Episode 54 - Is A.I. Really Photography Part 2
Speaker: Welcome to the Photography Breakthrough Podcast.
Speaker: I'm your host, Matthew Jordan Smith, and this week we're diving deeper into the AI conversation.
Speaker: Last week, we went into Part One.
Speaker: This is Part Two, going deeper into the AI conversation as it deals with photography.
Speaker: This is a big one, and it deserves more than just one episode.
Speaker: We'll start today with this question: Is AI, as it relates to photography, simply just another tool?
Speaker: Supporters of AI imagery often say that every major technological change in photography has been met with resistance.
Speaker: And I'll agree with that.
Speaker: That's very true.
Speaker: I remember that switch from film to digital.
Speaker: I remember the beginning of Photoshop and all the conversations around both.
Speaker: Let's go back to when photography first appeared on the scene.
Speaker: At that time, some painters believed it was mechanical and lacked artistic value.
Speaker: When small cameras became common, some photographers believed they would lower standards.
Speaker: When autofocus arrived, some professional photographers considered it a shortcut.
Speaker: And when digital cameras began replacing film, many photographers, and I was one of them, argued that digital capture was not real photography.
Speaker: That doesn't seem that long ago.
Speaker: Not really.
Speaker: Let's not forget about Photoshop.
Speaker: When Photoshop became widespread, people said photography was losing its connection to truth.
Speaker: Maybe that was the beginning of the slide toward looking for perfection.
Speaker: But let me not get off track because that's a totally different conversation.
Speaker: But I want to go back to those last few words: losing its connection to truth.
Speaker: That's what people were saying about Photoshop.
Speaker: And now AI is producing the same kind of reaction.
Speaker: From this perspective, artificial intelligence is simply another stage in the evolution of image-making.
Speaker: The camera does not create the image.
Speaker: The photographer, or the person directing the process, still makes creative decisions.
Speaker: They determine the concept, they describe the subject, they refine the language, they choose the framing, and they adjust the atmosphere.
Speaker: And they reject weak results.
Speaker: They have the ability to continue or not continue until the image communicates what they want it to communicate.
Speaker: In that sense, prompting on a computer or device can be viewed as a form of direction.
Speaker: The system becomes a production tool.
Speaker: And this does raise a fair question.
Speaker: If photographers have always used technology to execute ideas, why should AI be treated differently?
Speaker: After all, many commercial photographers have already highly constructed their images.
Speaker: A beautiful campaign might involve intensive pre-production, digital retouching, compositing, skin work, color grading, background replacement, and multiple layers of post-production.
Speaker: A car advertisement may contain an automobile photographed in one location, a background photographed somewhere else, a sky created separately, reflections added in post-production, and lighting effects that were never physically present.
Speaker: Is that still photography?
Speaker: Most people would say yes, although it may be heavily constructed photography.
Speaker: So maybe this is the real question: Where is the line?
Speaker: Is it based on how much of the image was photographed?
Speaker: Does an image need to be ninety percent camera-made?
Speaker: Fifty percent?
Speaker: Ten percent?
Speaker: And what happens if the photographer captures the subject but generates the background?
Speaker: What happens if the background is real, but the clothing is changed with AI?
Speaker: What happens if the face is photographed but the body is generated?
Speaker: And what happens if ten photographs are combined together and AI fills the spaces in between them?
Speaker: At what point does the work stop being photography and become something entirely different?
Speaker: I get it.
Speaker: None of these are easy questions.
Speaker: And anyone pretending there is one perfectly clear boundary is ignoring how complicated modern image-making has become.
Speaker: The lines are getting blurry.
Speaker: Is there a difference between AI-generated imagery and AI-assisted imagery?
Speaker: One way to make this conversation more useful is to stop treating all uses of AI as identical because they're not.
Speaker: There is a significant difference between AI-generated imagery and AI-assisted photography.
Speaker: AI-generated imagery may begin without any original photograph at all.
Speaker: A person enters a description, and the system produces an image based on patterns it has learned.
Speaker: AI-assisted photography begins with a photograph or with a photographic process and uses AI somewhere in the workflow.
Speaker: For example, a photographer may use AI to remove dust from a scan, reduce digital noise, improve focus, extend the edge of the background, or help organize thousands of photographs.
Speaker: Maybe even search an archive, create captions or keywords, select images with eyes closed or technical problems, translate creative directions for an international team, or visualize an idea before a photo shoot.
Speaker: Or create a mood board or lighting reference.
Speaker: Those uses of AI have advanced the creative process for photographers but do not automatically turn the resulting work into AI-generated imagery.
Speaker: Because photographers have always used tools to improve efficiency.
Speaker: And that's different.
Speaker: The important questions are: What did the photographer actually capture?
Speaker: And what did software change?
Speaker: What if we stopped using software altogether?
Speaker: Would that be pure photography?
Speaker: I'm just asking.
Speaker: Is any change or alteration in the image changing the image or the meaning of the image?
Speaker: And is the audience being given an honest understanding of how the work has been made?
Speaker: And do they care?
Speaker: I believe disclosure becomes especially important when AI creates significant visual elements.
Speaker: If a sky was completely generated, say so.
