The advent of generative AI images has sent a seismic ripple through the photography world, and the concern extends beyond the obvious issue of competition. The manner in which generative AI cannibalizes and resamples existing images has photographers considering how best to protect their work.
It’s been pretty easy to have a laugh at the expense of some of generative AI’s early attempts to create photorealistic images. Like many human artists, it seems to struggle with drawing hands, and the six-fingered people that appear in more than a few of its images are a dead giveaway that they were generated with AI. Even in my own limited explorations of generative AI, I have discovered a few other features of the real world that it really struggles to depict. A prompt that includes the word “saxophone,” for example, often produces something that looks more like some kind of brass, cyberpunk-inspired plumbing system than an actual musical instrument!
But the truth is that generative AI is getting better and better with each passing year, and its ability to create compelling images is inevitably going to place it in competition with traditional creative fields like art, photography, and graphic design. Perhaps more disturbingly, generative AI in its current form essentially constitutes the reuse of existing images, since the AI images that it generates are essentially a resampled blend of one or more existing images that were used as part of the generative algorithm’s training set.
And where do these existing images come from?
The answer is pretty much anywhere on the internet that the AI companies are able to find and pull images from. If you’re a photographer, an artist, or a graphic designer, this should trouble you because this appropriation of images—with or without your consent—might potentially include your own work.
In other words, when you ask a generative AI application to create an image of a snowy owl landing on a frozen lake, it is able to do so because it can borrow from and rehash the work of photographers who previously took pictures of snowy owls and frozen lakes.
And herein lies one of the problems that renowned Canadian wildlife photographer Simon D’Entremont discusses in the latest installment of his insightful video series, in which he shares his knowledge, experience, and often very perceptive opinions about photography. As always, Simon offers a very thoughtful and balanced view of the subject, blending in his commentary and concerns about AI as a professional photographer while also discussing some of its benefits. The video is also refreshingly free of the kind of intemperate handwringing that we often see regarding the impending doom of all creative fields in the face of AI. Instead, Simon offers some very helpful and practical advice on how to adjust to the new normal and, perhaps most importantly, what steps you can take as a creative to protect your work and prevent its (mis)appropriation by the AI algorithms.
But what do you think about all of this? Are you worried about the advent of generative AI, or have you already been impacted—either positively or negatively—in your own work? Let us know in the comments.
It won't ruin photography. It'll ruin the audience for photography, replacing wonder with suspicion.
And in the event, make real Photos even more precious ;-)
True, but commercially that will become a niche I'm afraid. Because fake is cheaper with more possibilities.
Of course real photography will stay as a personal experience. And honestly that's what it always was in my opinion.
That's right. In many fields of photography, it will not work commercially... maybe for a few, but not in a scalable way like what AI does
It's devaluing all forms of creative imagery. I feel like there's going to be a big pushback at some point, and a demand for authenticity. We'll see
I thought the same thing when digital began and folks started messing with Photoshop. This 10-year-old video of a slice of pizza being Photoshopped into a woman was the harbinger of things to come.
https://youtu.be/dKD8uTRs5ZM?si=rKwTixyhoh0WCj89
Still waiting on that pushback. Folks treat me like a crank when I raise any objections.
This will certainly also be an issue. From this point forward, whenever somebody looks at a really beautiful image, there might always be that nagging suspicion in the back of their mind, that it was either created with AI or at least enhanced with it.
Right .... but who cares? I don't mean that flippantly, but as an honest question. Are we shooting based on what other people will think about our photos? I was brought up being taught that we are not supposed to care about what others think. Be true to yourself, do what you love and believe in, regardless of what others think of it. If we are true to ourselves, then we won't care about what others think of our work. We are not supposed to shoot to get others to think highly of us. We are supposed to shoot to please ourselves.
Some photograph for themselves. Others seek to communicate with an audience. There is no “supposed to” about it.
Making fact indistinguishable from propaganda is part of the authoritarian playbook for gathering power and silencing opposition.
Difficult days ahead.
Well THANK YOU, Your information is priceless. When I read the title I was going to just point out AI is just another program of photography like when Lrc and others helped to get rid of dust spot many years ago has well as Noise years ago was somewhat impossible to get rid of, I mean when I started doing night and astro back in 2014 Lr/PS, Capture One (had the white plastic square to do another image and compare also for lens correction) ETC... But also the spell checker of the early 1981 word programs like the Osbourne Executive with bundled software had (I bought for just that) that today are in all products like web browsers... again ETC....
I was using Topaz software for noise and other things back in 2014 when the expensive PS/Lr cost $800+ as well as a full update. Other great programmers of the game world like DOOM came out with $100 programs knowing hobbyist were out there.
All those before now have made editing sooo! great and easier!
I myself and others may not know how to protect images from theft. I know the pros need social media accounts today like they used magazine, newspaper and other means like phone calling to get work. What worries me as a hobbyist is when using ViewBug, Smugmug and Squarespace as just a place to post to share with others as a link other than the Facebook etc.
But I do deeply like that you brought up ways to defeat the theft of images. It is like one day I got a message on ViewBug where someone was interested in buying some images for NFT's and was shocked when in an email the person had copied and pasted the four images and a price willing to pay of $1700 each and kept sending email saying I am waiting waiting !!! Being a hobbyist and old on Social Security extra income means more taxes making you over the 85% level leaving really nothing for the bank! the reason for being a hobbyist and have enjoyed photography since the early 70's of film.
Again Thank You for the info, I was the anti spyware geek back in the floppy days in the Navy as Electronic people were drafted into as well as their real jobs!!!
It is like I enjoy a February early morning 40 degree milky way and then find it on line some were! As a hobbyist how do you fight it due to $$$$'s
Lastly places like SmugMug and ViewBug let your Metadata info of title and comments of show up in your post, This I hope again helps.
Just remember, the operative word here is "artificial", with all that the word implies.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"1. Made by humans, especially in imitation of something natural.
2. Not arising from natural or necessary causes; contrived or arbitrary.
3. Affected or insincere."
As much as some want to jump on the bandwagon with the latest bright, shiny toy, AI has a long way to go to be credible and truly useful.
As for me, I want a camera that records what I aim it at, warts and all. If I need to modify the recorded image for clarity, I can jolly well do that in post, and do not need to make a photographic wet dream of the process by someone else's standards.
[/curmudgeon]
U are confusing photography with image creation/manipulation. AI doesn't record light, it is creating it. Check the definition of photography.
20 years ago, there was a distinction among editors at publications between "photography" and "photo illustration".
The idea that AI can ruin photography is preposterous.
AI may ruin the demand for photography. AI may ruin the overall perception of photography. But it can not actually ruin photography itself.
Why?
Well, no matter what AI can do or how widespread it becomes, I will still be able to pick up a camera that does not use AI and take photos the way I always have. That is photography. And it does not necessarily need to be affected by the fact that other people use AI.
This is the peripheral of AI. Most of AI resources are now being applied to network, server, and computer security. The only failures you see now is about institutions that have not adopted AI for the IT security. For now, enjoy these discussions, this isn't where AI is even going; it's meant to be a distraction.