Photography Life has been, is, and always will be AI-free. This is the conclusion our core group of writers came up with in one of our internal calls, where we debated the use of generative AI for both creating images and writing content.
Without a doubt, the growth of AI (Artificial Intelligence) technologies has been tremendous in the past few years. Heck, it seems like something new comes out about every week – from walking and talking robots to incredible new ways of editing photos and videos. The lure of using all these technologies to enhance our day-to-day life is becoming ever so appealing. And to give it some credit, there are certainly beneficial ways to use AI, like discovering new medicines and solving complex problems in science.
I personally love entertaining my co-workers with the Call Annie app. One of them even asked if my wife was jealous… I did not see that coming! But I guess we are not far from that either. Heard of AI girlfriends? Now, that’s super creative! I remember back in the day a local sex toy store in Denver used to advertise, “It’s cheaper than dating!” on large billboards. We just took a new approach to enhancing our personal lives, and this one is going to easily win on all fronts, because AI knows how to fill those emotional gaps.
It’s not like those guys who invented AI aren’t warning the world to take a breather and think it through before this technology fully takes over. With the next-gen AI getting unpredictably high levels of intelligence, which according to top AI scientist predictions is going to happen very fast, one might wonder if humanity will ever learn from its past mistakes. My prediction is – most certainly not. I remember first reading “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius, and repeating the words “nothing has really changed” (@Bob Vishneski, you were right). Humanity has always been led by people fueled by greed and self-interest. Oil, gas, profitable trade routes and regional influence drive corporate greed and manipulate our geo-politics. Look at the world affairs today – that’s a reflection of our society at large. No wonder things are boiling over.
And while our attention is strategically aimed elsewhere, tech giants are pushing things our way, and this time they are armed with above-human tools to manipulate our conscience. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in for a very fun ride!
I know this all sounds extremely pessimistic. Perhaps I am just overwhelmed by everything that’s going on in the world at this point of my life…
So when I sat down with our group of writers at Photography Life and started chatting about AI and how we are going to face it as a photography resource, I was surprised to see a unanimous “no” to the use of AI in any shape or form for what we do here. We concluded that the world does not need more fakery. If this is going to be the very last resource that is free from AI-generated articles and AI-generated photos, and even if that translates to negative financial performance, “so be it” was our team’s conclusion. I supported this vote wholeheartedly.
I started Photography Life back in 2008 and I never had the intention to make it a profitable resource. I always followed my dad’s mantra of “do something with love and passion, and the money will come with it”, and PL is certainly the child that was born through this philosophy. I am happy to be part of this journey, which is in the hands of a very smart, energized and talented group of people that I am proud to work with.
Welcome to the new-old Photography Life. I am sure some of you will appreciate our updated slogan – “Photography Life: AI-Free Since 2008.” Feel free to talk about this among your group of photography enthusiasts at your local club, or while shooting in the wild. And please spare us from the likes of social media. I haven’t been on Facebook, Instagram and all that for a few years now, and when I found out that these companies use public posts to train AI, I sat back and laughed…
As always, thank you for being a reader and for supporting Photography Life for so many years.
P.S. As I was publishing the article, I got the following suggestions from an “AI Assistant” in the post editor:
Oh really? No, thanks!
Kudos! I guess AI will be a hot topic for the coming time. How long this time will last, has to be seen. I don’t think you are pessimistic at all. You see things for what they are and stand for that. Which is exceptional in current times.
Since nature mostly has simple answers to complex problems, we shall see if humanity can become natural and be part of the solution, or if it will be solved by nature. Yeah, I really think we’re a this point. And not because of human inflicted climate change.
As for AI, if I can fill a space, or remove an object with it, I will surely use it. I’m not going to be the farmer to starves to death and denies progress. Because I probably travelled 10 times around the world, pushing a mouse, in 30 years of retouching and clone stamping. Unless I can do it better manually, I will AI fill it.
We also have to make distinction between AI and general-AI. Many times people talk about Skynet, while they mean contextual fill. And that’s the best AI can do today.
The suggestion by the AI Assistant shows us the fundamental problem of today’s society. You write what you want to say, exactly how you want to say it, and then some AI professor thinks it stinks.
“Screw your AI’s” (The same way as Mr. Schwarzenegger is looking at my freedom…)
Seems like something you can ban unless it’s the very thing you wish to speak about or demonstrate someday.
I think in general there is concern of how automation overall, regardless of whether it’s achieved via IA or any other means, decreases the conceived respect for a user’s skill’s, ability, and ethics.
An avid Formula-1 fan, friend, boasted to me of how the many automated actions in current race cars, now eliminated many things that previously required Driver reaction, and He expected me to be impressed. I turned to him, and said, “I guess before long they won’t need a Driver.”
I started in Photography with a totally Manual Minolta SRT 102, bought 100 Ft. rolls of Kodak Ektachrome, rolled my own film cartridges, developed the film, made enlargements on a Beseler 23C, and processed Cibachrome prints in a Beseler Print Roller/Tank.
