Will this kill photography as we know it? 

I dont care if other photographers take better pictures then me, I also don't care if AI can make better pictures then me. I enjoy the process of making photos for me.

I imagine that artists back in the day were having a similar discussion about this new technology called photography and its impact on their art world. Landscape painters, portrait painters all had their concerns yet we still have artists that prefer to put a brush to canvas or pencil to a sketch pad. It is the joy and immense satisfaction of creating that fuels artists whether they are painters, sculptors or photographers. Speaking for myself as a non-professional photographer my joy on my walks or my travels is having camera in hand and capturing the best images possible in camera. AI or no AI has no relevance in my satisfaction and love of photography. AI may one day be able to spit out whatever your imagination can type out on a keyboard but it will never replace the mental and physical satisfaction of creating something by hand or capturing a real moment in time.

AI can and will replace literally any kind of photography, insofar as people who need those services elect to have it do so. There may be plenty of hangers on (e.g., the people who still listen to vinyl) who prefer the human element - but eventually AI will 100% be able to generate anything someone wants, and arrive at perfection through iteration. This really is just a fact. What it will mean for the industry is less certain, but the tech is undeniable.

As a hobby photographer AI has already had an impact, whether it is with software or in the cameras with autofocus. Both designed to help not replace the process of making a photo. What AI can never replace is the experience and feel of just being there when you press the shutter button.

I’m 80 and a lifelong photographer and am using AI seeded with my own images and pushing and pulling them around with the verbal modifiers. I’m getting output that really extends my ability to create images. Actually I’m into territory I never would have have experienced otherwise. So I don’t find it either scary or troubling but I do feel bit lazy when the AI throws up a real beauty so easily!

Hi Ted. I’m a mostly retired attorney as well as a life-long avid photographer. On the AI question, my first thought is that any commercial use of AI-manipulated art is ripe for legal challenges and that, as you pointed out, AI is necessarily based on all the information fed into the system (including existing, “real” artwork, i.e., copyright protected material). In that sense, it is not dissimilar to the current problem of people posting unauthorized copies of photos on the web. One of my workshop instructors some years back mentioned that his attorneys collect instances of unauthorized use of his work and make an annual sweep, sending demand letters to the wrongful users, resulting in a nice amount of passive income each year. On a related issue, the editorial use of computer generated images is similar to the issues surrounding the early use of digitally manipulated images in news stories. You probably remember that Newsweek published a cover photo from which one person’s image had been removed. Newsweek included a note that the cover was meant as a photo illustration rather than an actual record of what occurred. I think that any AI-generated “news” images should (at least ethically) be similarly noted, which means they would not likely supplant photographers’ real images. As for the intellectual property matter (and I am not am IP lawyer), it is important to keep in mind that statutes are only one part of the matter. As you noted, the facts of s specific matter, as well as how they are presented (how the case is framed), the jurisdiction in which it is brought, and the previous case law are largely determinative of the outcome. An unsatisfactory result in one instance does not mean that the overarching issue is resolved. Unless the courts somehow decide that copyright protection no longer exists, it is hard to imagine that a company could freely publish AI artwork that was demonstrably based on protected material. It’s all fascinating, from a technical, gee whiz standpoint as well as the legal ramifications, and, like most of us, I’m routing for the human side of the equation.

I agree with you, the journey to a photograph in which you plan travel and see the photograph and you have a camera to capture that image that is why I take photographs.

I think more than ever it is important to print and show your work. I think we should come together as artists and keep our work off the internet. AI can’t pull from material it can’t get.

Well, I'm sure AI will play a huge role moving forward, but personally I'd rather be loading another roll of delta 400...

Thank you for the stimulating comments. I've drawn a parallel between AI in photography an CGI for movies. I think the comparison is apt. CGI has been around for awhile. Cinema historians will know how long. And even now I can still differentiate between CGI and video imagery. I think. I was eager to know what you had to say about this and believe I've been amply rewarded. Thanks again.

