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.