Speaker: If a person was created who never existed, say so.
Speaker: If the location is fictional, say so.
Speaker: If the clothing was replaced, say so.
Speaker: You get the idea.
Speaker: If something is in the image that does not exist, say so.
Speaker: If the image is a composite of photography and artificial intelligence, describe it accurately.
Speaker: This does not diminish your work.
Speaker: In fact, transparency may strengthen the work because the audience is able to evaluate it on honest terms.
Speaker: The problem begins when synthetic imagery is presented as evidence of a real event.
Speaker: Or when an AI-generated person is presented as an actual portrait subject.
Speaker: The last few years, we've been witnessing AI-generated images winning photography competitions without disclosing how they were made.
Speaker: That's a problem.
Speaker: I believe it's also a problem when a photographer sells an experience based on a result that did not come from the skill or process being advertised.
Speaker: That is where the issue becomes more than a creative debate.
Speaker: It becomes a matter of trust.
Speaker: But here's the great unknown.
Speaker: Does the creative process matter?
Speaker: Let's go deep into this conversation.
Speaker: Why are some photographers so protective of the word photography?
Speaker: Is it simply insecurity?
Speaker: Is it fear that AI will take jobs?
Speaker: Perhaps that is part of it.
Speaker: But there's also something more important.
Speaker: The process of photography carries meaning.
Speaker: Imagine two images that look almost identical.
Speaker: The first is a portrait of a woman made after the photographer spent hours speaking with her, understanding her story, creating a safe environment, shaping the lighting, directing her expression, and waiting for the perfect instant when she revealed something honest.
Speaker: The second image was generated with a written description.
Speaker: Visually, the two images may look equally beautiful.
Speaker: But are they the same kind of achievement?
Speaker: I, for one, don't believe they are.
Speaker: One comes from a human encounter.
Speaker: The other comes from a constructed simulation.
Speaker: There's a big difference.
Speaker: Now, again, that does not mean the generated image has no value.
Speaker: But the value comes from a different source.
Speaker: In photography, the relationship to reality is part of the meaning.
Speaker: When we look at a portrait of my friend Aretha Franklin or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, part of the power comes from knowing that the photographer was there with that person.
Speaker: There were things happening outside the frame.
Speaker: The photograph is not simply an arrangement of features.
Speaker: It's an encounter.
Speaker: It carries time and presence.
Speaker: It says this person stood here.
Speaker: This light touched them.
Speaker: Their expression occurred.
Speaker: And the photographer captured the instant.
Speaker: AI can create the appearance of presence.
Speaker: But appearance and presence are not the same thing.
Speaker: This difference becomes even more important in documentary work.
Speaker: If an image claims to show a war, a protest, a natural disaster, or a historic event, the viewer needs to know whether the image records something that happened in real life.
Speaker: Without that trust, photography loses its role as evidence.
Speaker: We already live in a time where people question whether images are real and whether video is real.
Speaker: As synthetic imagery becomes more convincing, photographers who document reality may need to become even more explicit about their process.
Speaker: The camera-made photograph may actually become more valuable, not because it looks different, but because its origin can be verified.
Speaker: So, what about the world of commercial photography?
Speaker: Because this may be one of the most affected areas by AI.
Speaker: Why?
Speaker: Because brands often want speed.
Speaker: They want variety.
Speaker: They want lower production costs.
Speaker: And this is scary because AI helps in all those situations.
Speaker: You see, brands want the ability to change colors, locations, models, products, and campaigns without organizing an entirely new shoot.
Speaker: It saves them a massive amount of money.
Speaker: And yes, AI can offer a lot of that.
Speaker: A company may be able to create multiple campaigns before even hiring a photographer, if at all.
Speaker: It may be able to replace a traditional background without building a set.
Speaker: It may create product variations for different markets.
Speaker: A brand may be able to generate images from internal presentations, social media tests, or preliminary advertising.
Speaker: That reality is already changing how photographers need to position themselves.
Speaker: Will advertising or commercial photography exist in five years?
Speaker: We don't know.
Speaker: How would the public react to seeing images of products where there isn't one real element in the work?
Speaker: Competing with AI only on the ability to make a polished-looking image may become increasingly difficult.
Speaker: So, what becomes more valuable?
Speaker: Your perspective.
Speaker: Your reputation.
Speaker: Your ability to work with real people.
Speaker: Your ability to direct.
Speaker: Your understanding of human emotions.
Speaker: Or the ability to lead a team, to create trust, and to solve problems on set.
Speaker: Maybe now you're understanding that photographers need to stop selling only photographs.
Speaker: We need to sell the intelligence, the experience, the relationships, the authorship, and the human encounters behind the photographs.
Speaker: AI can produce endless visual options.
Speaker: But endless options do not automatically create significance.
Speaker: A client does not always need more images.
Speaker: Sometimes the client needs the right image that makes a real connection.
Speaker: This is where photographers must become stronger.
Speaker: So, what's the future?
Speaker: No one knows.
Speaker: Right now is August 2026.
Speaker: Where will we be in August 2027?
Speaker: Only time will tell.
Speaker: Until next week.
Speaker: Bye for now.
