Always a good discussion, each month more relevant than the previous. I use AI frequently at work, IT related, and it saves me days of work.
On a personal level I use it to fix grammar and orthography in texts I may write.
On a photographic perspective, we actually use it in the predictive algorithms of our cameras, not including your Leica =D. I also use it to identify birds, plants, trees. For keywording and captions, I tried a couple but they were too slow and heavy for the benefit I was getting. For culling, I won't ever allow AI to do that for me. For processing, I can try and go back to basics if I don't like the result. But there's no AI that will replace my personal experience out there with camera in hand. That's the most valuable thing to me, memories - "I was there and I took this photo".
I try to use and not abuse it since the energy costs are still very high.
And yes, I'm excited and curious about the future. I'm also avoiding to go through the downsides here.
Thanks, Ruben. I've learned a lot about the various ways people are using AI. It's been quite reassuring to learn that people mostly see it as a tool to help with time-consuming tasks rather than as a replacement for the sort of creativity born of human experience.
I wonder where we will be in five years. Wherever we go, I guess things are going to change rapidly. It'll be interesting to look back at conversations like this, no doubt. I'll ask AI to schedule a reminder 😉
AI is a new tool, both good and bad. Human society survived major advanced in technology in the past, in spite of domsday profecies. As an acrylic artist the use of AI is a hot topic, much of it negative. For me, it's just another tool. Photography was supposedly going to end art! To the contrary, it advanced it and Did Not replace it. I use Midjourney to try out various ideas before commiting brush to canvas, and I am delighted with the results. AI is not a substitute for creativity, but certainly can be abused by the lazy.
I think the way you describe using Midjourney is a good example of how I think of AI and creative endeavours: it's not the tool that determines the quality of the work, it's the person using it.
My experiments with AI are designed to help me understand how AI might assist photographers with admin tasks. But the direction of travel is towards using AI to make aesthetic judgements. Adobe's new 'Assisted Culling' tool asks AI to judge aesthetics. Excire's Lightroom plug-in has an option to "Search by aesthetics".
If those sort of subjective assessments are handed over to AI – and I predict they will be – those of us who value what human experience brings to creativity might be tempted to move from digital to analogue methods.
Your Midjourney example shows how AI can be used in the service of creativity, not as a replacement for it, just as your last sentence says. I'm not radically for or against AI, I think it could prove to be enormously valuable, providing we don't fall into a trap of using it as a shortcut to make facsimiles of authentic human art.
Thanks, especially, for sharing the Claude-built applications. I tried each one of them with a selfie I took of me in a radio station. The caption and keyword functions are astonishingly good (see below).
The online photo gallery I use (based on pixels . com) added AI caption generation sometime last year (as I recall). I've found it very helpful as a starting point for captions and nearly always need to tweak it, but it gives me a solid start and takes some of the drudgery out of putting images online.
Here's an example of an AI-generated caption, to which I only added the location and copyright info:
AI Image Analyser was less successful--at least in the "auto" mode. It pumped up the contrast so much that many elements (including my bald head!) were blown out. However, I can see how having Lightroom-style controls would allow a user to adjust that. Its reasoning for the contrast boost?
"The image lacks punch with flat midtones, needing subtle contrast enhancement to separate the subject from the background and add depth to the equipment and broadcast console."
I can see how tools like this could be useful in photography education, because they provide explanations of photographic principles. You could show this explanation to a student and ask them, "So, what are 'flat midtones'? What is the point of subject-background separation?"
And the "Four Thousand Weeks" app? Well, as someone who's 72nd birthday is next month, it did cause a shiver to run down my spine. ;)
CAPTION:
"Radio broadcaster wearing headphones at control desk with mixing console, computer screen displaying scheduling software, and rack-mounted audio equipment in broadcast studio."
KEYWORDS:
Audio Equipment, Bald Man, Broadcast Studio, Broadcasting, Communication, Computer Monitor, Control Desk, Digital Display, Eyeglasses, Headphones, Indoor, Male, Media, Microphone Arm, Mixing Console, Professional, Radio, Radio Host, Radio Station, Rack Mount, Recording, Scheduling Software, Studio Equipment, Technology, Transmitter, Volunteer, Work, Workplace
You missed one critical thing that AI cannot do until it becomes sentient: aesthetic judgement. I have shot, & shown for 67 years. I'm a certified fine art printer, and photographers pay me for my aesthetic judgements in prints. Coinidentally just this morning one of my clients put me head-to-head with a ChatGPT analysis of 5 of his images. Unsurprisingly GPT made only what I'd call "mechanical" suggestions, such as a vignette; exposure and so on. What I supplied were ways to increase the beauty and emotional impact of the image. No AI will be able to do that,since as of now, no AI can experience either.
