Tim Tadder is widely revered as a bold and visionary photography icon. With numerous accolades to his name and a client list ranging from Amazon to Nike, he is recognized as a leader in advertising photography and beyond. Since late January, though, he has turned into a highly controversial artist in the industry with his work in AI. I sat down to chat with him about the polarizing pieces he has been creating.
I was ready and excited with a list of questions. I had a cozy introduction planned and some softball questions to start the conversation. But it was not more than a few sentences in that Tadder jumped into what he really wanted to say: he is completely fed up of being attacked for his explorations in AI. So, I went with it and jumped right into the flames.
Attacks From the Art Community
January 23rd, Tadder began posting work created with Midjourney, an AI image generator. Tadder described himself in this way:
[ I am an] established artist who has been a paid creator for 25 years at the top level. I am sharing my experience using this new tool. I am […] exploring the most powerful creation tool ever made.
For him, it’s a way to exercise his creative mind and explore self-expression. Over the decades, he has transitioned from film to digital, to CGI, to Photoshop composites. With the development of a new creative medium, is it any surprise that a photographer heralded for his boundary-pushing work is exploring it? Though many photographers are praising his other-worldly visual explorations, the backlash from the photography community has been merciless, according to Tadder.
Because I’m doing any AI, I’m being labeled, boxed, and attacked because I am being an artist and I am exploring creativity. Just because I am exploring a powerful tool, sharing my knowledge, and sharing my insight from having lived through many mediums, if that is justifiable to hate, to discount, and to completely characterize me as a monster, then I don’t want to be a part of that community.”
He continues: "Being attacked is exhausting, and it happens every single day.” He later adds: “Why are you hating on an artist who is creating?”
The truth is, although I didn’t write any of my thoughts on his posted images, my initial reaction to the AI pieces was the same guttural response as many: “What? That’s cheating!” I was vexed.
The Image-making Process
I first came across his work when we were both featured photographers in the 2021 Sports issue of Lens Magazine. His work was completely unique and jumped off the pages. I loved it instantly, and I have followed his thought-provoking photography since.
After the New Year, though he maintained a recognizable cohesion, his work changed somewhat. I started reading the comments below more carefully. He was posting AI-generated images. As one more beautiful and imaginative piece rolled out after the other, I got increasingly irked: “That’s cheating! How can he do that?” One night, irritated and curious, I sat down and tried Midjourney. I was painstakingly shooting a campaign that week, and after seeing one of his pieces, I thought: “Well, maybe I’ll cheat, just to see what happens.” I suddenly understood his perspective. I must have sat there for two hours. It was not giving me what I wanted. Each AI-generated image gave me parts of what I wanted, but it never got it quite right. I had expected to sit down, type what I wanted, and get it. I had thought similarly to a follower who attacked him on an Instagram post: “It takes absolutely 0 skill to type words into a machine until it spits out what you’ve typed… you’ve run out of talent.”
After my failed trial, I went back and looked at his AI pieces. They were cohesive. The palette, the look of the “models,” the backgrounds, and the airiness. How did he do that? My mind shifted at that moment about his AI work, which led me to pursue this interview.
He described the specificity and laboriousness of his process:
It’s a cohesive choice that I’m directing this tool with my vision and my sensibility. AI didn’t sit down and spit out images for me. I sat down and labored over the images for hours and hours and hours, and then I curated it, and then I fed it back into AI, and then I pushed it further, and then I mixed this image and this image in Photosho and put it back into AI and had it regenerate it. I went through a process.
The concept that making intentional cohesive pieces is as simple as stringing a few letters together on a keyboard and pressing enter is not how the process works in Tadder’s pieces. The pieces require direction, re-direction, and compositing. It is a very intentional and time-consuming creation process.
Looking back, my own outrage came from a combination of being uneducated about the process and, if I was honest, a fear of being obsolete after investing so many years of honing my craft. It seemed that all my learning, practicing, and years of experience were being threatened by a computer that needed nothing more than a few words strung together to out-create me. When confessing this, Tadder replied:
People are worried about being obsolete like you said, so am I! So am I.
