Episode 53 - Is A.I. Really Photography
Speaker: Today's topic is one that I never thought we'd be talking about.
Speaker: If you're listening to this podcast, I'm assuming you're a photographer or like photography in some way, shape, or form.
Speaker: So, think about some of your favorite photographs.
Speaker: What if those images were never created with a camera?
Speaker: Today, we're diving into AI-generated imagery.
Speaker: Are they really photography?
Speaker: Now, this may be the biggest debate happening right now in photography.
Speaker: Can an image created entirely through artificial intelligence be called a photograph?
Speaker: Traditionally, photography has required light, a physical subject, a lens, and some form of light-sensitive surface or digital sensor.
Speaker: A photographer sees something in the world, makes decisions, and records that moment.
Speaker: But with AI, artificial intelligence, a person can now type a description into a computer or device and create an image that looks exactly like a photograph.
Speaker: There is no camera.
Speaker: There is no subject.
Speaker: There may be no actual moment, no physical location.
Speaker: So, let me ask you: is that photography?
Speaker: Some people believe the answer is absolutely not.
Speaker: They believe AI imagery belongs in a different category, perhaps illustration, digital art, synthetic imagery, or generative art.
Speaker: Others argue that photography has always evolved through technology.
Speaker: They point to darkroom manipulation, digital compositing, Photoshop, filters, and computer-generated effects.
Speaker: Their argument is that AI is simply the next tool.
Speaker: But here is the deeper question.
Speaker: Is photography defined by the appearance of the final image or by the process used to create it?
Speaker: I, for one, believe we need a clearer language.
Speaker: If an image was not made with a camera, perhaps we should not automatically call it photography simply because it looks photographic.
Speaker: The method matters.
Speaker: The truth of how an image was created matters.
Speaker: As photographers, we should not be afraid of new tools, but we should be honest about what those tools produce.
Speaker: So, what do you think?
Speaker: I'm curious.
Speaker: If the moment never happened, if the person or the idea of a person does not exist, and if everything is just ones and zeros, is it really a photograph?
Speaker: I'm sure we'll be having this conversation for a long time.
Speaker: Maybe we're all asking ourselves that question right now and wondering about the future.
Speaker: Can you really create a photograph without a camera?
Speaker: Or should that be called something else?
Speaker: Think about that for a moment.
Speaker: Can you make a photograph without light passing through a lens?
Speaker: Without being present at a particular place, at a particular moment, making decisions in real time?
Speaker: Forget what it looks like.
Speaker: Did it really happen?
Speaker: And if not, can an image still be called a photograph if the person in it never existed, the location was never built, the lighting was never placed, and the moment never actually happened?
Speaker: We know there are photographers on both sides of the fence, but there are also photographers somewhere in the middle.
Speaker: They may use AI to remove distractions, extend backgrounds, develop concepts, organize archives, create storyboards, or experiment with ideas.
Speaker: But they are not comfortable placing a completed generated image in the same category as a photograph made through an actual encounter with the world.
Speaker: So, let's slow this conversation down for a second.
Speaker: I do not want to approach it with panic.
Speaker: But I also don't want to approach it with blind excitement either.
Speaker: I want us to look at the issue honestly because AI is not going away.
Speaker: The question is not whether AI will affect photography.
Speaker: It already has, in case you didn't notice.
Speaker: The real question is how we, as photographers, will define our work, protect its value, and communicate truthfully about what we create.
Speaker: This is the Photography Breakthrough Podcast.
Speaker: I'm Matthew Jordan Smith, and for the majority of my life, I've called myself a photographer.
Speaker: But that's the past.
Speaker: Do you need to always call yourself a photographer as the world changes and as the world's definition of photography changes?
Speaker: So, let's dive deeper into this.
Speaker: What makes a photograph a photograph?
Speaker: Before we can decide whether AI-generated imagery is photography, we have to ask a more basic question, and that one is: what is photography?
Speaker: For most of its history, photography has involved recording light.
Speaker: Light reflects off a person, a landscape, an object, or a scene.
Speaker: That light passes through a lens and reaches a light-sensitive surface.
Speaker: First, plates, then film, and now, in most cases, a digital sensor.
Speaker: Photography is capturing a single moment and freezing it, hopefully forever.
Speaker: Now, yes, the equipment has changed dramatically.
Speaker: The process has become faster and easier.
Speaker: Cameras have become more sophisticated.
Speaker: But the central relationship has remained remarkably consistent.
Speaker: There is something in the world.
Speaker: There is light.
Speaker: There is a photographer.
Speaker: There is an act of observation.
Speaker: And there is a recorded encounter between the photographer and what existed in front of the camera.
Speaker: That does not mean photography is purely objective.
Speaker: It has never been purely objective.
Speaker: The photographer chooses where to stand.
Speaker: We choose the lens.
Speaker: We choose the moment.
Speaker: We choose what to include and what to leave outside the frame.
Speaker: We choose the light, sometimes the exposure, depth of field, background, expression, gestures, color, and timing.