Only human beings can create art; AI can only produce illustration.
67 Years experience is remarkable and your point about aesthetic judgement is well made. The distinction between what AI can measure and what a person can feel is real. I wouldn’t – and didn’t – say different.
My interest here is somewhat narrower: whether AI can take over the more mechanical part of a digital photography workflow, like captioning and keywording, setting licence fees etc. If so, that frees up valuable time for work that actually requires a subjective human judgement.
However, as you’ve raised a wider point, I’ll say that although I don’t believe AI is on the verge of a genuine aesthetic appreciation, the tools inviting AI to make aesthetic judgements are already being used. See the section about Adobe’s ‘Assisted Culling’ functionality (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/assisted-culling.html).
Is this an asset to photographers? No, I don’t think it is. But it reinforces my point that digital photography as we know it is going to look very different in 5-10 years. Those of us who prefer to maintain control over our creative endeavours are unlikely to be using these tools.
So I think, and hope, that experience and judgement such as yours will continue to be appreciated. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the reply, Gavin. You make good points. That said, I've tried "culling" and AI-assisted 'aesthetics.' It fails miserably. But more insidious than merely making horrible judgements, is the liklihood that new photographers may get their own sense of aesthetics by suckling on these terrible choices. I fear that knowing nothing (as was once true for each and everyone of us) they will treat & learn poor image choices as being good. That does not bode well for the future of photography.
Again, my appreciation for your contributions to out craft and art.
Always a good discussion, each month more relevant than the previous. I use AI frequently at work, IT related, and it saves me days of work.
On a personal level I use it to fix grammar and orthography in texts I may write.
On a photographic perspective, we actually use it in the predictive algorithms of our cameras, not including your Leica =D. I also use it to identify birds, plants, trees. For keywording and captions, I tried a couple but they were too slow and heavy for the benefit I was getting. For culling, I won't ever allow AI to do that for me. For processing, I can try and go back to basics if I don't like the result. But there's no AI that will replace my personal experience out there with camera in hand. That's the most valuable thing to me, memories - "I was there and I took this photo".
I try to use and not abuse it since the energy costs are still very high.
And yes, I'm excited and curious about the future. I'm also avoiding to go through the downsides here.
Thanks, Ruben. I've learned a lot about the various ways people are using AI. It's been quite reassuring to learn that people mostly see it as a tool to help with time-consuming tasks rather than as a replacement for the sort of creativity born of human experience.
I wonder where we will be in five years. Wherever we go, I guess things are going to change rapidly. It'll be interesting to look back at conversations like this, no doubt. I'll ask AI to schedule a reminder 😉
Good article , Gavin.
AI is a new tool, both good and bad. Human society survived major advanced in technology in the past, in spite of domsday profecies. As an acrylic artist the use of AI is a hot topic, much of it negative. For me, it's just another tool. Photography was supposedly going to end art! To the contrary, it advanced it and Did Not replace it. I use Midjourney to try out various ideas before commiting brush to canvas, and I am delighted with the results. AI is not a substitute for creativity, but certainly can be abused by the lazy.
I think the way you describe using Midjourney is a good example of how I think of AI and creative endeavours: it's not the tool that determines the quality of the work, it's the person using it.
My experiments with AI are designed to help me understand how AI might assist photographers with admin tasks. But the direction of travel is towards using AI to make aesthetic judgements. Adobe's new 'Assisted Culling' tool asks AI to judge aesthetics. Excire's Lightroom plug-in has an option to "Search by aesthetics".
If those sort of subjective assessments are handed over to AI – and I predict they will be – those of us who value what human experience brings to creativity might be tempted to move from digital to analogue methods.
Your Midjourney example shows how AI can be used in the service of creativity, not as a replacement for it, just as your last sentence says. I'm not radically for or against AI, I think it could prove to be enormously valuable, providing we don't fall into a trap of using it as a shortcut to make facsimiles of authentic human art.