Despite all this talk about photography being art, I have always believed that, at its core, photography is rooted in documentation. This is not to say that photography is not artistic. But the one thing that no other creative medium can't do is show what things looked like, what happened at a certain point in time. This is the one thing AI can never do. Of course, it will be able to simulate (in other words: fake) things, but then it is not documentation anymore. And I think this is why photography will always be able to justify its existence, regardless of how good AI will become at creating images. And, of course, everything @Usuallyroamingrob wrote 45 minutes ago.

I use AI as a tool to create art work. It's a tool like any software that I use. I use these tools, because I can create things that I never could. I don't have any other reason. I won't disclose how my artwork is created, or how I shot my photographs, because the way I do is my own technique. I just learned everything that I needed.

I make book covers. Many layers are needed for the work I do. I needed a very old map of the U.S., before the states were delineated, as a base layer for the cover. I looked on ebay, and map repros were available. But there were these decent jpegs, too. I still had to spend hours on that jpeg to clean it up. Yes, I could have bought the repro, but being paid 250 for a cover, 30 bucks for the map... But now, with Topaz Photo AI, I could have cleaned it up in one minute, screen grabbed the result on my large monitor, still using the demo mode of Topaz which has no expiration date. I'm amazed what it does to my old pocket camera 8 meg imagery. Sky noise is gone, edge detail excellent.

I think one thing that AI opens the gates to is actually, creating works that can be placed in a different era. Like giving access to a time that's not available anymore, and yet can be explored through what is know about that era. I think for abstract and maybe even landscape photography, AI will be able to offer a way of exploring these subjects and I'm interested in using it as such.

art is always a deep emotional process. so as ted mentioned people always will be creative as long as they will stay emotional and sensitive. I think ai can't replace that in terms of individual art expression. love your kind of support of photography as a wonderful art form, ted. thanks for that.

Been a beta tester for AI art tools for over a year. I'm very excited for the future of media and communication aided by AI. Many people will find new forms and ways of expression, enjoyment and contemplation. However, it actually makes me more interested in my own photography. Photography, like playing an instrument, is an experience. AI cannot replace the total experience. It may offer something new but it is not a complete replacement for the photographic experience. That said, eventually certain types of personal photography and commercial photography may be replaced by AI tools. Challenge yourself, push the boundaries of your creativity. Or simply do not worry, and just enjoy taking photos.

I almost have to wonder if this isn't a more relevant question for illustrators than for photographers. I think very often what photographers sell pictures of is specific enough that Midjourney or any of the others can't generate them (like a particular product or person or building) just like is the case with stock images. On the other hand, these AI image generators can fulfill open-ended requirements pretty well. Midjourney might be able to generate logos for your small business where you would've hired a graphic designer, but it won't be able to generate a picture of the façade for the website (I think, tell me if I'm wrong).

The fascination with Cartier-Bresson is not that you couldn't arrange items in a frame artificially like a painter. Neither is the fascination that AI can cut down the time a painter needed to milliseconds. The fascination is that he managed to find these arrangements in the real world and record them in fractions of a second with (often) interesting subject matter to top it all off. The only problem with AI is that it will become more difficult to tell fact from fiction. Other than that the fascination with real and good photography will remain the same.

