I have always been a person who works smarter, not harder. Now that AI is everywhere, I’ve started to see where I can benefit from its use. This made me think: Can I leverage ChatGPT and ask it to help me create adjustment settings for Lightroom based on an idea?
It all started when a former coworker asked, “Have you seen this new thing called ChatGPT?” I told him I had not, and a conversation ensued. That afternoon, I started playing around with ChatGPT at work to see how to use it to free up more time. I thought, “What mindless tasks do I hate?” Email: I hated mindless emails. I started using ChatGPT to create emails that I turned into templates of the most common sales emails I sent and responses to common questions. I began to free up time to make more sales calls. Then, I started thinking about how this could help my photography.
I use ChatGPT mostly to brainstorm and help me narrow down photographic thoughts. Can I use it to help give me starting points in Lightroom adjustments as I do presets? After experimentation, this is what I found.
Tips on Writing Effective ChatGPT Prompts
First, to receive the best “advice” using ChatGPT, here are a few tips I found over time, as well as minor internet sloughing:
-
Be clear and specific in your instructions: Use the K.I.S.S. method: keep it simple, stupid. Be straightforward, don’t fluff it up, and avoid open-ended questions.
-
Talk to it like a friend: Really. Talk to it in a conversational way. For example, I asked it, "I am trying to come up with photo project ideas and thinking about projects focusing on social issues in the Midwest." Its response, "Focusing on social issues in the Midwest," offers a wealth of powerful, meaningful project possibilities. Here are a few ideas. It then provided about nine examples. I can use that information to start researching.
-
Avoid multipart questions: I found that the more complex my input, the less precise the output became. It’s better to break it into smaller, focused questions.
-
Check the information: Like anything, verify the info. It’s imperfect and sometimes provides incorrect or misleading answers. For instance, I asked photography questions, knowing the general answers, and it was wrong!
Left: Adjustments recommendation from ChatGPT. Right: Justin's original edit.
Adjustment Presets and Suggestions
Sometimes, you may have a specific look in mind for an image but don't know where to start when taking it from an idea to the final image. You can use ChatGPT to help get you in the right direction. Here is an input I used and the answers I received:
Input: I want Lightroom adjustments to create a 1940s feel.
ChatGPT Response: To create an image with a 1940s feel in Lightroom, you'll want to focus on warm tones, soft contrast, and a slightly faded, nostalgic look. Here are some specific adjustments to help achieve that vintage style:
-
Basic Adjustments:
- Exposure: Neutral
- Contrast: +20
- Highlights: -20
- Shadows: +20
- Whites: +10
- Blacks: -15
- Clarity: -10
- Vibrance: -20
- Saturation: -10
- Temperature: +20
-
Tone Curve:
- Shadows: Lift slightly
- Highlights: Lower slightly to soften bright areas
- Apply a subtle S-curve for structured contrast
-
Split Toning:
- Highlights: Warm golden tones
- Shadows: Cool blue tint for balance
-
Effects:
- Grain: Add noticeable grain to mimic old film stock
- Post-Crop Vignetting: Apply a subtle vignette to focus attention on the subject
- Noise Reduction: Add a small amount to smooth out the image
Now, I can start asking ChatGPT for specific adjustments, and it will respond with a range for particular adjustments, like the two examples below. I have not gone this far; I use this information as a starting point and then use my creativity and artistic expression.
-
Basic Adjustments:
- Exposure: Neutral
- Contrast: +20
- Highlights: -20
- Shadows: +20
- Whites: +10
- Blacks: -15
- Clarity: -10
- Vibrance: -20
- Saturation: -10
- Temperature: +20
-
Tone Curve:
- Shadows: +15 for a more open dark range
- Highlights: -10
-
Color Grading:
- Highlights: Hue 40, Saturation 15
- Shadows: Hue 200, Saturation 10
-
Effects:
- Grain: Amount 20, Size 20, Roughness 50
- Post-Crop Vignetting: -10
- Noise Reduction: Amount 10
Simulating Film
The next thought came from spending hours online looking for presets that mimic film. I realized I should just buy a Fuji X camera. But who wants to spend a bunch of money on presets? These days, photographers either shoot film or make their images look like film. Photographers are researching “recipes,” and plenty of YouTube videos show you how to replicate your favorite film stock. I decided to ask ChatGPT to create the look of Kodak Gold 200. Again, I am using this as a starting point and can tweak the look to fit my preference.
