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.