I Used to work with scanning and editing photos during five year's (as well as taking portraits etc). 1) The highest quality photos I ever scanned was a 8x10 contact prints that was >50 years old. 2) Another time I had the chance to digitise part of the portfolio of a Swedish photographer who made a living (in the 70's and 80's like Ted talked about) by shooting 4x5 photos of buildings, bridges, power station/generators etc built by Scanska (Swedish construction company). 3) Whenever I worked with a >75 year old glas negative I was impressed by the quality of the images. 4) Today we take 5,10 or 100 pictures per day (almost all of them crap). 40-50 years ago people had their portrait taken by professionals twice per year (or something). I can only guess which photos will stand the test of time. -For does of you who live in Stockholm, Sweden you might have heard of Uggla (släkt med Magnus Uggla, porträttfotonas kung på 50-60 talet, ateljé på Kungsgatan). I rather have one good photo vs 100 bad ones! 5) l loved whenever someone wanted to digitize Kodak Chrome, haven't seen anything that beats those colours yet (maybe SIBA Chrome print's) My point is not to get nostalgic and/or say film is better than digital (although nothing I have seen beats an 8x10). What can be automised and what can't? The worst photos to work with were always them Instagram filtered, pixeled, outright horrible pictures, AI digitally improved... AI is at best a tool! I haven't seen it work at any satisfactory level yet in serious photography! -In the field of automated text there's also AI. -I have recently picked up the habit to use an AI auto-generator to give semi-automatic answers to my girlfriend's angry text messages! -I feed the AI her text and it spit's out a suggestion that I can use as a working start 33% of the time (with heavy editing). Ie I think good photography will survive AI. To recapitulate, the best images I worked with were >50 years old 8x10 (no problems with 14 extra fingers protruding from the Humerus).

Great discussion. I actually think that art will most likely be the most aggressive in adopting AI because like you said art will reflect where we are in society. You only have to look at Warhol who was obsessed with the industrial production of commodities (he called his studio "the factory") and made art in a similar (cynical?) way. I find the "errors" in AI images to be fascinating and more than a little disturbing. Once perfected it may be that AI generated images may no longer hold their appeal as they seamlessly blend in with the "real" world. It's the unexpected, errors that get your attention. Love to see you do more on this topic!

Absolutely spot on, it may disrupt the business of photography a little, as did digital, but not the art. By the way, like the beard.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I've heard a few photographers say they only get a tiny fraction from stock images. It isn't anything you can really make money from. At most it is a bit of pocket change. The only people that really benefit from stock photography are the companies that run them, and those that save lots not having to hire a photographer. I think AI images could replace stock images for things like; images to decorate blogs and websites that don't need realism. Though they are getting better and better at creative photorealism. The really useful tools for me are the enlargers and object aware, though they still have a way to go as need to still tidy the images in PS. Of course I'm writing this 3 months after the video. It is hard to keep up with all the developments over the past few months. But I'm writing an essay so researching as much as possible. I have no doubt weeks after I have written my paper it will be out of date. But that doesn't really matter and have a due date so not much I can do about that. At present AI will, if anything, make photography more accessible, much like the mobile phone cameras. It introduces more people to the art and if anything their appreciation is introduced. Much like the paint by numbers images introduces people to painting and consider how colours work together to form shapes. If they enjoy it, it is a stepping stone into the art. Most of the people I have chatted to, that use the AI art generators, are artists that use it in their workflow. I know some like to troll the AI artists and I think that is mean. There is nothing worse than art snobs. The camera got attacked for years before people recognise it as a really useful tools. Of course you get your point and click types, in all areas of art. I'm not going to stop singing in the shower just because I'm not as good at whoever is currently at No.1. We are allowed to point and shoot, or scribble with paint, or play with the AIs. It is all an introduction and everyone has to start somewhere.

Man, you've got a gift for gab, dude! Incredibly well-spoken! Enjoyed it.

Valid points on creativity, and there is something to be said about deep emotions, struggles and stories that can only come from uniquely human experiences, which a non sentient algorithm is (thankfully) unable to replicate. I sold my photography gear (with the exception of film camera) and switched to filmmaking and got a degree in film production, not just because I am passionate about film, but also because I was seeking something challenging on the technical level. That being said, with the emergence of Ai I am definitely not going back to commercial photography having already come this far and having come to enjoy motion imaging a lot more as oppose to still. I still enjoy photography as a hobby time to time, and I like what you put out!

At least I don't think AI will change my desire to take photos because to me it's kind of a meditation.