ChatGPT Input: Create Lightroom adjustments for Kodak Gold 200.
ChatGPT Response: Kodak Gold 200 is known for its warm tones, slightly saturated colors, and nostalgic look, especially in daylight. These adjustments replicate that look:
-
Basic Panel
-
Exposure: Adjust as necessary (no specific value—depends on the image).
-
Contrast: +15
-
Highlights: -15
-
Shadows: +25
-
Whites: +10
-
Blacks: -5
-
Clarity: -10 (softens the image slightly to mimic film)
-
Dehaze: 0
-
Vibrance: +20
-
Saturation: +10
-
-
Tone Curve
-
Point Curve: Create a slight S-curve on the RGB channel:
-
Shadows: Input: 0, Output: 15
-
Darks: Input: 50, Output: 45
-
Midtones: Input: 128, Output: 128 (leave neutral)
-
Highlights: Input: 200, Output: 210
-
Whites: Input: 255, Output: 245
-
-
HSL Panel
-
Reds: -5
-
Oranges: -5
-
Yellows: -5
-
Greens: +10
-
-
Aquas: +5
-
Blues: +5
-
-
Saturation
-
Reds: +15
-
Oranges: +10
-
Yellows: +10
-
Greens: -10
-
Aquas: -15
-
Blues: -10
-
-
Luminance
-
Reds: +10
-
Oranges: +10
-
Yellows: +15
-
Greens: +5
-
Blues: -5
-
-
Color Grading
-
Shadows: Hue: 50, Saturation: 15 (warm shadows)
-
Midtones: Hue: 40, Saturation: 20 (golden tones)
-
Highlights: Hue: 60, Saturation: 10 (subtle warm highlights)
-
Blending: 50
-
Balance: -10 (favor shadows)
-
-
Grain
-
Amount: 25
-
Size: 20
-
Roughness: 50
-
-
Calibration
-
Red Primary: Hue: -5, Saturation: +15
-
Green Primary: Hue: +5, Saturation: +5
-
Blue Primary: Hue: -10, Saturation: +10
-
I then asked ChatGPT to see if it could create a .xmp file for Lightroom. ChatGPT created the file, and I could download it. This allowed me to upload the file to presets in Lightroom. Without asking, ChatGPT then gave me instructions on how to import the .xmp file into Lightroom!
Is It a Good Idea?
Is using ChatGPT a good idea for creating presets and adjustments? The answer: it depends. It boils down to what you are using it for and how far you take it. With anything, you can take it too far!
-
Getting Started: If you are new to presets or considering different editing styles for your photographs, ChatGPT is an excellent resource for getting started and researching adjustments. Why waste time trying things over and over?
-
Time-Saving: Use it as a translator for all your ideas and let it help organize the necessary steps to complete your task! It will save you time and allow you to test many more options quickly.
-
Laziness: Here is where I see the downfall. With anything, you can take it too far and ultimately become lazy. You can rely on it so much that you expect it to give you the answers, like going on Instagram, finding a photo, and then going out to replicate it. Where is the fun and creativity in that?
In the End
Wrapping it up, ChatGPT is an excellent tool for any photographer in many ways, not just for creating adjustments in Lightroom. There are so many ways you can use it for photography. When it comes to Lightroom, it's a tool primarily to get started and then go a step further, tweaking the adjustments to your liking. I wouldn’t rely entirely on it, as it will hinder your creativity and create bad habits that I think will carry over to other areas of your photography. Again, work smarter, not harder.
Where does the artistry of ChatGPT come in? Or that of the artist? If it isn't an edit that come from you, is it yours? You may hold the copyright, but does that make it something you created? Aren't you just a small time Getty Images?
