Is AI & Technology Ruining Photography?

Has AI and Technology removed the skill needed to capture stunning photos, can we compete with AI and does it change how we take photos. I try to answer these questions in this interesting video, Cheers, Duade
-----------------------------
Join this channel to support me:
----------------------------
Affiliate Links
------------------------------
🛒Prograde Memory Card - use coupon code DUADE for 15% off
------------------------------
My Cameras - Affiliate Links

My Lenses

Audio - Wireless Mic

Tripod

Monitor

Bag Hide

Bag

Accessories
-------------------------------
Join this channel to support me:
--------------------
-------------------------------
👍Follow Me & View My Images
-------------------------------
🖼️Photos from video:
-------------------------------
Chapters
00:00 AI & Technology
00:18 AI Generated Images
02:56 Does It Even Matter?
05:08 Be Honest
07:03 Digital Art
07:51 Technology In Cameras
09:39 Photographer Skills
11:15 Why Buy Expensive Gear?
12:43 Conclusion
--------------

[josephtitus]

If you are a hobbyist, no, ai isn’t going to affect your photography. However if you are a professional it will absolutely affect your photography. Especially if you are a professional landscape/wildlife photographer. Ai is at the point where it can 99% replicate a professional tier photograph with perfect lighting.

Social media is proof that Ai does enough of a good job where people will press the like button on an Ai generated image hundreds of thousands of times and they think it is a real image. Even if people know an image is fake they mostly don’t care. Regular people are not purchasing prints anymore from nature photographers. These photographers will tell you most of their sales are from other photographers. Most of these photographer’s money are from teaching other photographers whether it is from YouTube or workshops. Monetization of actual pictures is extremely difficult.

[misolovessushi]

I am always heartened by the fact that you gentlemen are willing to take the time to educate those of us on the learning edge. AI will never duplicate the heart or the wisdom that you all share. I watch tutorials from a couple of you world class photographers and am always getting new information that would otherwise take years to develop. I just love getting out and experiencing the outdoors and if I get lucky, I might even get a decent photo out of the time I spend outdoors. Thanks Duade. As a side note, I suffer from glaucoma and am losing my vision, so time is of the essence. Seems odd, but it is my way of leaving a part of my view of the world, even as the light fades.

[adrianyallop]

Duade you are pretty much spot on.

As an old man, and a photographer working pro many years back in darkened rooms with tray and enlargers using 6x6, 35mm and some 6x7 manipulation of imagery was SOP for most finished images for use: from cropping, choice of paper and film, exposure adjustments, adjusting developing times, dodging and burning, let alone onwards to the notorious airbrushing. Even merging of different elements, and what of double exposures in camera? Pictures have generally always been altered.

In competitions then there was no ban on such techniques. I would proffer it was part of what was being judged, part of the photographers 'art'.

I enjoy digital wildlife photography now and understand the electrons coming from the camera are no more finished than the silver halide crystals of the past .

Even a completely made up image is a work that can be judged, no different from a painter for goodness sake.

My ten-penneth!

[balinttoth]

Hi Duade,
I pondered a lot about the question you pose. While I agree with most of the wisdom others expressed from the photographer's perspective about how being there is the utmost, though I am just an aspiring amateur nature photographer, at best, so my insight from this angle would be nowhere near those who spoke.
What gives me the chills though is the viewer's point of view, pun intended.
I think nature photography tends to have a profound effect on people, which many times impels us to go for a hike, sit on a tree branch and wait for that black-and-white warbler to show up, and generally to explore and appreciate nature and life around us. It sort of awakens us humans, living most of our "modern" lives confined into artificial surroundings. It makes us realize the wonder that’s out there all the time. And it surely moves many people wanting to preserve all this wonder.
All this impact would not be achieved if we the viewers did not know, in the back of our minds, that all this is REAL. What we see is what we get, so as to say, that subject is in fact out there, that lichen covered tree branch with that prairie warbler is out there, and so is the billowing mountain grass, the cirrus clouds, the fine whiskers of a fox, the crest of that cardinal or the iridescent feathers of that tree swallow. And just the same way as this miracle reveals itself to a nature photographer, (the ingenuity of a good photographer notwithstanding!), we too could experience this if we get out there and “smell the roses”. A good photograph, though a silent media, transcends photography, and evokes the sounds and smells and even the motion of nature. And that motion is also moving our souls.
Sorry if I got a little carried away here. So instead of trying to answer your question, I will tell you what questions it raises in me. Could an AI generated image have this same deep impact? Would viewers also be moved by a perfectly exposed and composed picture, with the “embedded” bird, in the perfect pose? The computational notion of “how would they know it is fake” aside, I think the real danger lies in ourselves: will we be happy with virtual, computed, fake imagery, which lacks both the reality of the subject in the depicted time and space and the human behind the camera, who experienced and captured that fleeting moment? Will it propel us to get out there and explore? Where is “there” anyway? What hiking boots does one wear in Cyberspace? Would we retain our interest in hearing how that rose-breasted grosbeak really sings out there, or just ask a virtual assistant to play back from a recording or synthesize it anew? And most of all, will a counterfeit picture impel us to preserve its subject, when in fact it has no subject?