First, the term Unlimited use was his failure for accepting that it covered him, and frankly The Supreme Court is biased so what do, or did he expect. So, the object lesson here is never allow Unlimited unless you state to include the data they stripped or could in an effort to conform to a particular publication.

It's funny to see that AD intergation from this video is an example of how technology closes some niches where ppl used to have jobs. Just as with mentioned stock photos, 10+ years ago you typically needed a webmaster to get such website done, and now you have tool for DIY.

Photography means „paint with light“. These AI generated pictures come not from light, it‘s just software. So we need a new word for this (aigraph). It should be transparent for the viewer, what he is looking at.

Interesting take on AI. As a musician, you no doubt remember that the invention of drum machines was going to put drummers out of work. Obviously it didn't, but since non-drummers were programming them, they came up with beats a drummer would never have imagined. Eventually, drummers started taking ideas from this unusual programming. I can imagine AI photographs inspiring photographers to approach the art differently, in a similar symbiosis.

Very well put Ted. I am a photographer and that puts an end to the reasons why AI doesn't excite me at all. And your sentence at 0:54 where you say: You give the algorithm a series of props and it "spits out" images that match the criteria.... sums it up pretty well.. Spits out is what it does. Calling it "created art" is an insult.. As a technology it is awe inspiring but to use it to create so called images using data that has been used without the permission of millions of artists is treading into wrong path.. I do hope that there will soon be some lines drawn - both legal and ethical, to define how and where this so call art can be used..

A.i will not replace photographers unless bot photographers are going to show up a photoshoots. A.I. is amazing for photo editing and upscaling for simple edits. It's also a great mapping tool for upcoming photoshoots . I'm a portrait photographer and am making gorgeous images with A.I. but they are not in the style of photography. I prefer using a camera for that. The crap you see on the Midjourney homepage is a tiny fraction of what A.I. art generators can do . If you have studied art and know how to prompt it's insanely beautiful. As far as copyright A.I. is just a tool like a camera. You can't take a photo of someone's art and sell it without their permission. Similarly A.I. just has access to images but the prompt engineer has to guide A.I. to extract and blend elements .someone can violate copyright laws with a camera or a pencil just as easy as they can with A.I. Rule of thumb is if you use a piece of art it must be altered 80 percent or " unrecognizable" to the original. Use an element not the entire piece lol. My creations look like they're from the 18th century. It's not easy but if you're creative and patient you can make art with A.I. Not everyone who has a camera is a photographer nor can they all take artistic photos . It's disheartening to hear self proclaimed artists poo poo A.I. art. Photographers don't draw or paint but painter don't poo poo on photographers. Art is created both intentionally and unintentionally with many mediums , tools and technology. Skill is also required. So if you can't make art with A.I. than there's a lack of skill, open mindedness and creativity. Writing used to be considered witchcraft by those who feared. ( Don't be that person). I love photography and A.I won't l ever replace portrait photographers . If you edit on Photoshop, shoot with digital cameras you're already using A.I. Film photographers could easily call us hacks too.

The question is not if AI will kill photography. The question is why you photograph. For likes on instagram or for composing pictures using cameras, light, lenses just for the joy of photograpghy?

One recent trend is New Car Photography has been replaced by 3D computer models. This has gotten so advanced that even Video Ads on TV are using the 3D model and getting that perfect paint job with a perfect interior shot. It will keep evolving. And Yes in the beginning portrait painters thought they would be put out of business by photographers.