A follower on his Instagram added a similar sentiment:
The real reason we people are reacting in such a negative way to AI is because we are scared. People are simply afraid of anything new, especially if they see it as a threat.
Yet another commented: “Resenting a new technology will not halt its progress. - Marshall McLuhan"
AI Is Fundamentally Bad for Commercial Photography and for Humanity
My biggest surprise from our talk was Tadder’s straightforward moral characterization of AI:
AI is fundamentally not a good thing for humanity. It is fundamentally a bad thing for humanity.
He even continued by adding:
“It can replace photography, and it will replace photography in advertising campaigns, in commercial campaigns, in magazine articles.”
I never got to ask the obvious follow-up question, “if it’s fundamentally bad for humanity, why are you using it,” as he quickly followed up:
Me not using it is not going to stop it.
Pandora’s box has been opened, and the technology, he reasons, is now part of our ecosystem. It’s out, regardless of how we feel about it. His general sentiment seemed to be that we might as well get used to it and get on board.
AI images are generated from learned information, not collages.
He also addressed some of the misconceptions about how images are created. Tadder explains that the platform has scanned images and created mathematical representations of them. They turn images into numbers. The technology then generates mathematical algorithms for different characteristics. For the “in the style of” for example, Tadder explains that the software attributes mathematical representation for an artist’s use of color, of lighting, of model choices, casting, and location. It then generates images from scratch in that style. It makes its images from learned information, not from collages. That’s a big misunderstanding.
AI Suits and Copyright
Another point of contention that he touched on is copyright: “If we are going to sue people over style emulation, then every single photographer who ever created is guilty.” Art was built on emulation and expansion. Would there be a Picasso, were there not a Braque? A Monet without a Pissarro? He also pointed out that copyrights are only as practical as their enforceability, recounting many stories of people around the world using and profiting from his work. Tadder believes that, over time, artists will be able to have the copyright to their AI pieces, and artists will be paid to create AI works:
After the anger fades and the hate fades, people are going to be like, ‘There’s actually something to this.’
Closing Thoughts
In closing, I think some questions are worth being asked.
- Why is the art community responding so aggressively towards an artist exploring a new medium and sharing his experience?
- What is it about AI that makes artists so upset? Is it really the copyright, the perceived easiness of the medium, or is it something deeper?
- If we disagree with the concept of AI, are we then morally bound to boycott its use? Or, should we accept it and adapt, as so many other mediums introduced throughout the history of art?
I want to thank Tim for agreeing to take the interview. Initially, he declined the interview due to being burnt out by incessant attacks and criticism. I pointed out that novelty in art has never been accepted. Van Gogh only sold one painting before his permanent abandonment into despair at age 37. Monet’s paintings were so snubbed by the art community during his first two decades that his poverty often led him to starvation, even resorting to eating the fruit in his still-life setups. Digital photography was snubbed by film photographers, then Photoshop was vilified as cheating. Artists historically don’t respond well to change. I suppose something in there made him come back around, and I’m grateful. I applaud him for continuing to make art despite the pushback. Despite the many pundits, there are even more of us who continue to appreciate his bold pioneering. I’ll close with a quote I have on my desk, paraphrased from Warhol:
Make art, and while everyone is deciding whether they like it or not, make more art.
My conversation with Tadder was recorded, with permission, mostly as a reference for the quotes in the article. I am far from adept at video and YouTube, but if you would like to watch the full conversation, you can do so above.
I think that your points are well articulated and I can understand your perspective on the matter. Thank you for taking the time to share them in such a clear and thought-out way.
Yes, Tim is totally stuck and that's a shame, but no photographer has done it to him.
A timely email came from 21st Editions: "The interesting thing for me was that when I showed my work to these photographers they would tell me it's not photography. I'm in the darkroom for many hours and I buy many of my supplies at the camera store. What am I supposed to call this? It didn’t fall within their perception of what photography should be. There are still people that have problems with my work and they feel it’s not a part of the basic aesthetic of photography" - Jerry Uelsmann
Some debates may never end.