I mentioned on a Fred Miranda forum that if such were the case “today”, the forum membership would be reduced by 98%.
So, if I was a “real” photographer when doing all those things manually, now that I use a highly automation capable camera, and software that reduces the time and effort spent in the “wet” darkroom, by 90%, am I less of a photographer even though these modern advancements result in much higher quality images?
In other words, what is of most importance to the viewer of an image, the pictorial visual, and emotional appeal, or the manner in which it was accomplished?
I believe there are several separate issues that you may be conflating in your comment.
The first is the automation of manual tasks versus creative ones. The automation of manual tasks in the realm of photography involves things like metering and autofocus. These are things that fundamentally do not affect the main creative aspect of photography: seeing and composition.
The danger of AI is not from the automation of manual tasks, but rather the automation of creativity. Therefore, it’s an entirely different realm than the issue you are talking about (which is itself interesting).
Your final question does touch upon the AI issue. And in this regard I have two comments: first, the ethical issues surrounding photography must always go beyond what is important to the viewer. The question of what is acceptable in photography should also involve the nature of what photography is, and its social implications, because in addition to being photographers, we should also be responsible social stewards.
And second, I do believe that the philosophy of lowering ourselves to the point of only being concerned about pure consumption of XYZ by isolated viewers in isolated time really is the path to making any XYZ superficial and expendable.
Just wanted to add to the discussion that this post is not about using specific camera technology, post-processing techniques or anything like that – it is just our stance on publishing content on this website. We will simply never use AI-generated articles or photos on this website.
AI is used in Camera AF tracking Algorithm’s, as well as Noise reduction programs like DxO’s Pure RAW. Such use doesn’t fake anything per say, and I can’t imagine how you can avoid it in that context?
Absolutely, this doesn’t mean we’ll stop writing about cameras that have subject-recognition autofocus or things like that. Rather, it’s a stance specific to the articles and photos on Photography Life – nothing we publish will be generated by AI tools.
I appreciate the article and enjoyed many of the comments. It’s been my contention since I started in photography about 15 years ago that I wanted my photographs (mostly nature and wildlife) to represent the scene as I saw it within the frame of my viewfinder. And I appreciate photography websites that celebrate images that are reasonable representations of what the photographer saw the moment they took the picture. What I’m getting at is that I don’t care if the post processing software has the initials AI in it or not, or if it was used to denoise or sharpen an image, or even if it extends the dynamic range of the image beyond what the sensor/camera could do at that ISO. I do object to calling an image a photograph if removal, replacement, and/or expansion has been used. Let’s just call it digital or graphic art and celebrate it as something different, i.e., not photography. “I have spoken.”
In that case, I guess Ansel Adams was a graphic artist—Not a photographer, because he was known to do a lot of darkroom altering for his final prints.
Altering what is initially captured on film or a digital sensor is still altering from the original capture, regardless of how it’s accomplished; burning & dodging with film on a Besler 23C, or a digital image editing software program on a computer.
I often say to family and friends that for me the joy of photography is in the “making” of the image. It’s not just the capture. It’s not just the processing (I don’t enjoy processing somebody else’s capture). It’s the emotional content of doing the whole thing: from planning the trip/outing, to gearing up, humping my way to the right place, waiting for the right light, etc, … and then the frisson of pleasure as I process that image and eventually display it as I saw it “in my mind”. Generative AI conspires to take ALL of that away from me. It’s entirely bereft of human reward and pleasure. It had not occurred to me to wonder whether you might feel differently, Nasim: had I been asked, I would have predicted your very conclusion. I’m relieved. I’m grateful that it seems there are others who feel as I do.
Same here, the entire process of photography is the appeal to me, and many others. I have a lot of great memories while out taking pictures that I would never have experienced sitting on my butt in front of the computer typing “pretty landscape” into an AI generator.
Vusi that pretty much sums up how I feel about it…I enjoy the technical aspects of photography especially out in the field, it keeps my mind engaged, my creativity stimulated, and my physical conditioning high. I do it for me, same as anyone with a hobby they enjoy doing does for themselves. I have a houseful of landscape prints hanging on my walls and can recite when, where and how they were taken at any given time..and all the skies are real…
I suspected this was Photography Life’s position but I’m glad to see the statement all the same. I agree with everything said here.
For me it’s the difference between “generating an image” and “capturing a scene.” Both are art forms, but I think the latter is why we are all here. I don’t understand why anyone would bother calling themselves a “photographer” if they are instead merely a client to piece of software.
The AI assistant thing: had it realized the irony and pointed it out, I might have been impressed! :D
Unfortunately, there is a nonempty intersection between photography as a pursuit to capture the scene and photography as an umbrella term, referring to generative images that look like photographs for profit.
More unfortunately, photographers right now are playing a prisoner’s dilemma, which refers to a situation where if one person takes an action, they are better off, but if everyone takes the action, everyone is worse off than if no one took the action.
