AI the nail in the coffin of real photography

[SpringfieldPhoto]

The prevelance of AI in photography is going to kill Camera Club competitions. As a judge I won't know whether the image I am judging is the product of skilled photography or of AI. This debate is going to go on in many Clubs. In my club we have already had discussion of this on several occasions and many members who enjoy using their skill rather than AI are saying that they don't see the point in entereing competitions when they are competing with AI enhanced images. Canon say, embrace the technology both in camera and in post processing as it saves you time and guarantees results. I say that isn't why I do photography. I do it to use my skill and imagination to create great pictures. If I embrace AI at all points in the process, I may as well chuck the camera away and just use AI.
I think I'll go back to painting.

[NathCarr91]

Not sure to what extent I agree. I'm kind of on the fence with it, on one hand I agree with what you're saying. It's easier now to get things wrong in camera and let AI fix it. But on the other hand, AI has helped me save several images that I've maybe got wrong or had issues with such as excessive noise in an image.

The main thing is technology changes, I'm sure many weren't happy when cameras went from film and manually measuring exposure with light meters and grey cards, using stop down metering and manually focusing to a digital camera that has a built in light meter, auto focus, and evaluative metering. It's all relative really. We're just in another new era!

[MTLSTEVE]

The prevelance of AI in photography is going to kill Camera Club competitions. As a judge I won't know whether the image I am judging is the product of skilled photography or of AI. This debate is going to go on in many Clubs. In my club we have already had discussion of this on several occasions and many members who enjoy using their skill rather than AI are saying that they don't see the point in entereing competitions when they are competing with AI enhanced images. Canon say, embrace the technology both in camera and in post processing as it saves you time and guarantees results. I say that isn't why I do photography. I do it to use my skill and imagination to create great pictures. If I embrace AI at all points in the process, I may as well chuck the camera away and just use AI.
I think I'll go back to painting.

This seems to me to be a cogent reflection on the use of AI - or as you say 'prevalence'. The following observations may be stating the obvious... so apologies in advance if so.
I think there are distinctions between various types(?) of AI: in camera that has been around for more years than I care to remember and post production AI at 'editing software' level e.g. Adobe generative AI. The move by some brands to stamp images in camera with confirmation that the original image was not AI generated is going in the right direction I think. Extended Exif data is also helpful - not stripping images of Exif may be a help in judging but that, in and of itself, is not the solution. Shutterstock made clear to all contributors that they will only licence AI images created by using their own AI software. Personally, I don't submit AI images to them because of 'rebounds', so I can just get on with bread and butter business as speedily as possible. I have used AI for commercial and non-commercial marketing commissions where, to put it simply, it doesn't matter. I guess what I'm saying is that AI is yet another useful tool in our armoury provided we're not intending to use it to deliberately and intentionally mislead for gain. I totally empathise with Springfield Photo's concerns: they are genuine and real and must be addressed at all levels of image creation. Clubs, in particular, are often the breeding ground for great photographers (and judges?).

[Trev B]

Get it right in camera that's my policy. I spent the vast majority of my life taking pictures as transparencies than I have on digital. Back then I can't recall there being Photoshop, Lightroom or a host of other 'alter it or put it right' software that you hear mentioned on here today.
You took time with your shot, you never fired off burst - not at eight quid a roll for Kodachrome.
It's very rare I alter any picture I put up on here - straight out the camera. My last shot of a Roe Doe was taken through the windscreen of the tractor - good enough for me!

[DEG5Y]

I feel I would have to ask you Alan, whether you ever use Lightroom, photoshop or any other imaging software?

Not saying you do, but many people do do and for me this is just the same, granted the photographer only modifies what they feel the picture needs but it is just the same, manipulation of an image.

[@imagesBV]

This seems to me to be a cogent reflection on the use of AI - or as you say 'prevalence'. The following observations may be stating the obvious... so apologies in advance if so.
I think there are distinctions between various types(?) of AI: in camera that has been around for more years than I care to remember and post production AI at 'editing software' level e.g. Adobe generative AI. The move by some brands to stamp images in camera with confirmation that the original image was not AI generated is going in the right direction I think. Extended Exif data is also helpful - not stripping images of Exif may be a help in judging but that, in and of itself, is not the solution. Shutterstock made clear to all contributors that they will only licence AI images created by using their own AI software. Personally, I don't submit AI images to them because of 'rebounds', so I can just get on with bread and butter business as speedily as possible. I have used AI for commercial and non-commercial marketing commissions where, to put it simply, it doesn't matter. I guess what I'm saying is that AI is yet another useful tool in our armoury provided we're not intending to use it to deliberately and intentionally mislead for gain. I totally empathise with Springfield Photo's concerns: they are genuine and real and must be addressed at all levels of image creation. Clubs, in particular, are often the breeding ground for great photographers (and judges?).

I agree with your synopsis.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I worked in IT for all my working life and true AI only appeared in cameras with the advent of mirrorless cameras. Fortunately you can turn it all off and shoot old style. The problem really is the extensive AI tools available in post processing. You really can make a silk purse from a sows ear. I looked at a shot in a well known photo magazine the other day and my first thought was, is that real or is it AI enhanced. Having credentials won't prevent AI improvements in post getting through. I gave up entering competitions years ago as I really didn't enjoy the whole competition scene as I take picture for my own pleasure and for the pleasure of the sitter. Other members of my local club have become very disheartend as they feel that they are competing against AI enhance images on many occasions.

[@imagesBV]

When you say AI.....do you mean sharpening, contrast, and noise improvement etc or elements being added that were not in the scene?
Chat GPT is AI......GPT is a genertaive pretrained transformer (as I suspect you already know) ...it learns, reserches and creates from whatever resource it finds on the internet.....I'm sure images can be created in that way but I dont think that sort of genrative process happens in camera...or within Lightroom or other PP software?
Perhaps we need a better AI definition for photography here?
I'd be very interested in your thoughts please...

[SpringfieldPhoto]

In simple terms many of the tools in modern cameras were developed via AI that colected intelligence has allowed the advances in auto foces that we now enjoy. The same is true for tools in post processing the software has learned how to create various effects most of the things that the firmware or software can do would not exist without AI.. In Photoshop and Lightroom, the masking tools are the product of AI. The software has learned to differentiate the different areas of an image, subject, sky, background facees and even down to eyebrows. this is learned behavior. The people that are concerned about this are Photoeditors, Judges, etc. who cannot be sure of the credentials of the picture. AI makes it difficult to be sure that an image is genuine great photography or a composite that has been created using a combination of AI developed tools. If you need to be convinced go to Generative Fill - online & desktop - Adobe Photoshop

[@imagesBV]

Yes I watched the video…and agree it would be wrong to allow AI to be used in competition unless of course it’s in the remit of the competition. Is it any different to photoshopping multiple images together…I assume that is not allowed in competition?