EXACTELY
Fascinating article, Gavin!
Thanks, especially, for sharing the Claude-built applications. I tried each one of them with a selfie I took of me in a radio station. The caption and keyword functions are astonishingly good (see below).
The online photo gallery I use (based on pixels . com) added AI caption generation sometime last year (as I recall). I've found it very helpful as a starting point for captions and nearly always need to tweak it, but it gives me a solid start and takes some of the drudgery out of putting images online.
Here's an example of an AI-generated caption, to which I only added the location and copyright info:
https://bw1970s.com/featured/mision-evangelica-la-palabra-viva-with-moon-jeremy-butler.html
AI Image Analyser was less successful--at least in the "auto" mode. It pumped up the contrast so much that many elements (including my bald head!) were blown out. However, I can see how having Lightroom-style controls would allow a user to adjust that. Its reasoning for the contrast boost?
"The image lacks punch with flat midtones, needing subtle contrast enhancement to separate the subject from the background and add depth to the equipment and broadcast console."
I can see how tools like this could be useful in photography education, because they provide explanations of photographic principles. You could show this explanation to a student and ask them, "So, what are 'flat midtones'? What is the point of subject-background separation?"
And the "Four Thousand Weeks" app? Well, as someone who's 72nd birthday is next month, it did cause a shiver to run down my spine. ;)
CAPTION:
"Radio broadcaster wearing headphones at control desk with mixing console, computer screen displaying scheduling software, and rack-mounted audio equipment in broadcast studio."
KEYWORDS:
Audio Equipment, Bald Man, Broadcast Studio, Broadcasting, Communication, Computer Monitor, Control Desk, Digital Display, Eyeglasses, Headphones, Indoor, Male, Media, Microphone Arm, Mixing Console, Professional, Radio, Radio Host, Radio Station, Rack Mount, Recording, Scheduling Software, Studio Equipment, Technology, Transmitter, Volunteer, Work, Workplace
PS That the AI noticed a computer monitor "displaying scheduling software" blew my mind.
You missed one critical thing that AI cannot do until it becomes sentient: aesthetic judgement. I have shot, & shown for 67 years. I'm a certified fine art printer, and photographers pay me for my aesthetic judgements in prints. Coinidentally just this morning one of my clients put me head-to-head with a ChatGPT analysis of 5 of his images. Unsurprisingly GPT made only what I'd call "mechanical" suggestions, such as a vignette; exposure and so on. What I supplied were ways to increase the beauty and emotional impact of the image. No AI will be able to do that,since as of now, no AI can experience either.
Only human beings can create art; AI can only produce illustration.
T.Valleau
ItsThePrint.com
67 Years experience is remarkable and your point about aesthetic judgement is well made. The distinction between what AI can measure and what a person can feel is real. I wouldn’t – and didn’t – say different.
My interest here is somewhat narrower: whether AI can take over the more mechanical part of a digital photography workflow, like captioning and keywording, setting licence fees etc. If so, that frees up valuable time for work that actually requires a subjective human judgement.
However, as you’ve raised a wider point, I’ll say that although I don’t believe AI is on the verge of a genuine aesthetic appreciation, the tools inviting AI to make aesthetic judgements are already being used. See the section about Adobe’s ‘Assisted Culling’ functionality (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/assisted-culling.html).
Is this an asset to photographers? No, I don’t think it is. But it reinforces my point that digital photography as we know it is going to look very different in 5-10 years. Those of us who prefer to maintain control over our creative endeavours are unlikely to be using these tools.
So I think, and hope, that experience and judgement such as yours will continue to be appreciated. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the reply, Gavin. You make good points. That said, I've tried "culling" and AI-assisted 'aesthetics.' It fails miserably. But more insidious than merely making horrible judgements, is the liklihood that new photographers may get their own sense of aesthetics by suckling on these terrible choices. I fear that knowing nothing (as was once true for each and everyone of us) they will treat & learn poor image choices as being good. That does not bode well for the future of photography.
Again, my appreciation for your contributions to out craft and art.
I like to think that young photography students will be encouraged to spend time in art galleries more than learning to AI tools.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. the AI aesthetic judgements are unimpressive. Perhaps a case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
My appreciation to you too Tracy. Love what you do.