Photographers and videographers should probably be concerned about the scary "boogeymachine" that is AI. It's very likely that in the next decade, many photo and video jobs will be replaced by AI, and this will inevitably change the photo and video industry.
In 1969, Japanese watch manufacturer Seiko introduced the first-ever commercially available quartz watch, the Seiko Quartz Astron. Over the next two decades, the Swiss watch industry was decimated by the influx of cheaper quartz watches. The whole mechanical watch industry was essentially put on life support, with around 1,000 Swiss watch brands going out of business.
Interestingly, the quartz crisis was only considered a crisis in Switzerland; outside the country, it was called the quartz revolution. Most people celebrated this technological advancement because it brought many conveniences. For instance, quartz watches were more accurate than mechanical watches and could run for years without needing a battery change, whereas mechanical watches typically run out of power after around 40 hours.
These sentiments may feel familiar to photographers, as many industries are celebrating advancements in AI. AI technology is democratizing creativity and providing numerous conveniences. As the technology improves, it’s easy to imagine many industries adopting AI features over current conventional methods.
However, the watch industry managed to stave off a complete collapse by focusing on two key areas: the high-end luxury market and the budget market. Swiss watch manufacturers emphasized how mechanical watches were heirlooms, something to pass down from generation to generation. As a luxury item, these watches transcended their practical purpose, making them immune to criticisms related to performance.
For example, Rolex, a brand now synonymous with luxury, wasn’t always considered as such. One could argue that the quartz crisis pushed Rolex to reposition itself as a luxury brand by focusing on producing high-quality watches.
As watch brands leaned into luxury, the perception of quartz watches shifted from being a revolution to being seen as an addition. Many brands even avoided producing quartz watches altogether. Most notably, Seiko, the pioneer of quartz technology, has since minimized its production of quartz watches and focuses primarily on mechanical watches.
Moving towards luxury helped the watch industry take the focus off performance. It no longer mattered that quartz watches could be produced faster, cheaper, and performed better at keeping time. Mechanical watches represented craftsmanship and the art of horology.
What Is Luxury?
To precisely determine what makes something a luxury can be challenging; however, there are guidelines. In 2001, three academics, Bernard Dubois, Gilles Laurent, and Sandor Czeller published a paper describing six key characteristics of how luxury is perceived by consumers.
- Quality: High craftsmanship and durability are often synonymous with luxury.
- Price: Luxury is closely associated with high costs, viewed as both a barrier and a marker of exclusivity.
- Scarcity and Uniqueness: Luxury goods are perceived as rare and exclusive, often tied to personal customization.
- Aesthetic and Sensory Appeal: Strong emphasis on beauty, hedonic pleasure, and multi-sensory experiences.
- Heritage and History: Luxury items often have a narrative tied to tradition and time, enhancing their value.
- Superfluousness: Seen as non-essential but providing symbolic and emotional benefits.
These are not laws by any means and can be fluid; however, these guidelines have been essential in helping many brands and consumers understand luxury. For the most part, luxury is consumer-driven and steeped in emotion. And these are generally contradicting emotions between attraction and moral or practical reservations.
Luxury goods are things we don’t need to survive, but we want because they make us feel good or carry a special meaning. The fact that they are non-essential is what sets luxury apart from everything else. On one hand, it’s admired for its high quality and exclusivity. On the other hand, some criticize it for being out of reach or question if it’s really worth the price. This push and pull between admiration and skepticism is what makes our relationship with luxury so complex.
Take any luxury product or service, and you will almost always have naysayers discussing value for money or how garishly excessive it is. Yet this is inherently valuable and beneficial to the luxury market. Ultimately, there is no logic in why anyone would want to purchase a luxury service or product; instead, it is an emotional reaction.
Photography Is a Luxury
As AI continues to develop and become more sophisticated, there will be fewer reasons to hire photographers. There’s no need to spend hours in a studio and then wait days after the shoot for results when AI can produce something in mere seconds. With just a few clicks on your computer, you could generate a series of portrait photos ready to use across all your profiles.
Need a new LinkedIn profile picture? No problem—simply update the description to match your needs, and off you go. These days, hiring a photographer is becoming less necessary, and this trend will only intensify as AI technology continues to advance.
However, this lack of necessity and non-essential nature of photography will actually enhance the industry's luxury appeal. Photography is a craft that requires years of skill and experience to create something meaningful. While anyone can pick up a camera and press the shutter button, it takes real dedication and hard work over many years to become a good photographer, let alone an expert.
This also explains why photography is expensive. Generally, the more experienced a photographer is, the higher the cost of their services. Photographers quickly learn to avoid budget clients and focus on delivering high-quality service instead of competing on price. Over time, they build the confidence to turn down projects that don’t align with their value, which is a key aspect of how luxury works.
Experience and quality in photography are also incredibly rare. While it’s true that anyone can call themselves a photographer, how many are trusted to work on large, high-end projects? This is where the scarcity of skill and expertise comes into play. Luxury is defined by rarity, and truly exceptional photography as a service is exceedingly rare.
