruin all of this, and all my dreams of showing the beauty of nature again seem to make less and less sense. Today there are millions of images on the internet and now with AI everything will be fake to make everything even better and more perfect, with 0 skills involved. So why am I spending money and investing, carrying 10kg of photographic material on my back, buying filters, etc. if with a crude cell phone photograph or software (like Midjourney in the future) plus with Adobe Generate Fill everything is created in seconds perfect and images much more appealing to all people?

Honestly, I need your help and your opinion on how AI is devaluing photography to death to the point of completely demotivating taking pictures. Any mediocre photograph looks fantastic with these edits.. I don't know why I'm upset anymore. The problem is that I've always loved photography too much, and I can't let go because I'm lost without it, it's part of me since ever.

 

[Kit.]

with all the joy and frustration when the result was not what was intended.

That's what interests me in photography as a hobby. Not the end result, which is, with the current abundance of images produced by digital photography, would highly unlikely be unique.

As to the AI, in its current state it needs training on vast amounts of "real" images to be successful. I doubt that reliance on AI-genetated images as a norm would be sustainable. When AI image generators are themselves feed with AI-generated images as something they are supposed to imitate, there is a positive feedback loop that is going to propagate AI-"invented" cliches in the generated images.

 

[stillviking]

To be honest I was really focused in my photos as "end results" and I will need to change my mindset to care about "the experience", because "end results" with this AI stuff fake manipulation are impossible to beat. Ithe end, we will do photography only for ourselves and not to show the world making the effort to have the best photos?

I'm having a lot of trouble changing my mindset and recreating myself in photography, about what I'm going to photograph now outside of family moments.

For sure I love photographing, but I can't deny more and more my mind is flooded with questions like "with are you buying this new lens?" "why are you spending this money on a new filter?" "why are you going with a 10kg backpack instead of just enjoy the hike and shoot with smartphone".

Probably if I can't spend money, I will not spend as before, for example.

 

[AlanF]

To be honest I was really focused in my photos as "end results" and I will need to change my mindset to care about "the experience", because "end results" with this AI stuff fake manipulation are impossible to beat. Ithe end, we will do photography only for ourselves and not to show the world making the effort to have the best photos?

I'm having a lot of trouble changing my mindset and recreating myself in photography, about what I'm going to photograph now outside of family moments.

For sure I love photographing, but I can't deny more and more my mind is flooded with questions like "with are you buying this new lens?" "why are you spending this money on a new filter?" "why are you going with a 10kg backpack instead of just enjoy the hike and shoot with smartphone".

Probably if I can't spend money, I will not spend as before, for example.

I do photography for myself - the fun of finding wildlife and recording it - and also for sharing with others who are interested. AI helps me get acceptable images with lighter and cheaper gear and so is a boon not a threat to my enjoyment.

 

[Maximilian]

I didn't have the time to watch the video.
The question can be taken in different ways.
Like "Photography is dead" because AI generates artificial pictures.
Or like "Photography is dead" because AI helps too much and the artistic approach is dead.

My answer in short: No!

In long:
Again and again, someone means to declare something dead.
Actors in Hollywood are on strike right now because they are afraid of being replaced by AI.
AI was able to win a photo competition.
SO WHAT!
When I go to the movies or the theatre, I want to see real actors to perform well - even if they do motion capture like in "Avatar" or "LOTR".
When I look at art, I want to be stimulated, inspired - even if AI is involved.
When I look at a photo, I want to understand the thoughts and the goal of the photographer.
When I take a photo, I want to catch a moment, a situation, a composition of light and/or colour (b/w is great, too), an emotion and so on.
And it's the time and the involvement with photography and then the memories that I have because of it.
If AI is helping me here, e.g. in the AF system, I like to use it.

But when pictures are generated by AI, does that offer that joy to me? No!

 

[stillviking]

I would say 1st «"Photography is dead" because AI helps too much and the artistic approach is dead», every average photo can turn into an amazing image nowadays with all the fake manipulation, there is no more effort in making it on camera if final result is the same.

 

[jd7]

If you do photrogrpahy for yourself, I don't think photography is dead. If you want to look at a photo on your wall or screen, or show it to family and friends, and be able to think/say "I took that", you can still do that.

If you are a professional and your photography is of people, animals or events, we will have to see whether the audience cares about the extent to which images are manipulated. Personally I want photos, not graphic design done by a computer, but we will have to see what the paying customer wants. (And yes, I know photos are usually edited and the line between what is acceptable editing and an image becoming essentially graphic design rather than a photo may not be necessarily entirely clear cut. In my view things like Midjourney are clearly in the realm of graphic design though.)