Isn’t this like using a preset, but with more steps? Lots of people do that. :)
Personally, I don't think so, though I am not much of a preset user either. The differences may be subtle, but real, in my mind. With a preset, we opt to use , or not, a set of immutable edits in a take it or leave it choice. We have already created a set of assumptions about a photo's potential and the direction that we want to take that photo. But with AI, we are asking AI to tell us what the direction and potential can be and then suggest some specific edits.
To my mind, this will lead to an increase in photos that look like all the other images we see on the popular photo display web sites. AI simply can't come up anything new, it can only give us what it "thinks" we will find acceptable. It isn't the tool that is "bad" so much as it is that we confuse its assessment of we want with our own creativity. It diminishes our ability to know the difference between what is art, and what is acceptably clever and popular.
The AI user will never create art that most people hate, and THAT is a risk artists must take but which AI is not able to take.
I can see that.
But presets aren't take it or leave it. You apply a preset and many times tweak the sliders to get the exact look you're going for. And at the same time he didn't ask AI what direction to go with the image. He told Chat what he wanted an image to look like and Chat suggested a way to edit the image to get that look.
If anything Chat is making images more personalized compared to presets because millions could have purchased those presets and applied them without any additional tweaks, making everyone's images the same. You'd have to ask Chat the exact same question with no additional questions to possibly get the same suggestion, but if you're using Chat, hopefully you're not asking just one question. "Suggest Lightroom adjustments for Kodak 200 film look." "Adjust for sunny landscape scene."
Well in my eyes, it is, but it isn't. If the preset allows you to change it, and you do change it, then doesn't it sort of stop being a preset? In my experience, altering any of the important editing components, changes the balance of those components.
100%. I imagine purists will say that each image should be edited from scratch, but then how far do they need to go, back to film where everything needs to be controlled in camera.
I think the buzzword AI has created an irrational response to some of the comments.
Photographers would have said the same about Photoshop in ~ 2000.
Personally, I'm not that much of a "purist". For me, the problem lies not in the automation, so much as how people respond to it. For me, it is the seductive call of not having think that is the problem.
I recall reading a science fiction story from the early days of the computer age. In it, someone is quite ill, and the doctor is called to the house (already, we know this is a fantasy!). The doctor comes to the house, gets out, his gear and starts to examine the patient with it.
Through the dialog of the characters interacting with each other, we realize that this "Doctor" is a moron who can barely write his name, and has no idea of how an examination of a patient should occur. And the family of the sick person are equally stupid and think the doctor is brilliant. All this doctor knows how to do, is turn his gear on, and says what the gear tells him to say. The gear itself talks to the house computer for payment and follow up visits.
Are we headed in this direction? I hope not. But I do worry when we let some AI software company tell us we are artists or creatives of some sort just because we can buy something and turn it on.
Actually I remember the doctor coming to our home on more than one occasion growing up in the late 1950s. There are probably many things that we grew up with that would seem like science fiction to kids today.
This is like using a preset. I edit according to my artistic eye. Why would I want to emulate something like kodachrome xxxxxx. Make my own path
The first line of the article: "I have always been a person who works smarter, not harder" is arguably the main reason you'll never become a great photographer. I have no doubt AI will have a huge impact on the way business operates. That said, I'm not trying to streamline my workflow for greater efficiency. My goal is to be a better photographer... a master of my craft. It's a long process with no real particular end point. I've come a long way, and have a long way still to go.
I've never heard a story of a craftsman who didn't work incredibly hard to perfect their craft. I've never heard of a master button-pusher. I've learned a huge amount about my photography as an artist and technician because it has been hard; not easy. I'm trying to understand exactly what I like in a photograph and how to make it happen. Instead of some preset or AI application making those decisions and spitting out banal results, I need to begin the creative process with a thought, and control each step along the path through to the finished print. I need total control in order to become more knowledgeable and skilled in my work. I need total control over the image to justify calling it my own. There are no shortcuts.