Finally, photography has an inherent ability to impact people through its aesthetic and sensory appeal. A beautiful photograph can move someone just as deeply as any other form of art. Moreover, photography has a rich history, dating back nearly 200 years to the first photograph taken in 1826. In this sense, photography aligns perfectly with all six characteristics of what makes something a luxury.
Final Thoughts
Photographers shouldn’t worry too much about how accessible AI is or how good it’s going to get. Sure, AI will replace some jobs, but photography is a luxury, and there’s no replacement for what it offers. AI can’t replicate the craftsmanship, the emotion, or the years of experience it takes to create something special.
In fact, the more popular AI becomes, the more valuable photography will be. As more people turn to AI or budget options, the work of a skilled photographer becomes rarer and even more desired.
You can either focus on the budget market, where AI might struggle to fully take over, or go all in on being a luxury brand. That means improving your skills, charging a lot more, and producing work that moves people on an emotional level.
The more saturated the market gets with AI and low-cost solutions, the more unique and valuable real photography becomes. It’s not about competing with AI; it’s about doing what AI can’t. Whether you stick with affordable work or aim for the high-end, photography will always have a place, and its value as a craft will only grow.
When it comes to new product in some markets, there are a lot of things AI can't really compete with. I try and stay on top of my field with clients that have total trust in me not only with the photography itself, but with my very extended understanding of their product and deadlines. I know enough that I have actually been able to catch manufacturing defaults and suggested by accident improved details for some products. Being linked to manufacturing, show room and advertising department, I have a very unique eye on what's going on and can link and see problems that the offices and manufacturing don't realize they have because they are two different structures. AI doesn't bother me one minute and I have actually pointed at an app a client should investigate. Of course that is all to my advantage because that app can actually generate more work for me.
Beside that, AI has been build in every phone for years. While this may be considered a great thing, it also comes with many issues including lack of rules, knowledge but also possibly render most phone photos limited for AI? That last one I don't know the answer to but there is evidence that, despite the billions of phone photos generated every day, AI is short of images to exploit for their models. This of course makes no sense.
My last remark is regarding the web site my wife maintains for the school she works for. It is not uncommon that she asks me to look and ask to fix/improve some images from events. These are images send typically by teachers and other staff and they totally contrast with all the phone manufacturers quality claims. Most are worst than the images I received when I contributed to my kids school's web site over ten years ago. Often what AI has done is not fixable due in part to the cropping needed for the specific images use. I'm glad to help her and her principal enjoys what she provides but in general while it can help, I see many issues that point at AI's limitations that are not going to really improve in the near future.
Photography isn’t equal to a camera. I think it’s a mistake to mix activities and products.
Luxury neural networks? A question of the near future. Just like AI discounters.
I'd put it this way: whatever the product - if basically everyone and his dog can produce it, it has no commercial value.
Generative AI is built on mass copyright theft.
Most of people don't care and noone knows how to deal with it.
No one? It's big layers firms hired to stop the little guy. The entire situation is actually very clear.
You don't need big firms to stop the little guy...
Again, once more someone attempts to lump all of photography together as though it were some homogeneous lump. Photography is a varied activity that encompasses a huge range of unique and very different genres. AI will impact them all in very different ways if at all. While photography for some is a bread and butter operation such as wedding photography for others it’s got much more to do with creativity and art. Future gazing is always something fraught with difficulty with a poor track record.. While we can all look back and see examples such as of the decline of the Swiss watch industry due to new technology and understand what happened it’s a very different kettle of fish to gaze forward and make a prediction. AI aimed at still and video production will no doubt change how people do certain tasks related to these visual industries, but exactly how remains to be seen. When you are dealing with people it’s difficult to know how they will jump. Who could have guessed the resurgence in vinyl. In the city I live in there are now a number of shops selling vinyl albums with not a CD in sight. The change streaming brought to how people consumed music brought with it a backlash with some now preferring the unique musical experience of listening to an album rather that a shuffled collection of individual tracks. How AI will turn out in all its varied applications is difficult to impossible to call. I’m sure there are some aspects of photography that could be labeled, luxury but there are a whole lot more that are not. I think what we have been presented here with is an ill thought out argument that demonstrates a lack of understanding of what photography actually is and how technological changes affects society and the way we do things.
The article aknowledges a budget market, you're making a strawman here.
I agree, people like to control what they think and like and the big industry throwing anything and more just to satisfy investors is becoming way too much for regular folks. Phone cameras have to have AI crushing and over processing files to make the users feel good. How pathetic and uncreative. It's totally artificial. An example of that is screen grab versus selfie capture. Too much is too much and people find more satisfaction at detuning the greed rush than falling for it
And in a strange turn, just like your watch analogy, a lot of people are turning to the past and rediscovering things they missed out on, whether it's due to age, fashion, social media trends or just trying to subvert the modern-day norms.
