Is AI the end of photography?

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Messages
7,021
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve played around with AI based image generators previously and you could tell there were little mistakes in the photos that made it obvious they weren’t actually photographs.

Today I had a quick play with Grok 2 on the twitter (X) app and have to say it’s surprised me how far they have moved forward, the quality and realism has taken a huge step forward.

I’ve added some screenshot examples below.

IMG_4222.jpeg

IMG_4216.jpeg

IMG_4224.jpeg

IMG_4225.jpeg

For me photograph is a hobby (it’s not something I make money from). In the future I can see publications going to AI image creating software to get the image they want as they can have a play to get their ideal photo rather than go to photographers or stock photographs. It’s scary how easy it is now.

Even for a hobby if it was just about getting the photo I could sit at the computer and get some great AI images without the early starts or venturing out into the cold. In the future will we see ‘AI photographers’?
 
Last edited:
i saw a little video on youtube about a website that so you dont have issues or make payments due to copyright you upload any picture from the internet and it will generate a copyright free picture that you can download, so just had a go with your squirrel pic generated by IE...it game me this , so i think were safe for now, but it cant be far off;)

hez1sre6nq2eogoquugq.jpg
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve played around with AI based image generators previously and you could tell there were little mistakes in the photos that made it obvious they weren’t actually photographs.

Today I had a quick play with Grok 2 on the twitter (X) app and have to say it’s surprised me how far they have moved forward, the quality and realism has taken a huge step forward.

I’ve added some screenshot examples below.

View attachment 442496

View attachment 442497

View attachment 442499

View attachment 442500

For me photograph is a hobby (it’s not something I make money from). In the future I can see publications going to AI image creating software to get the image they want as they can have a play to get their ideal photo rather than go to photographers or stock photographs. It’s scary how easy it is now.

Even for a hobby if it was just about getting the photo I could sit at the computer and get some great AI images without the early starts or venturing out into the cold. In the future will we see ‘AI photographers’?
Click to expand...

I agree that the direction of travel with AI is scary, but as a hobbyist much of the enjoyment for me is making the effort to get out and about and take photos using my equipment. My photos are not great, but they are mine and hopefully I’ll improve over time.
 
I totally disagree that publications will adopt AI images either. Otherwise why not just pick up a book on paintings or a storybook with fictional images of wildlife and landscapes etc.

People buy photography magazines because the images are real and authentic, and created by human beings.

The human element of photography can't be overstated.

If magazines forgot about cameras then they aren't photography magazines. It'd just be digital art and that would be as boring as watching paint dry. I want to see photographs of animals or landscapes which actually exist, not something that's been generated by a computer.

And whether it's a hobby or work, I cannot and never will understand the satisfaction in typing a fictional image up and sitting there looking at it with any sense of pride. Pride comes from knowing you made the image, not some algorithm of 1s and 0s.
 
smr said:
I totally disagree that publications will adopt AI images either. Otherwise why not just pick up a book on paintings or a storybook with fictional images of wildlife and landscapes etc.

People buy photography magazines because the images are real and authentic, and created by human beings.
Click to expand...
Of course photography magazines won't use AI images, but other mags and ad agencies will use AI generated images. They already use computer generated graphics, AI is the next cost/skill cutting step.
 
Brentor said:
I agree that the direction of travel with AI is scary, but as a hobbyist much of the enjoyment for me is making the effort to get out and about and take photos using my equipment. My photos are not great, but they are mine and hopefully I’ll improve over time.
Click to expand...
For hobbyists the enjoyment is taking the photo so it won’t necessarily take over take over in that regard.


smr said:
Try winning competitions to be recognised as an actual photographer and show them your raw file.

So no, AI will never replace photographers.
Click to expand...
smr said:
I totally disagree that publications will adopt AI images either. Otherwise why not just pick up a book on paintings or a storybook with fictional images of wildlife and landscapes etc.

People buy photography magazines because the images are real and authentic, and created by human beings.

The human element of photography can't be overstated.

If magazines forgot about cameras then they aren't photography magazines. It'd just be digital art and that would be as boring as watching paint dry. I want to see photographs of animals or landscapes which actually exist, not something that's been generated by a computer.