Unless you're a wedding photographer who has to deliver 500 images by Monday, I can't think of a worse piece of advice than to suggest using presets or AI to create anything at any stage of the process. Don't confuse production assistants with photography. You're simply avoiding learning the skills to create a photograph with intention. My advice: look for projects that are harder, not easier... and your images will likely improve.
«...arguably the main reason you'll never become a great photographer».
I get your point, and having worked as a photographer for three decades now, I also wouldn't lean on ChatGPT as a mainstay for editing advice. But your statement is in my opinion coming across as way too cocksure. Are you really sure the author will never become a great photographer, just because of this?
Great question. I'm not totally sure of anything. But I think of it this way: How far will you get in a career if you must rely on a calculator to solve 4x5 equals? I wonder how many kids working at McDonald's can make change without an electronic cash register? I suspect quite a large percentage. Of course a teenager who relies on a calculator for the simplest of math problems could go on to be a great research scientist... but I would not bet on it. Because from my perspective, critical thinking skills are important in all walks of life, and to rely on a machine to do that for you means that a key building block of creative thought is missing.
Another example: Nik Silver Efex is a popular black and white conversion application. I can't tell you how many times I've seen really awful BW images from photographers who use the software. Of course good and bad are subjective, but that's another argument. And "great" probably needs definition. Feeding an image into an automated post-processing application, though, is often a case of the blind following the blind. It's more of a crutch than a tool. So you get a dozen options to pick from. How does that improve one's ability to visualize a photograph, make a photograph with intention, or learn creative skills? I don't believe that relying on a machine for raising the question and solving the problem is a good strategy for improving one's photography to a level that might be considered great. Especially if great correlates with originality.
In Justin's case of the American flag photo, if he really wants to become a great photographer, he should be able to visualize the image that he intended to make from the start, shoot the image with that in mind, and be able to get from raw file to finished print. Understanding the editing process for color, saturation, contrast, etc., is key to making great pictures. Lots of decisions are required along the way, and using your own brain to make decisions leads to becoming a better photographer. The answer is not found in taking snapshots and asking a machine to fix our mess. To the main point of my comments: it takes a lot of time, effort, thought, persistence; in other words, hard work, to master one's craft. Instead of pushing a few buttons in Nik Silver Efex, try spending several hours with an image, manually shaping the tonal values. Instead of asking ChatGPT to solve a problem, learn the skills to do so yourself. I believe that you'll improve composition and post-processing skills, much more so than having the edits made and suggested for you.
Your logic is flawed. If you did everything the hard way you'd never look for a mentor, read an inspiring article, consult an expert, or take part in a community discussion like this.
Yes AI should not replace knowledge, but to suggest it shouldn't be used to speed up a learning process is backwards.
The hard way does, indeed, include seeking out a mentor, reading a book, and participating in group discussions. As does practice... lots of it. As does making photo edits manually rather than with an automatic function. That's all a major part of the path forward to improving one's photography that I'm suggesting. I suppose I did not make that clear.
On the other hand, relying on AI to speed up the process often means substituting human decisions, which I think are necessary to becoming a better photographer, with instantaneous machine-made decisions. Inevitably, in my opinion, AI does replace our own knowledge of the subject by shortcutting the results. You may not see the short term effects on any given photograph, but I stick to my theory that the more work that goes into a task, the more you learn. Seemingly unresolvable problems might be the best learning experience of all.
Yeah that's a fair and I agree with you on that.
I guess your motivation for taking a photo might be very different to mine too. I'm typically looking for a impromptu magic moment and making it best fit into the location with the clothing being worn, rather than being commissioned to capture nature or something specific in a particular way or style.
I am unclear. Are you uploading your image to chatgpt and asking for suggestions on how to get your image to where you want it? If so are you uploading the raw file?
If not, is chatgpt just assuming you are starting from a perfectly balanced and well lit photo and giving you precise adjustments to achieve the look you describe?
I can't help feeling negative about the further future. Right now I find the AI development interesting and sometimes even fun, exciting and helpful, but I don't think it will do the creative sector much good in the end (but hey.. deal with it). For example; working for a big advertisement bureau the last half year or so the focus is extremely on AI. And though I resisted at first I'm often asked to create AI images as well. As a photographer for me it's often the combination of real photography (a product/ person) and AI, or at least a lot of photoshop edit.