If you are a professional and you do commercial photography, to me AI does seem like a threat. Why pay a photographer if you can get an acceptable image in next to no time using AI? (Are we at that point yet? I haven't looked closely enough at any of the AI software, nor watched the McKinnon video.)

If you are a forensic photographer, it seems to me AI has no place. One of the challenges, though, seems likely to be trying to work out if/how we detect AI manipuation so as to avoid AI being used to create false evidence. If we cannot, it is difficult to see how photographs will be useful evidence in future, as you just won't be able to trust them.

There are other types of photography, of course, but I won't keep going.

 

[becceric]

If you do photrogrpahy for yourself, I don't think photography is dead. If you want to look at a photo on your wall or screen, or show it to family and friends, and be able to think/say "I took that", you can still do that.

If you are a professional and your photography is of people, animals or events, we will have to see whether the audience cares about the extent to which images are manipulated. Personally I want photos, not graphic design done by a computer, but we will have to see what the paying customer wants. (And yes, I know photos are usually edited and the line between what is acceptable editing and an image becoming essentially graphic design rather than a photo may not be necessarily entirely clear cut. In my view things like Midjourney are clearly in the realm of graphic design though.)

If you are a professional and you do commercial photography, to me AI does seem like a threat. Why pay a photographer if you can get an acceptable image in next to no time using AI? (Are we at that point yet? I haven't looked closely enough at any of the AI software, nor watched the McKinnon video.)

If you are a forensic photographer, it seems to me AI has no place. One of the challenges, though, seems likely to be trying to work out if/how we detect AI manipuation so as to avoid AI being used to create false evidence. If we cannot, it is difficult to see how photographs will be useful evidence in future, as you just won't be able to trust them.

There are other types of photography, of course, but I won't keep going.

These are my thoughts also. I don’t profit from my photos. Even though I see much better photos posted on these forums, I have a group of people who enjoy viewing the results of my efforts, and look forward to more. That’s pretty darn satisfying.

 

[Maximilian]

Reading through the posts a second time I have to add something:

For sure I love photographing, but I can't deny more and more my mind is flooded with questions like "with are you buying this new lens?" "why are you spending this money on a new filter?" "why are you going with a 10kg backpack instead of just enjoy the hike and shoot with smartphone".

Firstly, ask yourself, how much time you spend, you want to spend with photography.
Secondly, ask yourself if you're just buying because of GAS.
Thridly, ask yourself if that new lens, that filter, that 10 kg backpack give you more to the hobby photography than just using your smartphone.

For my I can answer that quite fast:
I've never managed to get a dragonfly or a bird in flight or other action photo with a smartphone.
I was never satisfied with a smartphone photo in the blue hour or in the night/dark.
And I never wanted AI to take away the time, effort and joy from me until I got the photo instead just by generating an artificial picture.

 

[AlanF]

Reading through the posts a second time I have to add something:

Firstly, ask yourself, how much time you spend, you want to spend with photography.
Secondly, ask yourself if you're just buying because of GAS.
Thridly, ask yourself if that new lens, that filter, that 10 kg backpack give you more to the hobby photography than just using your smartphone.

For my I can answer that quite fast:
I've never managed to get a dragonfly or a bird in flight or other action photo with a smartphone.
I was never satisfied with a smartphone photo in the blue hour or in the night/dark.
And I never wanted AI to take away the time, effort and joy from me until I got the photo instead just by generating an artificial picture.

We use photography to record what we see in nature, from near macro to far telephoto, and we are not threatened, just helped. Mind you, I took yesterday with my iPhone some great photos of my friend and his family cutting his 75th birthday cake.

 

[stillviking]

This will blow your mind for sure and you will better understand what I was saying about AI edits:

 

[AlanF]

I was going to show this in the Bird Portrait thread today, for instructive amusement. Yesterday, I posted this photo of a tiny Sedgewarbler 33m away. taken with the RF 100-500mm on the R5, which I said was upscaled 2x as it was so small.



What I was going to spring on the forum today was the original version - I had defocussed the very sharp background to bring out the bird. Cheaper and lighter than having a 1000mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[Click]

Excellent result. Well done, Alan.

 

[Czardoom]

1. If your interest in photography was simply to show others how great you are and how your photos are better than others, well, then you may be impacted and I feel sorry for you.

2. If your interest in photography was to produce beautiful, or impactful images of the world around you, then what others are doing with AI, should not matter one iota.