I'm not into AI, but I can relate to someone who has a great idea, but lacks the technical expertise, or possibility to travel to a specific place, but yet is able to create an image that represents his vision. It will not replace the "this happened at thi spoint in time" photos, and will surely change photography, put an end to entire photography genres the same way photography put an end to ilustrators of events, and digital put an end to darkrooms around the world for example. Great insight, and is making me think about it more in other areas. But I don't think I'll be using at all, I much prefer to load some TriX in my cameras and then spend time in the darkroom printing :-)

yes its already dead as we know it , but ask the same to a 12 year old & the answer will be something different . From the days of fine art painting portraits to selfies on an smart phone , photography has evolved & will keep evolving im sure

excellent, like the little bit of history to put it in perspective, but having recently retired after 35 years as a pro advertising photographer, I can only say I'm happy I don't have to deal with Ai. Having come through the film/polaroid into digital transition, then the budget cuts due to Social Media eating away at the budgets, my gut feeling is the landscape (excuse the pun) is going to get rocky for commercial guys. These days, I spend more and more of my time in the darkroom, just for me. Incidentally, Squarespace is the best !

How AI-aided technology will disrupt these 'niche' photography industries: - Portrait photography. It won't take long before anyone can take a average photo with their cell phone and then use AI to boost the quality of this, put your face on different bodies, in different poses and then add an AI-aided filter to give it a professional feel or choose a style from popular classic portrait photographers. A digital artist/creator will still be required but less likely to go out and shoot this yourself. - Celebrity image especially endorsements. We have already seen Bruce Willis and Jean Claude Van Damme give their likeness away to be used in digital productions without their physical presence and this will popularise quickly, especially brands will like having full control of every aspect until the end from angle to pose using AI-face on whatever 3D body model. That way you can also insert products/services that aren't finished yet. - Architectural photography. Is the easiest in some ways to disrupt and to some extent is already being done with 3D scans of existing buildings giving essentially endless 3D choices for 'photography' to client. With a halfway decent 3D model or CAD layout any building with aid of AI can be texturised and then 'digitally composed' by a creator without actually visiting the finished building. It will also allow for much more dynamic angles and a much greater number of images and video outcomes. To be clear digital creators will be needed for most of the above in a professional context, and classic photographers with their experience will be best placed to take on some of those duties, but for sure photography on the ground will change radically.

As developer and photographer, I constantly strip exif data from images as part of the performance optimization. We all do it. In fact some serves are configured to do this automatically as part of the request response. Case had no merit and photographer is overreaching with his media release. On the Ai front, I'm super excited about it. Whenever new tech comes out I'm always thinking about how to integrate into what am doing. People that worry are operating on fear. I always thought that photography is personal--in every sense of the word, therefore no machine can replace that connection. Ai could be a crutch you lean on but will not replace photography.

My history teacher said in 1983 that, in his opinion, technology had reached a point where we were not going to see anything new in the future.

Consider an image created by AI compared to an image taken by a photographer and then drastically edited. Both result in what was wanted not what existed.

The question of copyright from an ethics perspective pertains perfectly equally to AI trained on past art and photography students who learn from looking at past art. The only problem is scale, and that problem is more akin to the inability of massive numbers of photographers being unable to make a living on an increasingly obsolete technology. Art will always be art, and will always be subjectively valued.

Referencing the photographer who sold his images through a resort or hotel organization with seemingly no initial restrictions ...and it got away from him. In my thoughts, if you throw everything to the wind and just collect the money, well, control of your images may well blow away, too.

Photography teacher here... It is threat for a certain class of Photography sellers, Tourism, Stock Images, Marketing, Product, but is not a threat to Photography itself...

I was out of photography for about 25 years, then last year I bought a mirrorless Canon R10. Wow, the unnecessary idiot proof nonsense that is inside that camera is unbelievable, it is soooooooooooo complicated and annoying to use! So after a week i went out and bought an analog Olympus OM 10 camera. I am happy taking pictures again now!