Here comes the crazy thing I wanted to share.. Last week I simply pasted the customers's assignment description (complete with the whole story what the campaign is for) in Chatgtp and asked for a Midjourney prompt. Nothing "kiss" method about it. I just typed away like I talk to someone. In my experience Chat GTP is way smarter than apps like Midjourney. Then I simply pasted that prompt in Midjourney. It was not only fast but also a way better prompt than I could have made myself. I found it crazy to "work" this way.
Luckily this assignment was too specific and complex (for now) so I still had to edit a lot, but the thing I realized once more is the following. In the near future every kid who is a bit informed about the latest tools can create about anything without much learning background, talent, trouble and most of all without a creative proces (imo the searching, playing, failing, finding, discovering, learning proces). It's more about selecting than a creative process. I think I don't have to explain to people on this site what a fundamental difference that is..
Right now we are in the situation that you still have to be creative to reach your goal. Creative in a bit different way that is (more the thinking of what tool combination to use than playing the traditional design elements). But more and more we probably will ask AI to make a plan of some vague idea before we even know ourselves what we are looking for (too lazy to think trough what we even want) and lead us the way how to do it. Knowledge and experience becomes relative unimportant as interfaces and cooperation between all the tools becomes easier. And yes; the result will be intellectual and creative laziness and even more so a huge slow down in how people develop themselves in this field. This specific effect imo is the big difference between AI and all the other developments ("progress") we saw in history. Those were only focussed on convenience as a tool. Apart from the huge inflation on what content people find impressive. The only thing that can save real creators is the soullessness of all this crap. But to be honest I think money will be the decisive factor in our unavoidable AI future. Plus the (imo) trend of how indifferent and super visual most people are towards authentic and original creation. They only want much, fast and trendy.
The good news; all this can't take away my personal love for photography though.
Why are you still using Midjourney?
I guess you got a reason why not, so why don't you just write it I wonder.
The other apps we used were even more disappointing (Letz.ai for instance). But MJ was not at all the point of my writing.
When it comes to visual adjustments of a special look of any image that is to be transferred to other images, I have a little tip. Use CaptureOne and the Match Look feature. This allows you to create and save your own presets of any image look in no time at all, quickly and precisely and in this case completely without ChatGPT.
Otherwise, I've been using ChatGPT since the beginning, just as described in the article. And never forget: Switch on your head ...
I agree. It surprises me anyway how every photographer Youtube video talks like LR is the norm.
Interesting idea but ChatGPT is refusing to create the xmp file to download
Needs the o1 model -- GPT4 won't create one.
I think we should think for ourselves. Use it or loose it (your brain that is)...Chat gpt can't see or think. So as the song says...
Make your own kind of music
Sing your own special song
Cass Elliot 1969
Wise words I think?
secret weapon to never buy overpriced presets, sure! Not a bad use of ChatGPT at all (and fairly cool it can build an XMP file for you).
The term AI is just a lazy thing! In the near past and even now the Pro's in the field are sending back to company editors within seconds images of now as it happens, that's the photographer and the skill of capture and those warm and comfortable get to play and end up as the artist of an image, they are the AI but they also use the computer AI to speed things up to be the first on line.
Digital Photography today unlike the film days you have on camera edits when doing jpegs, yes you can set jpegs settings and the camera will put the image out just like Auto mode, Sony has two. With Sony IEDT app you can in post adjust the jpeg setting within the RAW. It is kind of like in Lrc if you go to the 4 little squares up in the basic window you can select a jpeg profile and after that you can do an WB of auto or one of the WB's and then you have a color picker to get colors very close to what was captured after that start just a few slider of the artist's hand. So will the computer get the pat on the back or the person in the chair? My question mostly is who will be in the Metadata Creator and Copywriter with year?