Oh, that could have been the closing quote! Excellent contribution. Some debates never end indeed
It’s all about the input and who ever decided to collect and use billions of images without any right to do so. Now people talk about making it the norm since so many companies are doing it without asking. Nope, might as well cancel any copyright for all I know. But those photos are turned into an input for mapping or what ever they call it. In reality, these images are someone's output, they're finished images they have rights to. So how can we attribute copyright to an AI output, if the other guys copyright no longer has any value and the images can be dissected for study in some obscure fashion? Who ever decided to collect and process others images had the option to take their own, hire someone to do it or to purchase images and populate the input they needed in the first place. They decided not to take that route.
A thing I learned from the video is how complex the filtration has evolved. It’s actually mind blowing how they target artists just to emulate their specific style. I assumed the collection process was fairly random to pick up details and so call “train models" but now I wonder what can be or is collected and to what extend. There is nothing published that I can find, so what I am supposed to think?
I believe that output emulation from AI can theoretically be genuine and legitimate in some cases if someone does this in a close loop with just their own images. The issue is that without a massive data collection this most likely cannot happen without an extensive amount of finger issue type of problems. That’s why in my opinion copyrighting an AI generated image will never happen. Did the first guy messed it up for the creatives?
Benoit, I'm with ya 100% on this. The filtration is totally mind blowing and just the thought of the mathematics involved is sublime.
Something that's not really being discussed by photographers are parallel developments in blockchain technology and decentralized hosting services. I think that there are new technologies to fight new technologies. I'm actually more aware of this than I'm letting on and it's the reason I don't have any portfolios online and I don't promote with social media. Basically, I'm not interested in being a trainer for Ai unless it benefits me in some way. Right now the entire web2 model of self promotion through social media is nothing but a giant training facility for Ai. Photography and Ai generated imagery that's commonly available is probably going to be unprotectable in the future web3 environment IMHO
Benoit . as always your comments are intelligent and well-articulated. This was one of the questions which I closed the article with. "If we disagree with the concept of AI, are we then morally bound to boycott its use? Or, should we accept it and adapt, as so many other mediums introduced throughout the history of art?" I've thought about this myself more than once. Think it's an interesting question to discuss: freedom to create vs. self-imposed restrictions for something we may not agree with morally. I do think that the technology is out of the box and here for good. These are interesting questions and I always appreciate your responses.
> Who ever decided to collect and process others images had the option to take their own, hire someone to do it or to purchase images and populate the input they needed in the first place. They decided not to take that route.
This is the crux. The existing models were created without consent - I see big issues using them for anything commercial.
While it was expensive to train it, it's not impossible for any industry giant to properly license source images and train a new commercial model. Might be peanuts for somebody like Adobe or Microsoft.
Stock agencies are probably not done with this issue. I would say that AI companies haven't made much effort explaining how they collect images, how many they still collect today or anything. Potential collecting personal information is another big concern and we are in a dark cave regarding this possibility. That trust they broke is not going to go away.
The reason I specifically use terms like input and output came about when I realized many months ago how little info we have as photographers to figure this thing out. I found out that the glamorous info, the output was an ever extending universe of its own but the input seemed like as easy to figure out as what is at the darkest spot of a black hole. I have no interest in AI in the imagery form. Tools in photoshop than can help speed up things because of AI are fine because I only apply it to my images. So I wouldn't say that I am an AI hater but fairness is necessary to progress and shouldn't be one sided.
To Michelle. I can't like or reply to it, these functions seem to be locked, but I thank your for the reply.
It's working now. It's the weirdest thing, I see that quite often.
That is a known glitch of the Fstoppers software. There are lots of glitches, as I think the owners of Fstoppers try to write the code themselves instead of hiring a professional firm to do it.
If you go to the address bar at the top of the window and delete everything after the number sign # then hit refresh, things should work as they ought to, with respect to liking and replying.