And whether it's a hobby or work, I cannot and never will understand the satisfaction in typing a fictional image up and sitting there looking at it with any sense of pride. Pride comes from knowing you made the image, not some algorithm of 1s and 0s.
Click to expand...
Looking from it from a photography point of view for photographers to produce photos for completions or enjoyment it won’t ever take over, but majority of photos likely aren’t used just for photography publications (my publications I mean in a wider form outside of photography publications),

There will be journalists wanting an image to go with a non photography article or news report, or for an advertisement, or those standard non descript landscape photos used for canvas prints in the likes of ikea/next etc. Previously they would have gone with stock photos but AI image creators adds a new source they could use instead. There will still be a market for buying a specific image by a well known photographer or of a well known location (view from the top of a well known Lake District location).

A photo of a life event can’t be replicated by AI technology so there’s still a need for pro photographers to capture that, but even that has been affected by camera phones ‘as everyone now has a camera’.

It’s another technological progression that will likely have a knock on effect just like driverless vehicles will have on taxi/lorry drivers.
 
Last edited:
smr said:
If magazines forgot about cameras then they aren't photography magazines. It'd just be digital art and that would be as boring as watching paint dry. I want to see photographs of animals or landscapes which actually exist, not something that's been generated by a computer.
Click to expand...

This seems like a bit of a grey area to me. Do people identify with the more arty photos? Possibly not.
 
AI is already killing stock photography. Why spend ages trawling the stock agencies to find the image you want, then actually pay for it, when you can get exactly what you want from an AI.

I remember when Fotolia first started up, and all the excitement that was generated as a result (where amateurs like me could submit and get paid for their pics). After not very long it became a total mess so they had to cull a load of substandard images, and then iStock bought it. Rates dropped and dropped and it hasn’t been anywhere near worth it for ages now.

Along comes AI, and bespoke royalty free images on demand. Game over.
 
You only have to browse Facebook to come across lots of fake Ai bird photos with silly old dears commenting fabulous photos. No matter how many sites you block new ones spring up . Remember anyone anywhere in the world can use Ai , don’t really need to see pictures of a robin in a nest with four chicks using a mushroom as a umbrella produced by a Tibetan monk or Chinese bored soldier .
 
Where the ends are more important than the mean, e.g. for illustrative and commercial purposes then AI will doubtless have a massive impact. For news / sport / documentary, not so much as that’s all about what actually happened rather than what an algorithm thinks happened by scraping millions of other photos online. And yes I am aware of the risks that misuse AI poses from an ethical perspective in this context.

For us humble amateurs where the means are as important, if not more so, than the ends then I imagine AI could be a useful adjunct to some of us, but in terms of image creation then it depends on how much satisfaction you get out of typing in words for an AI bot to generate an image for you. And whether that image is the endpoint or the starting point for you in the creation of something else.
 
I don't think it will end photography. At the moment it may seem that way but the rise of fake imagery is already the point where it is used to mislead/misinform. Not just with images but also audio and video. Abuse of the technology will be it's own downfall. Conversely monitoring/controlling what is released to the public is equally open to abuse. As photographers our raw files are one of very few truths left.
 
You asked...

Is AI the end of photography?​


My answer is... NO

Creatives will use it to create images (probably killing off many commercial types of work), while Photographers will take photos to create their real images of things AI can't do, and for fun

Did film die when digital came on the scene? Sadly no lol. I'm happy to argue that digital is better in every way, but the film lovers love film

Plenty of room for all
 
I would be interested to know how closely the images apparently created actually matched the source images that the software was trained on. It would not surprise me if you could actually identify parts on the generated pictures that came directly from the source material. And if that were the case, the whole area of copying, plagiarism and copyright should start to apply a strong magnifying glass to generated images, with royalties being paid to copyright owners.

I wonder if the software would tell you which pictures it used as source material.
 
foto-sf said:
I don't think it will end photography. At the moment it may seem that way but the rise of fake imagery is already the point where it is used to mislead/misinform. Not just with images but also audio and video. Abuse of the technology will be it's own downfall. Conversely monitoring/controlling what is released to the public is equally open to abuse. As photographers our raw files are one of very few truths left.
Click to expand...