As far as AI term way back in 1981 I bought a Osborne Executive Computer the reason I can not spell off the cuff. The Osborne came with 5 programs one a WordStar with Auto correcting, YEA for me, I had to write 100 evals of different pay grades a year and instead of writing on legal yellow pad for the Yeoman of my department head i gave evals off a dot metrics printer along with a floppy 5" disk - just this got me promoted to next paygrade at the earliest as one could, 10 years to E7 and further. my point is programs have had the AI within for decades now.
As most all know the image on the cameras rear LCD is the image of camera editing with jpeg settings of the camera. BUT the RAW is all things, sort of.
Like way back in the film days rolls of film were set back to headquarters for editing in the darkroom and even today a digital jpeg first then comes the raw, well to day maybe both!!!
True Story: National Geographic photographer Michael Yamashita shot many assignments with Sony cameras with DRO set to AUTO. He usually shoots RAW+JPG, and sends the RAW files to the NatGeo staff for post processing. Mike credits the DRO feature for making the shadows look exactly how his eye saw them, and he tells his staff to “make the RAW files look just like the
.jpg”. On several occasions the staff complained, “We can’t!”. This reinforces other stories I’ve heard where it can take an hour or more to do in Photoshop (by experienced users!) what the intelligent DRO feature does in fractions of a second to jpgs.
Interesting but likely to kick over the photographic hornets nest. Where to draw the line? Is a line actually required ? The thing is certain people just love to get all upset and holier than thou when an occasion presents itself.
Object removal in photoshop is that over the line or is there no difference between that and using ChatGTP for Lightroom settings?
Personally I see no difference. The problem as I see it for some is in Photoshop and other apps everything AI is hidden under the hood. In Lightroom using ChatGTP it’s there to be seen by everyone, and that upsets some folk. In my opinion the creativity still resides with the photographer in determine what look they are after. Sliding sliders is just what it is moving sliders around. If ChatGTP can help why not? Purists will always be upset if they feel their boat is being rocked, such sensitive souls!
While people will happily use filters and plugins like Silverfx for B@W conversions or film stimulations where everything is hidden, they will suddenly get their knickers all in a twist throwing their hands up in the air while gnashing their teeth over ChatGTP handing out presets! Figure that?
I’m certainly going to give it a go as I didn’t realise ChatGTP could do that.
I don't consider myself all that "Pure"; under certain circumstances, I'd be willing to use ChatGPT and others like it. However, I'd be under no illusions that it was ME doing the work or actually creating something.
Most of the stuff that gets labelled "AI" isn't really AI, just a clever algorithm. It's as much a marketing buzz word as it is descriptive. But those things that use Large Language Models ARE a different in my eyes. It's like a variation of the old saying, "Guns don't Kill People, People kill People." Only in this case it would read, "AI can't create anything new, only people can create something new."
Intelligent use of a tool is smart, but i don't think that's how people will use this tool. In the future, we may wish that we had waited to implement AI when we were smarter and more emotionally mature.
I won't/can't stop anyone from using it, but I can warn people that it is a seductive 'tool' that can warp our perceptions.
I agree with you... I think. The question in my mind is whether Photoshop and ChatGPT are used for the same reasons. I think not, although admittedly I have no firsthand experience with ChatGPT. And Photoshop has certainly evolved toward more AI functions than what I use. I doubt anyone would call me a "purist" though in the sense Eric is criticizing. I see Photoshop as simply a digital version of a film darkroom, which is where the creativity of photography is made complete. I use it extensively. On the other hand, ChatGPT seems to be a "Photoshop for Dummies." Rather than shooting and editing images with intent, we're asking AI to act as the creator... do the complex thinking, make decisions, make it all so easy. At least that's my impression. And as I've said many times, there are no shortcuts in mastering our craft.
So let’s get this right you are commenting about a system you have not actually had any experience of using!
“although admittedly I have no firsthand experience with ChatGPT”
Hey man figure that one out! I think that renders any comments you make on the subject as null and void and pretty meaningless.
As I said there is no difference in the process or outcome of using ChatGTP in Lightroom or using any of the functionality in Photoshop. In essence you have various algorithms doing stuff for you. There is no difference.