PS: To You and all the nature photographers in this forum, I want to express my gratitude for what you are doing. For bringing nature home. I mean it.

[stevemoore-vale]

This is the best video I’ve seen on this subject. Superb! I own an r6 but have spent the last 20 or so using DSLRs. The hit rate is higher, yes, but as you’ve said, you still need to be there. Choose the right exposure, set up the Autofocus to best suit your subjects movement. It’s still a skilled hobby! I shot damselflies this morning with eye tracking. So precise. Never would have been able to keep the focus locked on with a dslr on a subject so small.

[GrampiansParadise]

Where to start... Duade, this is a wonderful video you have made tackling a really big topic. Thank you.
On Ai generated images: from 2004 to maybe 2017 I had done a lot of work in post on photos. Removing things in a image that were a problem, cutting out and replacing backgrounds, all manner of changes and I got really good at it. It was quite a skill to acquire I loved it if no body could pick the changes. But it took hours, sometimes days to work a image, so it was pretty limited the amount that I did. Now these same changes can be done by anybody in a matter of minutes, sometimes really well sometimes really badly. Now these works of digital art can flood the world. It's a big change and a rapidly developing field. I can predict, like there is now a strong niche following for film photography, there will soon be a dedicated following for photos that are not pushed into the realm of digital art... But then it's all scales of grey, and what individuals appreciated.
On appreciation, the moment your "worst" image of the Eurasian Cote popped up, I loved it. There is an emotion I feel with this photo that connects me with being out in the wetlands watching these birds. It really spoke to me, even though I know technically its a dud.
Change in technology: I started taking photos when I was 6 years old, first black and white print that I developed with my dad. Then colour slides and a simple single lens camera. Then a SLR with multiple lens during my teenage years. In 2004 we got our first digital camera and the start of taking bird photos. In 2017 a Canon 6D, and the start of Astro photography for me (as well as more wildlife photography). In the last 5 years I've been transiting to video storytelling, greatly added by the purchase of the Canon R6 and Canon 100mm to 500mm lens in 2022. Each step up in technology has allow me to capture images (and video) I'd never been able to dream of in the past.
AI in cameras: I love sharing the stories of the wildlife and native birds that surround us in our rewilded landscape at Grampians Paradise. To be able to let others into my world of encounters with the creatures is such a treat, but often these moment are fleeting and the very special ones infrequent. I need to be able to put the camera on the bird or animal and in a split second be filming with focus acquired (and held), exposure good and great image stabilization. I can't pull this all off without the assistance of the AI in the R6, and there is no way I would reliably hand hold 500mm or 700mm without IBUS and lens stabilization, even with having leant breath control and "practicing" every day.
What is interesting, the more capable the cameras I have access too have become, the less and less I process in post. I now have the luxury of discarding lots of footage, and using that is good straight out of camera. In face I now aim to gain footage that is really good (excellent) straight out of camera. It is wonderful that this now regularly possible.

[guitarman]

Hi Duade. I agree 100% with your views here. I'm still using my D500/500PF combo and simply enjoying being out in nature and capturing the best images I can. I recently captured one of my "bucket list" shots...an Osprey diving towards me with talons out and then catching a fish. I've waited years to get that photo, and no amount of AI can compete with the feeling of being at the right place at the right time and capturing an image you've been after for ages, using the right shutter speed, aperture, exposure and composition. Cheers.

[davemigliore]

Duade…. I very recently purchased the Canon RF 28-70 F2 and immediately was kicking myself for not using one your ‘affiliated links’… your videos are appreciated - you talk funny - but are appreciated just the same.

[joanneabramson]

My college photography teacher is always quick to point out when this topic is raised that film photographers also manipulate their photos. "Dodging" and "burning" are from the film era. Although those terms are used today in digital manipulation too. We are past the point of saying that we have removed twigs or enhanced the photo every time we post. As a wildlife photographer, the amount of truly fake photos that are AI generated and are flooding Facebook and other social media, WITHOUT saying that it is "AI Art", not a photograph is upsetting. Especially when they are shared and presented as a real photo. When photographers go into the field and capture an amazing photo there is a real sense of accomplishment. I do not know what the remedy is, but I know I appreciate the true photographers even more now.