When You learn Photography, You go grab the camera(Instamatic 44, I’m old) and start shooting. Perhaps you pick up a book of Stieglitz photography. And you start learning that style. Maybe you are leaning toward legerdemain. You choose card magic, and you like the style of Ed Marlo. You learn to paint by studying the masters of centuries past. This is how you learn. This is what AI is doing. If I want a picture of a beautiful sunset on the wall, I go take one and put it there. Not everyone has the need or desire to get up at 3:00 am to get to the perfect location for sunrise or 4:00 pm to get to the place for the perfect shot of sunset at 6:00pm (dinner time with the family). Art is a luxury. And you may have the rent coming up and that $5.00 Picture will just have to wait. I still want a unique picture, so this is a perfect use of AI in photography. Yes, AI will affect the business of photography, just a photography affected the paid portrait painter. ON the whole, the paid photography business is getting smaller every year, even while making changes to how the industry conducts the photography business. I do not feel my hobby will be affected. Love the show.

I wonder if people tried to ban paintbrushes in the same way that there is so much general arm waving about AI? Perhaps the guys who were really good at painting cave walls with their fingers got really shouty about the guy who picked out a lump of charcoal from the fire and found an easier way to draw ? I think it's just evolution, another creative process that people will use as they see fit. People don't like change, but change is a constant, embrace change and you have one less thing to stress about. I have used AI programmes to create images but soon went back to using my camera, it wasn't for me. But i am glad that there is another creative tool being developed for people who want to be creative.

Nice choice of background music for your Squarespace promo!

AI will not affect the person who loves photography as a hobby. On the commercial side AI will mean the following. We have a manager that thinks he is a creative. He doesn't listen or like what the creative department are advising him to do. He then uses AI to generate layouts and images. The results convince him he can do it all and he will also save money (which means he can pay himself more too). He bins the creative department. Skillsets will become devalued. Who needs to spend years learning stuff when anyone can bang out prompts and heypresto! This is a real threat I'm facing with my fellow colleagues and it's pretty scary.

Intuition is some kind of creativity status. And intuition it's an act resulting from experiences lived before in our life that flashing in a needed moment . So I really can't imagine what would be an AI reloaded and reloaded again with huge datas, metadatas, styles, proposals, past visioned imagery, faces... etcetera. Almost near a human intelligence... not just from one human being but of many!. A Blade Runner son. The asking for future is what kind of work we'll remain to do? I've been working in photography for 40 years and I'm agree to enjoy each moment shotting my camera or editing a picture that I guess my self its a nice photo to me at least. People next to come will answer some of that questions.

This video is exactly why I refuse to use stock footage on any project, and actually, I won’t contribute to it either. No shade to anybody who uses it or contributes, but it’s just not my thing. If I’m telling a story, and I can’t go to India to get a shot of something in Auroville, I’m just gonna do what I can in my film creatively to tell that story. I’m not gonna download some shots from that city. But that’s just me. I remember when I was in the music business, and Acid Pro became something that people used, meaning suddenly you had all of these tracks that were completely finished, and you could just cut them together, to me that was really just being a DJ, not a musician, but it’s common practice now, people who use it are looked at as actual musicians, (no disrespect to DJ’s, but you’re not doing what Hendrix and Coltrane did. You’re using what they did to make what you’re making, which can be awesome, but it’s different) and so this is the world as it evolves. But I think watching your videos, you and I have similar perspective on this, and I know personally, I will continue to work as hard as I can to create my own art, even if it is to my own detriment, at least businesswise, but creatively, that decision will never be to my detriment. It will actually always add to my growth and evolution as an artist. Just as an aside, when somebody says they want an image in the style of somebody else, to me, that “somebody else” should get paid.

Let's face it. The photography that we knew 2 decades ago has gone. I like your channel that still look at images instead of all the latest techs. Well done.

Love your content, Ted. Been a fan since your 35mm film development video (that was a while back!). I'm also a machine learning (AI) engineer and spend a lot of time in ethics meetings. Love my work, and I love photography. I work in cancer research and develop language models since we can't use OpenAI models for data privacy reasons that you touched upon (copyrights). Here's my 2 cents- models like Dall-e (image generation) or ChatGPT were never designed to replace human creativity. It only automates tedious and low-hanging tasks, and like all great technologies, it will replace those jobs, unfortunately. My guess is that, things like stock photography, short product videos or stenography will probably be replaced in 5-7 years. ChatGPT can write poetry but can never outwrite Tennyson or Dylan. Dall-e will definitely get a lot better, but there can only be one Ansel Adams. We can write the best cancer cell recognition (image recognition) model, but it will never replace an experienced Radiologist's scrupulous eyes. One day, probably. We are nowhere near it.