Speaker: Photography may record something that existed, but every photograph is also shaped by the photographer's decisions.
Speaker: You see, this is important because one of the most common arguments in favor of calling AI imagery photography is this: people say photography has always been manipulated.
Speaker: Is that true?
Speaker: They say photographers have always altered reality.
Speaker: And maybe, in some ways, that is true.
Speaker: But manipulation and generation are not necessarily the same thing.
Speaker: If I photograph a person and then remove a small distraction from the background, I have manipulated the photograph.
Speaker: If I change the color balance, contrast, or crop, I have altered the photograph.
Speaker: If I combine several photographs to create a composite, I've constructed a new visual reality from photographic components.
Speaker: But if I type a sentence into a generative system and it creates a person who never lived inside a room that never existed, illuminated by light that was never physically present, what exactly have I photographed?
Speaker: This is the central issue.
Speaker: Yes, the final image may look photographic.
Speaker: But does looking like a photograph make something photography?
Speaker: A realistic oil painting may look photographic.
Speaker: A highly detailed digital illustration may look photographic.
Speaker: A computer-generated scene in a film may look completely real.
Speaker: But we do not automatically call all of those things photographs.
Speaker: So, perhaps we need to separate two ideas: photographic appearance and photographic origins.
Speaker: An image can have a photographic appearance without having a photographic origin.
Speaker: I think that distinction has become increasingly important.
Speaker: But what about the argument that AI is not photography?
Speaker: Let's look honestly at the strongest argument against calling AI-generated imagery photography.
Speaker: And it's not simply, "I don't like AI."
Speaker: It is not necessarily fear of new technology.
Speaker: The argument is that photography requires some form of physical encounter with light, time, and the world.
Speaker: A photograph is evidence that something stood before a camera.
Speaker: It does not mean everything about the photograph is truthful.
Speaker: The scene may have been staged.
Speaker: The model may have been directed.
Speaker: The light may have been totally controlled.
Speaker: And the final image may have been heavily retouched.
Speaker: But at some point, something physical was present.
Speaker: A person was there, a landscape was there, an object was there, and light touched it.
Speaker: And, yeah, the photographer encountered it.
Speaker: That camera recorded the instant.
Speaker: That physical relationship is central to photography.
Speaker: When I photograph someone, when you photograph someone, you're not simply creating an arrangement of pixels.
Speaker: We are responding to another human being.
Speaker: Watching how they breathe.
Speaker: Seeing when they become nervous.
Speaker: Noticing when they relax.
Speaker: Hearing the tone of their voice or watching the movement in their eyes.
Speaker: As photographers, we are deciding whether to speak, whether to remain silent, whether to move closer or step back, and when to press the shutter to freeze the moment.
Speaker: The photograph comes out of a lived exchange.
Speaker: And that exchange cannot be reduced to the appearance of the final image.
Speaker: It is part of the work.
Speaker: The same is true in street photography.
Speaker: The photographer is present in an unpredictable environment.
Speaker: The photographer must anticipate a moment before it disappears.
Speaker: In wildlife photography, the photographer may wait for hours, days, or weeks to get that beautiful moment.
Speaker: In journalism, in war photography, the photographer may place their own life at risk to bear witness to what's happening.
Speaker: In sports photography, the photographer must understand movement, timing, position, and anticipation.
Speaker: With portrait photography, the photographer is often responsible for creating trust before creating the image.
Speaker: AI generation can imitate the visual results of those experiences, but AI did not live them.
Speaker: It did not wait.
Speaker: It did not witness.
Speaker: It did not build trust with the subject.
Speaker: It did not stand in the rain.
Speaker: It didn't enter the room or the space or the scene.
Speaker: It didn't feel the tension.
Speaker: It did not experience the moment.
Speaker: From this perspective, AI-generated imagery is not photography.
Speaker: It is a different form of visual creation.
Speaker: I'm not saying that makes it automatically worthless.
Speaker: It does not mean it cannot be artistic.
Speaker: It does not mean the person directing the system has no creativity.
Speaker: It simply means we may need a different category for it.
Speaker: Generative imagery, synthetic imagery, AI-assisted illustration.
Speaker: Pick one.
Speaker: There are many possible terms.
Speaker: And using accurate language is not an insult.
Speaker: It's clarity.
Speaker: And at this point in the game, we need clarity.
Speaker: Think about that.
Speaker: Clarity would open up everything.
Speaker: Let's take a filmmaker, for example.
Speaker: A filmmaker is not insulted because we do not call a film a painting.
Speaker: A painter is not diminished because we do not call a painting a photograph.
Speaker: Different mediums have different foundations.
Speaker: The issue is not whether one medium is superior.
Speaker: The issue is whether words still have meaning.
Speaker: I'd love to know your thoughts.
Speaker: Follow me on Instagram and let me know what you think.
Speaker: I'm Matthew Jordan Smith.
Speaker: And yes, things are changing in more ways than we know.
Speaker: That's all for today.
Speaker: I look forward to seeing you again next week.
Speaker: Bye for now.