Okay, thanks, I had cleared my entire cash and history but then I think I got distracted and didn't go back until later.
I wish they would just hire professionals to write the code so we wouldn't have all of these awkward glitches and work-arounds.
["Me not using it is not going to stop it."] Said by every man / woman with no bone in their body.
Why no one in power does anything about global warming. "I won't change anything if I do something about it. It is bigger than me".
It is just an easy way of saying; I won't take any responsibility for what happens. I just ride with the flow. It is a weak statement.
The saying goes: The only thing necessary for evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing.
---
That being said, I think the image in this article are absolutely wonderful and a testimony to what artistic people can achieve using AI. Each on its own is a piece of art, but they are not a photograph.
I have the same mindset as been debated further up this thread, that we, and especially websites like Fstoppers should just stop calling it photography if the image has not been captured using light.
Have a picture been captured with some form of camera with the help of light, it is a photograph. Anything else should not be called a photo. End of story.
Hans J. Nielsen I'm rather in alignment with your note, as others have shared about the semantics of the word photography. Myriam Wesbter defines photography as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)". By this definition, AI produced pieces are not photography. They are AI produced pieces. Although I'm a proponent of artists like Tadder having the freedom to explore the new medium, I like the dialogue with comments like your own and many others above. Though each holds different perspectives they're expressed intelligently with sound arguments and often beautifully penned sentences. And that's the joy of discussing art... and that's why I wrote the article.
I'll have to agree with Tom Reichner above -and Hans. STOP calling it AI photography. It's AI images or imagery. But yeah unfortunately, with or without photographers, AI images will take over eventually and no one will be able to tell the difference between an AI image and a photograph. (I won't even get into created, fake videos!)
Also stop calling it "AI" as nothing remotely like intelligence is involved.
It takes a brave man to contradict Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc.
Pretty sure Hawking would agree with me.
You're wrong. Period. In the future, AI will be able to get answers, create writings, poetry and images quicker and better than you can. People, you included, will have conversations with a machine and won't be able to tell that it isn't human.
I don't know that it's a good thing. Social media was supposed to get people closer, but kids are getting farther from each other and ever more depressed. Do I want AI to be my best buddy and go hike a mountain or go shop with it. Nope, no.
Michelle Van Tyne asked,
"I'm curious what your evalution is on *why* many photographers have responded with such aggressiveness towards this."
Michelle, AI is a very real threat to my livelihood and my enjoyment of life.
Why?
Because I derive a good portion of my income from selling stock photos of wildlife. My wild animal pics are used all over the world in magazines, books, blogs, advertisements, web pages, etc., etc., etc.
I get a small royalty each time one of my photos are licensed from a stock agency and used. I depend on great volume of sales in order to make a fair income, as each sale is miniscule.
AI generated photos will absolutely displace thousands of my sales each year, and basically deplete my already marginal income to almost nothing. Sure I could pivot to other ways of deriving income from photography, but I don't like those other ways - they are not fun or easy. And my entire life is predicated on doing what I feel like doing and what I enjoy and avoiding anything that is unpleasant. AI is going to rob me of ease and fun and force me to spend some time each week doing things I don't really love to do, and that causes me to have negative feelings toward AI.
POSTSCRIPT:
For the record, I tried other ways of selling / licensing images, and none of those ever worked out as efficiently as selling via microstock sites. But the microstock thing has worked out very well for me, as I do NOT like marketing my images and do NOT want to spend my time communicating with image buyers, compiling submissions, etc. So, for someone like me who wants to do a minimal of business related stuff and spend as much time as possible actually out in the field with my camera, microstock has been the best course to income, by a long shot. Microstock has enabled me to do what I feel like doing and still derive income from my photos. All other ways of getting income from my photos entail spending hours and hours doing things that are not pleasant to me, so that is why I do not and will not sell photos in other ways. I tried it for years, and did not like it.