That's very true. AI is a bit thick. Only this evening I've seen a couple of so called stories on FB which were completely unrelated to the comments.
 
rob-nikon said:
There will be journalists wanting an image to go with a non photography article or news report, or for an advertisement, or those standard non descript landscape photos used for canvas prints in the likes of ikea/next etc. Previously they would have gone with stock photos but AI image creators adds a new source they could use instead. There will still be a market for buying a specific image by a well known photographer or of a well known location (view from the top of a well known Lake District location).

A photo of a life event can’t be replicated by AI technology so there’s still a need for pro photographers to capture that, but even that has been affected by camera phones ‘as everyone now has a camera’.
Click to expand...
I've just typed in "Arsenal scoring the winning goal at the Amex Stadium, Brighton in January 2025" - and the AI generator failed completely....
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would be interested to know how closely the images apparently created actually matched the source images that the software was trained on. It would not surprise me if you could actually identify parts on the generated pictures that came directly from the source material. And if that were the case, the whole area of copying, plagiarism and copyright should start to apply a strong magnifying glass to generated images, with royalties being paid to copyright owners.

I wonder if the software would tell you which pictures it used as source material.
Click to expand...
I expect this aspect to develop and law suits, fueled by one AI tool auditing another's creations, for copyright infringement to follow. I expect this to be a temporary blip. the direction of travel is clear and is scary / good depending on your perspective.

Personally I'm not too concerned as I specialize in events and people and I expect the demand to remain for real images. Wildlife and landscape is my personal photo therapy which is as much about getting out there as the results.
 
PS As we're talking AI, I asked my custom GPT to chime in, and here is what it says FWIW:

Here is a contribution from Tim’s Visual Content Planner custom GPT, built using ChatGPT's custom GPT builder. Expanding on Tim’s earlier points, this response addresses the broader conversation about AI and its implications for photography.

AI's role in the visual arts, including photography, is undoubtedly transformative. However, rather than signaling the "end of photography," it represents a paradigm shift in how visual content is conceptualized and created. Here’s why:

Human Creativity and Context Matter: Authentic photography captures real-world moments, emotions, and contexts that AI cannot replicate. As Tim highlighted, fields like event photography, portraiture, and documentary work will continue to rely on human photographers, who bring not just technical skill but emotional intelligence and creativity to their craft.

AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement: Similar to how digital editing tools like Photoshop elevated photography without replacing photographers, AI enhances creative workflows. For instance, AI-driven post-processing or tools that aid in image sorting and curation are already streamlining the professional photographer’s workload.

Ethical and Legal Implications: The concerns raised about copyright and source material in AI generation are critical. As regulations and audit systems develop, transparency and compliance will shape the responsible use of AI in creative fields.

Market Differentiation: For mass-market use cases like stock imagery or generic advertising, AI may dominate due to its cost efficiency. However, bespoke work—such as capturing a personal moment or creating a distinct style—ensures a persistent demand for skilled photographers.

Intrinsic Value of Real Experiences: As Tim noted, both hobbyists and professionals value the journey of creating images—the trips to scenic locations, the patience of wildlife photography, and the technical mastery developed over time. These experiences cannot be replicated by typing prompts into an AI model.

Ultimately, photography and AI-generated imagery will coexist, catering to different needs. Embracing AI as a complement, rather than a competitor, is key to thriving in this evolving landscape. Photographers who focus on their unique value proposition—authenticity, creativity, and connection—will always find their place.
 
TimHughes said:
PS As we're talking AI, I asked my custom GPT to chime in, and here is what it says FWIW:

Here is a contribution from Tim’s Visual Content Planner custom GPT, built using ChatGPT's custom GPT builder. Expanding on Tim’s earlier points, this response addresses the broader conversation about AI and its implications for photography.

AI's role in the visual arts, including photography, is undoubtedly transformative. However, rather than signaling the "end of photography," it represents a paradigm shift in how visual content is conceptualized and created. Here’s why:

Human Creativity and Context Matter: Authentic photography captures real-world moments, emotions, and contexts that AI cannot replicate. As Tim highlighted, fields like event photography, portraiture, and documentary work will continue to rely on human photographers, who bring not just technical skill but emotional intelligence and creativity to their craft.

AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement: Similar to how digital editing tools like Photoshop elevated photography without replacing photographers, AI enhances creative workflows. For instance, AI-driven post-processing or tools that aid in image sorting and curation are already streamlining the professional photographer’s workload.

Ethical and Legal Implications: The concerns raised about copyright and source material in AI generation are critical. As regulations and audit systems develop, transparency and compliance will shape the responsible use of AI in creative fields.

Market Differentiation: For mass-market use cases like stock imagery or generic advertising, AI may dominate due to its cost efficiency. However, bespoke work—such as capturing a personal moment or creating a distinct style—ensures a persistent demand for skilled photographers.

Intrinsic Value of Real Experiences: As Tim noted, both hobbyists and professionals value the journey of creating images—the trips to scenic locations, the patience of wildlife photography, and the technical mastery developed over time. These experiences cannot be replicated by typing prompts into an AI model.

Ultimately, photography and AI-generated imagery will coexist, catering to different needs. Embracing AI as a complement, rather than a competitor, is key to thriving in this evolving landscape. Photographers who focus on their unique value proposition—authenticity, creativity, and connection—will always find their place.
Click to expand...
Blimey! That's some smart robot!

Am I worried? - no. And am I worried? - yes. Something to be vigilant about, though, from all perspectives.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Of course photography magazines won't use AI images, but other mags and ad agencies will use AI generated images. They already use computer generated graphics, AI is the next cost/skill cutting step.
Click to expand...

And thats fine. Absolutely. I am a photographer and only interested in photography magazines so any of those other magazines and ad agency stuff doesnt and never will interest me. This photography we are talking about, after all.
 
I think the end of photography happened years ago with the advent of photoshop and lightroom Etc
Just my opinion
 
Tobers said:
AI is already killing stock photography. Why spend ages trawling the stock agencies to find the image you want, then actually pay for it, when you can get exactly what you want from an AI.

I remember when Fotolia first started up, and all the excitement that was generated as a result (where amateurs like me could submit and get paid for their pics). After not very long it became a total mess so they had to cull a load of substandard images, and then iStock bought it. Rates dropped and dropped and it hasn’t been anywhere near worth it for ages now.

Along comes AI, and bespoke royalty free images on demand. Game over.
Click to expand...
I get very poor output from Adobe, grok is probably a step up but still a bit crazy. 6 fingers, 6 legs, etc. hopefully that's on purpose considering Adobe is getting worse if anything. But they can do easily just wipe the floor now if they really wanted, and perhaps this is reserved for corporate subs. So yes I agree stock is done and nailed and buried.
 
TimHughes said:
Personally I'm not too concerned as I specialize in events and people and I expect the demand to remain for real images.
Click to expand...
This is safe for now but say in 5-10 years what is stopping ai robots for example in a form of mini drones or even swarms doing this exact job, starting with televised sports and working their way down the food chain. Canon is playing with CCTV like ai directed bubble camera for a while now and could easily try to evolve it this direction, and likewise all the big software players
 
Tobers said:
AI is already killing stock photography.
Click to expand...
I think stock photography has managed to kill stock photography. Niche libraries that were useful being gobbled up into a couple of mega libraries cornering the market.
 
smr said:
And thats fine. Absolutely. I am a photographer and only interested in photography magazines so any of those other magazines and ad agency stuff doesnt and never will interest me. This photography we are talking about, after all.
Click to expand...
The OP didn't mention photography magazines. Photography exists beyond photography magazines, forums, camera clubs, and YouTube channels. ;)
 
Pound Coin said:
I think stock photography has managed to kill stock photography. Niche libraries that were useful being gobbled up into a couple of mega libraries cornering the market.
Click to expand...

I recently discovered that Alamy are based just outside Didcot in Oxfordshire, and then found their trust pilot ratings. Granted it was for sales to the public, but they don't look like they should be around in 5 years if they treat everyone that badly.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I'm sure it will in some cases, just like digital photography has replaced film photography.
Click to expand...
Not entirely! If you think that, you have been leading a sheltered life. Yes it has reduced to a small percentage of what it was 20 years ago, but everything we can need is still available. Film of all types and sizes, chemicals, printing paper. Not necessarily from the same manufacturers (some have gone under) but mostlyvit is there for whoever wants to buy it.