[CamTim]

My photos are to remind me of the experience and take me back to that moment. I see my wildlife photos more as a visual aid to my wildlife adventures and stories. When I see my photo of an osprey grabbing a fish out of the lake or a moose looking straight at me, it takes me back to that time. Duade, I see this in your videos as well where you talk about the environment you are in and the wildlife around you all leading up to showing the photo you took. Or when you see your photos of the Crested Tern colony from a few months ago you probably think back to the time you spent with Jan and how much you enjoyed it. I think we all get a little tied up sometimes in getting the best photo instead of being in the moment.
I view other’s photos as inspiration to go get my own photo and experience capturing that subject.

[TomazNMelo-tfsc]

I've just now managed to catch up on the latest videos you've posted. I completely agree with what you said about the most important thing being to be satisfied with the photos you take with the gear you have. Today I'm completely happy with the photos I take and sometimes when I look at my images I can't believe I took that photo myself. I think that's always the most important feeling, the pleasure we get from taking photos.

[JohnDrummondPhoto]

I love editing. I frequently focus stack, exposure stack, etc. and I always disclose it on my videos. I don't like AI, but I use it for object removal. Pure AI images have a slightly cartoony look to them. That's the usual "tell" for me.

[EDIT: I forgot about AI noise reduction. That's been game-changing for me. I've recently gotten keepers at ISO 12800, ISO 16000, even ISO 25600! That would have been unimaginable a couple of years ago.]

As for gear: top gear without skill is worthless, but top gear with good skill is priceless. I've taken shots with my R5 that my old 60D or even my 7D M2 just couldn't match. But I've taken some images with both those cameras that I'm proud of to this day.

[KellyPettit]

Thanks to social media everything like music, movies, news and photography are over-saturated. 15 sec on Tik Tok and scrolling through endless media has made people numb. And now that machines can do the creativity and replace the human aspect is quite something. That's why NG is going down. It's a sad time IMO. Strange how AI is replacing the arts first and not something like scientists or politicians. :P Thank god for sports. :(

[bjrn-einarnilsen]

Great and important video mate. For me, removing a branch, or taking away something in a photo is totally ok. When it goes to fare, is when people put the main subject with ai in their photo, like having a nice perch, and put a perfect bird on it. I started in the time with film and manual focus, and it was for sure more difficult to get good photos. But still with the new cameras that we have now, we have to as you said, find the subject, get the right light and so on. And no ia can take away from us the joy of going out in the nature, enjoying the wildlife around us.
Wishing you and yours a great day and week.
Cheers, Bjoern

[MichaelThornton-hxwt]

Duade, this essay on AI is spot-on the best commentary I've read about the issue. I'm not a pro, I don't do photography to make a living, and I don't see fame or status for my "work." I do it for very personal satisfaction: the joy of immersing myself in and quietly observing nature. And a bonus: later, when I'm home, processing my digital images lets me re-immerse myself in those experiences. It also puts me in touch with the under-utilized artistic side of my brain cell (singular). Occasionally I'm so happy with an image I made that I print it, so I can see it without a computer or when I'm in another room. What a delightful and fortunate way to spend my retirement years! It's even as much fun as reading!

[kimraymond]

I think that you nailed it. Why do we go out and photograph? For me, it's getting out and observing nature but secondly, I enjoy the creative process that comes in post processing. Accurate masking saves tedious time. Selecting a replacement sky that I have photographed and placed in my sky library is a creative process. It brings me joy. It would be wrong to present the image as straight out of camera because, at the very least, there would be adjustments of exposure, white balance, perhaps some sharpening, etc.
These are processes that have been undertaken in dark rooms in the past. So, where does it leave us?
Be honest about how we achieved the image but let the audience enjoy it for what it is.

[lv]

It sounds almost identical to to the discussion a while ago when digital cameras slowly took over the good old film rol. It was the end of skill was what I've heard a lot back in the days. For me personally AI as technical support " like AI eye tracking or AI de-noise programs like Topaz or DXO3" is a great feature which makes me help making the photos i could only dream of a few years ago. On the other hand it's threatening for the professional photographer because they will lose a lot of income because of the AI generated images which can generated much cheaper. But for me as an amateur nothing beats the feeling when i enjoy being out in nature and it feels even better when I'm coming home with a nice image.

[Michael_Chay_Photography]

I totally agree with your conclusions, Duade, especially about having the best gear, doesn't mean you'll have the best photos. It still comes down to skill, knowledge, and experience. Like you said, the gear just helps you to get more keepers.

[richardtustin]

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Photography is a skill. My first camera was a Nikon shooting slide film in 1983 - as a student. 20 shots per spool. Had to write down the details for each photograph in a notebook and then after developing go back and check the exposure settings against my notes. And try and learn from it. My first DSLR was a 40D too - gave me years of good use and just passed it on to a budding photographer. For me its getting out there and spending time in nature and improving my skills - no amount of AI is going to change that.

[rayspencer]

In business, a product only needs to be good enough to produce a profit. To produce a profit, an image would only need to "sell" for more than it costs. Turn-around time also can be important. For many advertising uses the fast turn-around and basically free cost of that A.I. image would be more than just good enough.