Sorry, I fell off- it's been a busy week in the studio. I can understand your sentiment. It was my initial response as well. I felt like I would be replaced by a lazy person sitting on their sofa with a click of a button who could effortlessly out-create me. I've since changed my perspective. But I understand the concern. I do believe some fields of photography will be more affected by the software than others. Advertising, it seems, could easily lend to work produced by AI. Sporting events (not ads but actual events) or product photography much less. These are what I shoot. I don't do anything in landscape or wildlife, you would clearly be the expert in this prediction.
I follow one and only one At generated art page on social media. It’s not Tim’s but has a similar cohesive look to the work. My reaction to that page is no different than my reaction to his; I’m bummed. Not about the impeding end of photography (another revision or two of Midjourney and commercial work is done for) but bummed out because the Ai generated images just don’t impress me. Yes, those things take a lot of work getting the right prompts and photoshop editing (for now), but the talent required to do so is far less that it was. To create any of those computer generated pieces in front of a camera would require a highly skilled team of people (models, designers, stylists, etc) all working at their best. Does the process matter or is it just the result? Would a Vanity Fair spread or a LaChapelle image give you the same feeling if all it took was a few mouse clicks vs the decades of talent in from and behind the lens? So much of what I love about photography is the collaboration involved. Looking at a shot and thinking, “the stylist killed it”, “that pose is great”, just being amazed by the originality of people…. I don’t know, maybe I’m just getting old and need to go back to yelling at kids to get off of my lawn.
Lol- the last line. I can understand this sentiment. Thanks for sharing it. The landscape of art is changing in a real way. I LOVE the imaginative pieces that are being put out. It's like the mind is finally unleashed to bring to life the widly ideas that lay inside it. Some of my own ideas, I would love to bring to life- and I don't have 10k to drop on making them.
Simultaneously I remember my days in College getting my art degree. I started as a graphic design major but when I realized how much time I was alone, at a sterile computer. Yuck. I pivoted immediately. I spent the rest of the years coming home at night with charcoal under my nails, paint brushes inadvertently slipped into my ponytail and forgotten, rolls of film in my backpack, and clay on my jeans. More than once I've thought, "I'm glad I only have 20 years left in the industry because starting an art career in the next decade is going to look very different. "
.
Michelle VanTine wrote:
" ... paint brushes inadvertently slipped into my ponytail and forgotten ... "
That is one of the best phrases I have ever read! Love it!
.
People defending their use of this "artistic tool" are just making fools of themselves - as will become clear when more people understand what this software actually does.
Photography requires a camera, doesn't it? I think people would likely agree that paintings are not photographs. Picasso, da Vinci, Monet, etc. created images on canvas using paint. They're all considered great art, but they aren't photographs. Likewise, I feel that images created with an AI are not photographs, but are still art.
If Tim Tadder wants to create images using an AI, great, he should do what makes him happy, but IMHO his images are art but not photography. Label them as such and create to your heart's content.
The whole discussion about AI vs photography boils down to the lag of an easy way to describe the difference between a picture taken with a camera and a picture made using AI, by just one word.
It is easy to distinguish between a photograph and a painting just by the word itself, even though you can make a photo; painting like in its appearance, it is still a photograph and not a painting.
Some people have the power to make photorealistic drawings, but we still call it a drawing and not a photo.
What we need, is a word or a term that can describe a picture made by AI, in a way that distinguish it from a photograph just by the word itself, and we need to get that word know throughout the industry so people will start using it when discussing AI art.
Luckely the web is way ahead of us all. It's called; Synthography. Look it up.
The term is already on Wikipedia and already have its own website: https://synthography.com/
Now we just need website like FStoppers, PetaPixel and others to embrace it.
Good points about how words and language categorize.
I've noticed that curators have been having a hard time with categorizations at art gallery and museum exhibitions. It's actually popular for a lot of academics to say that anything that looks "photographic" is a photograph and that's one of the ways that critics justified Gursky's digitally manipulated images of the Rhine etc. I've seen a disturbing trend where gatekeepers won't criticize the new technology but will instead re-categorize the old, so they're calling photographs made with a camera "lens based media" and sometimes "photo media." The problem with those terms is that they imply that a photograph can be made with anything at all and using lenses or lighting are just two possible ways.