Anyone who uses an off the shelf preset in Lightroom is doing exactly the same as using ChatGTP. People who think otherwise need to reconsider what exactly is twisting their nickers.
There's a reason school teachers are concerned about ChatGPT's impact on a child's logic and reasoning skills. How does it affect writing an essay when AI can do all the research and complete the entire text, with just a hint of input? It's not a tool like a dictionary or thesaurus. It's meant to reduce or eliminate the need for human decisions. And I can't see much good in that, mainly as it pertains to learning the skills of photography. I wouldn't put ChatGPT in the hands of a novice photographer, any more than I would put it in the hands of an elementary school age child for any reason.
I think you are dealing with two very different situations. Using ChatGTP to aid or speed up Lightroom edits is very different from a child in school off loading any thought on a subject to an AI. That I would agree is worrying. The Lightroom photographer that had already done the thinking and knows what they want and use the AI knowingly is vastly different from the school student using it with no thought whatsoever. That is certainly problematic. I used ChatGTP just the other day to help me write a poem. I used it to help find particular old Scots words that Burns might have used. I already knew the meaning of the word I was after but just needed some intelligent assistance to go find a suitable word. I found it a great help and very informative. The resulting poem was very much my work as I like the photographer using Lightroom used it knowingly to speed up the process. There is a big difference in using AI to off load certain tasks that it is using it to to do ALL the work.
I don’t think the reasons for using ChatGPT are generally so well segregated, nor do I think most people use ChatGPT in the limited manner you described with your poem. The appeal of AI is that it generates vastly more content than you put into it. If you’re writing a 1,000 word essay, you’re making 1,000 decisions. With a limited number of prompts, ChatGPT is undoubtedly replacing most of those decisions. It is doing virtually all of the work. Most people aren’t using ChatGPT to simply research a name, word, date or place. You can use Google for that. Most people appear to be using ChatGPT to create content on a level that they feel would have been too difficult or prohibitively time consuming without the assistance of a machine. People rely on AI to create something.
With regard to a photograph, I suspect most people would concede that snapping a picture does not require so many decisions. But therein lies the reason that so many photographers never improve. Many tasks can be streamlined with the aid of technology. I understand that. Learning to make decisions is not one of them. Art is something that results from making a lot of choices. Choices often rooted in emotional feelings. Machines don’t have feelings. Back to Justin’s first sentence about working smarter, not harder… I believe working harder is the best path to becoming smarter.
The thing is you are doing a lot of assuming you know stuff!
“nor do I think most people use ChatGPT in the limited manner you described with your poem.”
How do you know this? Where is your data? People often confuse what they think with actual facts.
I’m not sure how others use it though I know exactly how I use it and I’m using it on a daily basis for all sorts of things. It’s much better than the blind blunderbuss that is google for finding specific information or exploring a theme from my experience. Just this morning I had a conversation with ChatGTP on how the song Isis by Dylan from Desire was in the tradition of old ballads such as the Lady of Shallot. It’s amazing what it can throw up. ChatGTP is nothing like doing a google search, at least at the moment. I would try it before passing judgment. From where I stand it’s a great tool for expanding ideas and generating lines of possible future research.
You say:
"I’m not sure how others use it though I know exactly how I use it..."
"From where I stand..."
"It’s amazing what it can throw up."
That last line paints an image in my mind that you probably did not intend, but descriptive nevertheless.
You say:
"How do you know this? Where is your data? People often confuse what they think with actual facts."
You're not sure how others use it, but you can rely on your experience rather than presenting cold, hard data to support your opinion? No hypocrisy there?
You say:
"So let’s get this right you are commenting about a system you have not actually had any experience of using! Hey man figure that one out! I think that renders any comments you make on the subject as null and void and pretty meaningless."
That is correct, I have not used ChatGPT myself. In light of my actual first-hand experience, I know nothing about Abraham Lincoln. I know nothing about government in your country or mine because I don't work in that type of job; I only read the news. In fact, I really have no assurance that the earth is round. I've never personally travelled beyond North America. The earth could be flat.