3. If your interest in photography was to challenge your self to produce the best images you can, then what others are doing with AI, should not matter one iota.

Where it might matter (hard to know yet) is if you are are pro photographer who depends on photography for their livelihood.
Where it also matters (without a doubt) is for any and all photo contests, where the rules typically stipulate a very minor amount of editing, where you know for certain some will try to cheat and use AI generated imagery in their photos.

That's my 2 cents. My guess is that your interest in photography is most related to numbers 1 and 2 above.

 

[stillviking]

@AlanF amazing.. how you did it? that's the beggining of AI edits. Why keep buying ultra-expensive lens?

@Czardoom I was in 1., 2. and 3. for sure, 1. is what concerns me I will need to turn off...

 

[AlanF]

@AlanF amazing.. how you did it? that's the beggining of AI edits. Why keep buying ultra-expensive lens?

Dead easy. Used Photoshop select tool from the menu; it detected the bird and I added the branch it was on close to it, did inverse selection and then Field Blur. It has indeed changed my attitude to ultra-expensive lenses. One major reason reason for buying a wide lens is subject isolation. However, simple subject isolation is easy using Photoshop as above and is already standard automatically on smart phones for portraits. With dualpixel/quadpixel AF, it may be possible to estimate distances over the image sufficiently for software than to do sophisticated out-of-focus effects to mimick different apertures. I think using digital methods in this way to change aperture rather than using the current analog methods with aperture on the lens is no more different than is using digital vs film.

 

[jd7]

1. If your interest in photography was simply to show others how great you are and how your photos are better than others, well, then you may be impacted and I feel sorry for you.

2. If your interest in photography was to produce beautiful, or impactful images of the world around you, then what others are doing with AI, should not matter one iota.

3. If your interest in photography was to challenge your self to produce the best images you can, then what others are doing with AI, should not matter one iota.

Where it might matter (hard to know yet) is if you are are pro photographer who depends on photography for their livelihood.
Where it also matters (without a doubt) is for any and all photo contests, where the rules typically stipulate a very minor amount of editing, where you know for certain some will try to cheat and use AI generated imagery in their photos.

That's my 2 cents. My guess is that your interest in photography is most related to numbers 1 and 2 above.

The way AI may matter even to your groups 2 and 3 is if it results in the market for camera equipment shrinking further. A smaller market likely means higher prices for those who remain interested in photography. We will have to see what happens, but I would not see that as a good thing! (Higher prices are also likely to cause the market to shrink further so there is a limit on how far you can push prices realistically ... But equally if equipment makers can't make a profit they will just stop making camera equipment altogether.)

 

[Del Paso]

For me, AI is part of editing.
The question is "what do I want to achieve".
Is it obtaining what I saw when taking the photo, by improving colours, or also by cropping?
Or is it modifying the picture in order to obtain a "perfect" result by adding skies, mountains, rivers?
Where is the limit? It's a matter of personal choice. My limit is rather clearly defined, my editing has to reproduce what my eyes saw, and not to create an artificial "reality".
AI, yet, can be very useful, think of Topaz Sharpen, for instance. But this is for me "ironing out" picture-taking errors. Period!

 

[AlanF]

For me, AI is part of editing.
The question is "what do I want to achieve".
Is it obtaining what I saw when taking the photo, by improving colours, or also by cropping?
Or is it modifying the picture in order to obtain a "perfect" result by adding skies, mountains, rivers?
Where is the limit? It's a matter of personal choice. My limit is rather clearly defined, my editing has to reproduce what my eyes saw, and not to create an artificial "reality".
AI, yet, can be very useful, think of Topaz Sharpen, for instance. But this is for me "ironing out" picture-taking errors. Period!

It's rather ironic, the introduction of photography caused a massive change in painting as artists realised that the camera was a powerful rival for capturing the world around them and so impressionism and other movements appeared where the artists used their imaginations for novel creations. Now, photographers are scared because they can do the same with AI!

 

[Del Paso]

It's rather ironic, the introduction of photography caused a massive change in painting as artists realised that the camera was a powerful rival for capturing the world around them and so impressionism and other movements appeared where the artists used their imaginations for novel creations. Now, photographers are scared because they can do the same with AI!

The main issue I see is less with "artistic" photography, but rather with news, and even worse, war photography where AI can easily be used for propaganda purposes. Which has already happened...
I nevertheless wouldn't compare impressionism with AI photography. Adding lakes, barns, mountains is a bit different from an impressionistic or pointilistic view of reality. It is still true that photography influenced painting, fortunately!