This is my exact sentiment
From what I’ve seen in commentary on Tim Tadders Instagram page since he switched to AI is almost universal praise. Very few negative comments and most of those reasonable. He can be quite negative in his responses to comments he doesn’t like. He seems to have a thin skin. I’ve found it repetitive and boring. Brilliant in one way but once you know it’s AI it really seems cold. He is a very talented photographer, very creative, I must prefer it. I’d wish he’d return to it. As an early adopter with a wide audience I’d say he is doing very well out of AI. Plenty of publicity , plenty of opportunities. I’m finding AI more and more boring. There is no skill in it. Midjourney is a clunky interface but once you know the list of options anyone can create the images.
I have no comments regarding Mr Tadder, he appears to be very talented and successful.
"Photo" illustrations have been around forever.
As a newspaper and editorial photographer some assigments included illustrations made with cameras and may have been aided by computers, software, special lighting, and props. Some were fun and quite good.
Great candid and documentary photography is in an entirely different league. Nothing replaces it.
A big shift in creativity and commerce is before us with this so-called "Articial Intelligence". Pro photographers will need to be nimble as they consider how to proceed and adjust their business models.
Now more than ever new labels, credits, and possibly disclaimers will be needed for some published or displayed works.
I was blown away by the recent published images depicting conservative politicians as drag queens. It was very high quality but I had no idea what I was looking at or how it was made.
FStoppers should be at the center of this conversation because editing, retouching and composites seem to be a significant part of their identity.
Tadder mentioned Picasso. Pick one: a hand-painted creation or a print of the best AI collaboration ?
I loved this phrase you wrote, " Pro photographers will need to be nimble as they consider how to proceed and adjust their business models." It is very true. And here we are- Fstoppers- in the middle of the conversation. I agree with your statement.
I haven't had a TV since 2004 and when I go over to my parent's house the news is always on. It's always the same stories: 2 countries are on the brink of war, politicians and being outed for corruption, shootings, death etc. It's just different names every time, but it's the same story. I feel a little bit like this is the way it is when a new technology is introduced into art. Same arguments- different names inserted.
There several actions surrounding the photographic act that need to be taken into account. For instance wildlife photographers enjoy all that is needed in preparation to the shoot, trekking on often difficult terrain, affronting inclement temperatures and sometimes hostile environments. Ditto landscape photographers. Then there is the adrenaline rush associated in capturing the right moment in sports and action photography. Each type of photography has its own environment which can be just as satisfying if not more than the actual capture.
I love AI creation, it has brought a new dimension to my own photography.
I often use engines, eg ClipInterrogator, that will actually analyze my "real photographs" (either analog or digital) and suggest new prompts that will produce new and original work. Sometimes even visually or compositionally superior
This is just the beginning of a new and fascinating imaginary universe.
There is another aspect of AI image creation that can well serve artists. I am often asked by Wildlife Painters or illustrators if they can use one of my bird pictures as a model. I can imagine a still painter or photographer using AI to suggest some setups for instance.
And yes, typing a few words will generate something interesting in many cases, but it will never be exactly what you had in mind. If you are doing something as involved and consistent as what I see in Tadder's work on IG, you better be prepared to sweat it out. It doesn't come easily. Hats off to you Tim!
1) I love his work
2) make this AI companies pay heavily from the stolen property used to “teach” this technology
3) just don’t call it photography ;)
4) Create regulations for the use of AI, with actions against users but also punishing the vendors.
Although i do like/love/appreciate the many "images" I've seen with AI.....there is one thing which no one, and I mean no one, can escape.....The 'A' in AI. End of story.
He's been successful in ad imagery; he knows nothing about how this software works or what it's really doing. And that's evident from his pompous self-congratulation for finding a new way to enrich himself from other people's work.
Thanks Jim