For commercial purposes, I understand it, time is money, but AI used for private purposes is still in my eyes defeating the object and dare I say - cheating. It all depends on your ethos.
 
smr said:
And thats fine. Absolutely. I am a photographer and only interested in photography magazines so any of those other magazines and ad agency stuff doesnt and never will interest me. This photography we are talking about, after all.
Click to expand...
I'd say the sort of pictures you see in photography magazines are the ones most replicable through Ai - I'm talking about pretty landscapes, wildlife, still life , over-edited portraits - I can absolutely understand why the camera club scene are worried with their competitions.

What Ai still struggles with is narrative - so, going back to the magazines examples and a non-photography magazines. if a cycling magazine needed 5-6 photographs to accompany a story about the day in the life of a tour de France winner then I think Ai would struggle - trouble is magazines are dying anyway!
 
No is my answer, as they'll always be people like myself that simply aren't interested in Ai generated content.
Unfortunately it'll continue to try and be passed off as real photography though, which is becoming more difficult to distinguish between the two.
I hate having to mentally question many of the images i see now, if they're Ai or not and genuinely feel deceived if I get tricked into believing one is a real photograph.
Every Ai image needs to be watermarked/labelled/metadata/categorised as such.

I recently seen Coca Cola created a AI video "Holidays are coming" ad and it's terrible. This is unfortunately where the industry is headed, the cheap and do rightly attitude.
 
The power of a photograph is it's visual representation of an authentic interaction between subject and photographer.

This can result in descriptive, documentary or expressive photographs. And, although photographs never tell the whole "truth" they still represent a "real" moment of interaction between subject and photographer. With both the subject and photographer directly influencing the final picture. Even abstract or "creative" photographs still have a direct link back to the subject.

I believe the majority of "photographers" are driven to make photographs because of the interactions and experiences they share with their subject: Generating AI created digital images is something unrelated to making photographs, even if a photographer might find some uses for AI generated images,

The importance of the subject in photography makes photography different to other media, as it "requires" the subject to be present at the time of creation, and seems key to why photographs are valuable.

You cannot create photographs from memory, nor can you seamlessly blend moments of time, into a single picture. For example a painter painting a real robin on a real branch isn't restricted to capturing the robin's behaviour at the moment of releasing a camera shutter, but can choose from a range of observed and memorised robin behaviours to include in the painting. They can also sit down in the studio and create an entire painting from memory and imagination.

In spite of photo manipulation, and misrepresentation through the selective taking and publishing of photographs (e.g the well known examples of Gordon Parks and W Eugene Smith falling out with Life Magazine for misrepresenting their work) this core subject/photographer relationship means that photographs are still viewed as a more reliable representation of reality than words or illustrations. Though not foolproof, people are more likely to believe something supported by photographic evidence than believe a written text, an artist's illustration, or an AI generated photo-realistic image .

This is what makes photographs special for both the maker and viewer and why AI generated photo-realistic images aren't photographs.

Historically, in spite of issues, the authenticity of events and things shown in photographs has gained general public acceptance, and the integrity of photographs has been upheld and promoted by individuals and organisations such as advertising standards and news organisations. And in recent years we have seen increasing concerns over the photo-manipulation of fashion models and celebrities.

Recently, I've listened to a few podcasts/videos with advertising "creatives" and it seems there is already a consumer backlash on AI generated photo-realistic images, with the public not seeing them as "trustworthy" photographs of products, but as "fake" product illustrations. At the high end of advertising it seems that AI is now only being used to create detailed mock ups, which are then used to guide the photo shoot, or artist created illustration.

I've suggested this before, but I do wonder if AI might be good for photography, as organisations and publications might be keen to avoid using AI images, and use more "trustworthy" real photographs by real photographers,

Photographers might even get more prominent byline, even becoming mini-celebrities. e.g. A hotel holiday brochure, rather than being illustrated by anonymous photographs of unknown provenance (or AI generated images). might make a feature of saying that all the photographs were taken by a specific photographer, with a known reputation, So the viewer would know that the seal photograph was really taken on the beach in front of the hotel and the squirrel really was in the woods behind the hotel.