My opinions regarding AI are the result of what I've heard from others who use the software, or have read. After all, AI bears no shortage of critical discussion. I read a lot. You can count on any Fstoppers article pertaining to AI to have exhaustive commenting. Its pros and cons have been debated extensively. I've gleaned enough information without having to personally experience using it. Everything I've read points to the conclusion that ChatGPT doesn't fit my style or brand of work. My photography is rooted entirely in personal decision making. Every last pixel. My decisions... not Nik Silver Efex, not ChatGPT, not AI Generative Fill... not anything which replaces my decision making process. That's all. The tools we use shape our identity, and I don't identify with AI. I use Photoshop to make edits, but with the purpose of rendering the image as I intend; not as something artificially generated by an AI application. If you choose a different workflow or method for making your photographs, that's fine. You don't even need to show me the data to support your opinion.
You also say:
"From where I stand it’s a great tool for expanding ideas and generating lines of possible future research."
BBC News: "Apple has suspended a new artificial intelligence (AI) feature that drew criticism and complaints for making repeated mistakes in its summaries of news headlines. The tech giant had been facing mounting pressure to withdraw the service, which sent notifications that appeared to come from within news organisations' apps."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5ggew08eyo
You are correct... don't confuse what you think (or read) with the facts.
OK, for craps and giggles I decided to have ChatGPT write a preset for me. I saved it as an xmp, but when I go to import it, Lightroom says there's no settings in the metadata. What gives?
This is not the right approach if you want to improve your edits and this shows how folks still don’t understand how ML models work. Why? It’s not going to take your photo and the parameters in relation to that photo into account. It’s going to pull some Lightroom settings from the web, maybe even from multiple sources and maybe it’ll average it out and guess. How is that better than the Auto button?
The best use of ChatGPT for editing photos is for FEEDBACK. ChatGPT doesn’t know the parameters in your specific software, nor does it learn those parameters by sourcing some editing tutorials online and then magically adapting them for your photos. However, it does understand composition, light balance, even creative expression to a degree. Ask ChatGPT for feedback, then use that feedback to improve your photo, then get feedback on that edit too. It works FAR better as an editing critique. It will not edit pictures tastefully for you. You can try general ChatGPT or Trey Ratcliff’s custom photo critique bot:
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-gWki9zYNV-trey-ratcliff-s-fun-photo-critique-gpt
A machine doing a photo critique... now that's an interesting idea. Would ChatGPT be capable of expressing a human response? Would it look at a landscape of the Grand Canyon and say: "Wow that picture is so incredibly awesome. It takes my breath away." Or... "that's such a relaxing scene." Analyzing exposure is one thing. Analyzing a human emotional response is another. And that's what photography is all about.
Once more before passing judgment on what it can or can’t do you need to try it. Once you have then pass comment.
As for landscape images of the Grand Canyon. Amazing landscape vistas such as the GC do not automatically make amazing landscape images. People who think just pointing a camera at a majestic view will produce a majestic landscape image need to go away and think a bit harder about what makes for a great landscape image.
This article is such a fascinating read! It’s funny how timing works—I did a quick experiment on my phone with ChatGPT the other day and was blown away by the detailed Lightroom adjustment suggestions it provided. It’s impressive how much this tool can streamline the creative process, especially for those starting out or exploring new editing styles.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how well these suggestions translate into actual edits. Using ChatGPT as a starting point and then tweaking the results to match your creative vision seems like a smart way to save time without sacrificing creativity. Thanks for sharing these insights—it’s definitely sparked new ideas for how I can use AI in my workflow!
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
Thanks! It is an approach. I still think we need to as creatives do our own thinking but it impressive how it can make our life easier.
Agreed!
ChatGPT fails at creating the xmp files, gets lots of stuff wrong such as the tone curve, or not turning off colour editing for mono profiles. It can be fixed by giving it a working xmp to work from but really it's probably quicker to just enter the values by hand.
Cool idea. Great article. Another tool in the tool chest. I have used ChatGPT to create scripts but it did not occur to me that it could, similarly, create settings files and such. WRT scripts it is not always perfect, but it can be a good starting point.