There's been a resurgence over the last 10 to 15 years of mechanical watches - not even high end designer brands. Similarly, a lot of younger people are rediscovering the joys of film photography and older digital cameras and embracing the art of making images rather than letting their smartphones do it for them.
Sure these trends have affected prices, but it's surely a good thing that there's a healthy interest in photography amongst the younger generation who are in part fighting against AI.
Yep, same with vinyl records and film. It's always healthy when people tell the industry what to do.
Absolutely love the in-depth comparison to the history of the watch industry. Thanks for the good read, Usman!
A thought just occurs to me (or rather a stream-of-consciousness rambling).
The wristwatch as we know it, although mainly used by women until the 20th century, only became commonplace and largely replaced the pocket watch during WW1. The pocket watch just wasn't practical in the heat of battle, so having one on the wrist was more convenient and practical.
I've noticed a lot of people, particularly younger people no longer wear a wristwatch, as they have a clock on their phone... which lives in their pocket, and they see a wristwatch as a luxury item, or a piece of jewellery.
We've come full circle!
In a similar, but totally different way, many people have eschewed traditional cameras in favour of phones out of convenience. Or like me, as a second camera.
I would like to add a 7th key characteristics about luxury watches: Inconvenient. I learned from personal experience that you actually have to wear the Rolex or at least put it on a device that periodically rotates it to keep it wound. Ugh.
LOL yeah haha. You should add to the study :P.
This piece attempts to position photography as a luxury to counter the looming AI threat, but its arguments are about as flimsy as a paper backdrop in a windstorm.
First, the article draws a parallel between the quartz crisis in watches and AI in photography. Here’s the problem: quartz watches didn’t eliminate the need for watchmakers—they just made timekeeping more efficient for the masses. AI, on the other hand, will replace entire swaths of the photography industry. It’s not a matter of “if,” it’s a matter of “when.” You think AI isn’t going to refine its ability to generate aesthetically pleasing and emotionally resonant images? Spoiler alert: it already is. The idea that photographers can somehow escape this by leaning into “luxury” is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst.
Second, the article touts photography’s “craftsmanship” as irreplaceable. Really? Because AI doesn’t need 10 years of practice or expensive equipment to produce technically flawless images. Clients don’t care about how many hours you spent honing your skills—they care about the results. And if AI can produce those results faster, cheaper, and arguably better in some cases, that craftsmanship argument crumbles. Emotional resonance? AI can simulate that too, with endless iterations until the perfect image is achieved. So the idea that photographers have some untouchable artistic monopoly is nonsense.
Third, the luxury argument falls apart when you examine basic economics. The article claims that photography will become like Rolex watches—rare, expensive, and valued for its “heritage.” But luxury markets are inherently small. Most photographers don’t have the global clout of a Rolex. A handful of elite photographers might thrive, sure, but the rest? They’ll struggle to compete with AI that provides 95% of the quality at 5% of the cost. The average person doesn’t care about “heritage”; they care about getting their wedding photos on time and under budget.
The article glosses over the budget market with some vague notion that AI will “struggle” there. Really? AI is literally designed to dominate efficiency-driven markets. If anything, it’s the high-end market where photographers have a chance, but that niche is so small it can’t sustain the industry as a whole.
Lastly, the piece ends with a rallying cry for photographers to “improve their skills” and focus on what AI can’t do. This is the equivalent of telling someone to bring a paintbrush to a printing press. The reality is, AI will get better, faster, and more accessible. Doubling down on what AI supposedly “can’t do” is a losing strategy because that list shrinks every day.
So, to summarize: this article is a feel-good fluff piece for photographers who are terrified of AI but unwilling to face the facts. The photography industry isn’t going to thrive by clinging to “luxury” or pretending AI can’t replace most of its functions. The future belongs to those who adapt—not those who write nostalgic essays about the past.
Have you ever been on a big commercial photoshoot? Please describe how they work if you have. You are missing a lot. Plus good efficient creatives to achieve an image without photography are probably not interested in the tiny pay you offer. You don't have the full thing together.
This is why luxury is inherently a European thing. Americans don't seem to understand it.
Ah yes, the classic “luxury is inherently European” argument—a bold and vaguely Eurocentric way to completely dodge the actual discussion. Newsflash: the issue here isn’t whether someone can slap a “luxury” label on a service and charge an absurd premium for it. It’s whether the entire industry can survive by relying on a minuscule niche of high-end clients while AI devours the mid-tier and budget markets. Spoiler alert: it can’t.
Luxury isn’t “inherently European.” It’s inherently about exclusivity and scarcity. And here’s the thing—luxury markets are tiny by design. Most photographers aren’t going to become the Rolex of the industry just because they added some fluff about “heritage” and upped their prices. AI is going to obliterate the lower and mid-tier markets, leaving only a narrow luxury segment, which can’t sustain the tens of thousands of working photographers out there.
So no, this isn’t about whether Americans “understand” luxury. It’s about economics, disruption, and market realities—concepts that apparently don’t require a European passport to grasp.