As we move more and more into an era of fake everything, with increasing concerns over its implications, the relationship between photographs (and photographers) and AI generated photo-realistic images might not be as negative as it first seems and the provenance of photographs and photographers might take on a renewed importance

In terms of photography, the application of AI generated photo-realistic images, ignoring criminal applications seems rather limited.

It's not a replacement for the photographic experience of being a photographer, It's not a replacement for family or holiday snaps, it's not a replacement for wedding, portrait, documentary, sports or scientific photography. It lacks the authenticity for credible marketing and advertising images, even if this isn't required for all such imagery.

Of course, it's much more nuanced than this, and some details have been oversimplified, but this is already too long.
 
myotis said:
The power of a photograph is it's visual representation of an authentic interaction between subject and photographer.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that is true for some but not for others.

There are photographers who don't wish to "interact" with their subjects. Those capturing images of wildlife, for instance, who go to great lengths to remain concealed from their subject. There are many technical photographers, who find the most objective viewpoints to describe the subject. Some of us seek to capture people objectively, as they go about their business.

Photography has long been used as an objectifying tool for recording all sorts of subjects.
 
I think there’s several distinct aspects of ai that will definitely dent and change the photography world, but won’t kill it.

Ai - will change event togging, ie a football game, a few ultra hd 360 cams around the stadium, and ability to say, create me a news story with a few key photos from the match, targeted to a specific audience, and pop, there’s your article.

Ai gen - will and is changing stock photos.

Boredom on social media of ‘what’s real and what isn’t - will dent how much external appreciation you get for photos

On a bigger and much more morbid subject - the dent on the economy, when ai rips out entire sectors of workers, could drastically effect finance available for hobby toggers spending £1000’s on gear.

On a positive note - these changes will make people more appreciative of the hobby and producing art, showing off skill, creativeness and individuality pushing ourselves to get more out of the hobby for our own benefit, ie learning, personal goals etc etc
 
F1.2 said:
I think the end of photography happened years ago with the advent of photoshop and lightroom Etc
Just my opinion
Click to expand...
No, it ended when photographers were able to buy their glass plates instead of having to cut them out of a sheet of glass, mix the chemicals and coat the plates just before taking the photo - it completely de-skilled photography :)

As others have said, AI is just another developmental step, and whether we embrace it or oppose it, it's what it is.

Incidentally, I tried using the same prompts as the OP to get AI-generated photos, using chat GPT yesterday, and the results were far from realistic - maybe I used the wrong source.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In my opinion, that is true for some but not for others.

There are photographers who don't wish to "interact" with their subjects. Those capturing images of wildlife, for instance, who go to great lengths to remain concealed from their subject. There are many technical photographers, who find the most objective viewpoints to describe the subject. Some of us seek to capture people objectively, as they go about their business.

Photography has long been used as an objectifying tool for recording all sorts of subjects.
Click to expand...
Interaction doesn't need to be two way, Not in my usage of the term, and the dictionary includes "reacting to something" as one of the definitions.

So, I wasn't excluding wildlife (especially not wildlife as that is one my main photography interests) nor objective record photographs, as this was what I did for most of my time in professional photography.

I see staying hidden from wildlife and adopting an objective approach to the subject are just different examples of the many ways a photographer might interact with their subject.

The point I was trying to make, was that one of the defining features of a photograph is that the subject needs to be present at the time of image capture, and the interaction between subject and photographer is an important part of why photographers want to make photographs
 
Garry Edwards said:
No, it ended when photographers were able to buy their glass plates instead of having to cut them out of a sheet of glass, mix the chemicals and coat the plates just before taking the photo - it completely de-skilled photography :)
Click to expand...
Glass? GLASS??

Proper photographers use Tin, none of that cheap glass rubbish for real men. :naughty: :coat:
 
Being serious ,I have used it to stretch a canvas a couple of times ,not altering the subject but simply replacing what I had seen anyway ,it’s brill at that but actually generating the subject is a total grey area
 
AI is always going to be behind the curve on whatever is fashionable because it relies on imagery that already exists. It is also currently based on words, which will work for only some people.

I can see AI doing digital manipulation of pictures easily. There is already a huge market for filters that make people look like someone who is better looking. If you start with a decent portrait, it has to look equally good/better but more like the original person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top