In other words, AI provides short-term benefits to certain kinds of photography. But, in the long term, the photographers who benefit financially (commercial photographers) from AI will simply be replaced. They are truly financing their own replacements. It’s a sad state of affairs indeed.
We can say no to AI. One way is to use older photo editing software. The one I use is from 2015, and it does everything I want it to do. We can also tell Google and other engines that we refuse any AI content when we do our searches. We can say no on Facebook and other social media. There are ways. As with everything, if they can’t make money at it, it will disappear. We just have to make sure that they can’t make money off of it.
I absolutely agree! I don’t agree with the defeatist attitude that we can’t avoid it. I refuse to use AI noise reduction and I use my smartphone as little as possible (less than 1hr per week). I already deleted my LinkedIn profile, the last straw being they started to invite me to comment on “articles” generated by AI. Yes, AI may be pervasive, but if everyone put in some effort to avoid it, even its pervasiveness would be engulfed by its unprofitability.
Mr. Polak:
Could you elaborate on why you refuse to use AI noise reduction? I ask because I easily make a distinction between cleaning up a photo, whether that be removing scratches, noise, or what have you and using AI to actually generate a photo or article. I would further make a distinction between cleaning up noise with actually removing or “photoshopping out” an element – say, a distracting item in the background, for example – that is intrinsically a part of the scene photographed.
I don’t see that using AI noise reduction is in the same category as AI “photo” generation and as I understand it, I don’t see an ethical problem with it. So I’m curious about your firm position in opposition.
Perhaps I understand the phrase “AI noise reduction” differently than you do, but I think that points to the problem that “AI” is a term that lacks a sufficiently precise universally agreed upon definition, and so carries different connotations/nuances in different peoples’ minds.
Thank you for your comments, by the way. It’s nice for a reader like me to see that PL “insiders” engage with the articles just like the rest of us.
Just a note: this comment was neither generated nor assisted by AI. I didn’t even have to consult the thesaurus!
I think what Jason means is that AI noise reduction or other AI editing can take over a photo if the editor isn’t careful, and change it from a genuine photo to something else that looks like a photo taken by a person but no longer is one.
Ms. Lansdown:
Hmm …. maybe I’m missing a distinction between “regular” and “AI” noise reduction.
If it’s just noise reduction, how can it be said that AI can “take over a photo?” It seems Mr. Polak was able to decide that AI noise reduction had crossed a line for him and was either simply contrary to the spirit of photography or was even unethical.
I’m curious how he made that decision. I’m not claiming to either agree or disagree, by the way, I just wanted to know.
Dear Norbert,
Thank you for your thoughtful question. There are a few reasons why I’ve decided not to use AI noise reduction. Perhaps I’ll write an entire article on it because my reasoning is lengthy but basically it boils down to the following points:
(1) It is true that AI noise reduction is not in the same realm as generative AI to create new details from old. If it were only a question of being faithful to the scene, then I would have no problem with AI noise reduction.
(2) Unfortunately, AI research goes beyond simple noise reduction, and innovations in AI noise reduction may lead to further advancements and support of AI en-masse in photography and I do not want to support that.
(3) Additionally, AI noise reduction, as it becomes more advanced, may actually add details that were not present in the original scene. I already have evidence of this because I tried AI noise reduction (in private experiments) with a photo and it altered it to the point that it looked a little strange. Therefore, even though it does not on the whole seriously modify things, it can still add things that look strange.
(4) Speaking practically, AI noise reduction is a little hyped in my opinion. It might turn a 3-star shot into a 4-star shot, but I’m not really that concerned about turning problematic shots into slightly less problematic ones. Even more practically, and having photographed 600+ species of birds, my experiece is that most of the shots that are truly good are < ISO 6400 anyway, and in these "mild" cases, AI noise reduction is hardly better than traditional methods.
Jason,
Thank you for your answer(s). Judging from the number (and quality) of the comments in response to this article, I definitely think I’m not the only one that would greatly appreciate it were you to write a more extensive article on the subject.
If/when the article comes out, one of the first things that needs to be established is what is and isn’t “AI” with respect to noise reduction. “AI” is one of those terms that’s fraught with various baggage that is often assumed to be broadly agree upon, but which likely varies significantly between people who use the expression.
I was seeing AI noise reduction in the way you described it in your first enumerated point. If it goes beyond that, into the generative realm …. well, to me it’s no longer just noise reduction!
Thank you for the clarification, and please write that article!
Thanks for your reply, Norbert. It is really my intention to write such an article and I will take your suggestion into account. The definition of AI is really slipperly but I believe I have at least a partially satisfying answer to it so I will make sure to clarify this point.
We all have to live with ourselves and our actions. I will sleep well at night with my handful of followers who know and can tell I do not use nor never will utilize AI and also only employ minor digital editing (this is what comes when you have a film DIY background) Photography as a whole has been diluted and robbed in so many ways as a craft so just do your own thing, don’t try keeping up with the phony Pixel 8 shots and keep our traditional imaging world spinning. Thank you Nasim.