Video did not kill the Film Stars. Film cameras continue to this day, and a lot of movies are still using it. Digital captures are transferred to film for distribution.

Happy New Year Ted 2023 thanks for many years of The Art of Photography

AI should not be looked at as an algorithm created to solve a problem. People are misunderstanding how image generation works. In simple terms, images are broken down into mathematical models by algorithms. There are models which were created to assess an image and determine if it is a good image. These models were created by applying algorithms on an image (which creates a model) and compare the answer to what a human reviewer says. A human reviewer would indicate which image is the best which is how bias is often built into models. When a person says that they want an image in the style of Norman Rockwell there is no copying involved. His images would have been analyzed and a mathematical model created to determine what makes this a Norman Rockwell image. Similar to how we would look at an image and determine the unique styling and elements of the image. It is going to be impossible to produce evidence that there is copyright infringement unless there is a desire to change the definition of infringement. Legally, will we be no longer allowed to create images in the style of anyone else? Can styling be copyrighted? AI is in fact not smart but rather dumb. These models and algorithms have taken years to create requiring a significant amount of computing power and feedback. e.g. There isn't an algorithm to determine what an eye is. These models are created by feeding images of eyes and not eyes into a system, We tell the system this an eye and the system tries to apply mathematical algorithms to create a model that responds correctly (actually a percentage of likelihood that the image is eye). BTW I believe this is how eye auto focus works in cameras. The software contains an AI model which identifies eyes in the image.

Honestly, I don't feel threatened by AI in reference to photography, because photography is actually pretty fun as an activity unto itself. As for drawing and painting, I quit my art classes recently because learning about AI art killed the little motivation I had left. It seems like if someone just needs an image, AI can do the trick. However, photography not just illustrates, it also documents. There is value in seeing the actual subject rather than an illustration. Most of all, however, I like to shoot film specifically to open up space for more analog in my life, and only shooting with my camera is that going to happen.

If photography is changing, so far it has mostly been due to the smartphone. People don't place much value on photographs any more - whether produced by a camera, smartphone, or AI. AI will become so ubiquitous that people will simply ignore photographs altogether, at least as art. Too bad, it shouldn't be that way, but most people don't see what went into making a great image.

I think the diffusion model latent space architecture under pinning the AI is surprisingly analagous to my creative process, at least when painting in terms of generated output being guided by higher level conceptual descriptions(latent space content), which evolves more fluid sub elements of composition harmoniously toward some aesthetic goal from prior artistic experience(diffusion). The AI has many levels of abstraction with associations to content, emotions, styles, aesthetics, technique, physical laws, meta knowledge of art beyond human understanding etc, so In many ways it is much "smarter" than average artist who has by human limitation a much more limited swathe of experience relatively speaking and it does it all a thousand to a million times faster ie one can curate a 1000+ possibilities in the same time take to "legitimately" create it human style to find things beyond limited human concept of what is suitable..

It have must been "weird" too, for oil painters. Someone pointing a box towards the model, pushing a button and having the box "paint" the portrait by itself. No drawing / painting skills required. History is repeating itself. It's sad when a photographer just doesn't get it.

Unfortunately for all graphic designers, and any photographers involved in anything ancillary, AI is going to replace them completely. Or at least to 90%. As a marketing manager, instead of ringing up my favorite PR firm and making an appointment to discuss my new product campaign, I just key a couple of prompts into the AI image generator running on my PC, and get 6 images within seconds. The same goes for any texts or slogans, in this case I get them straight off Chat GPT. These types of revolutionary developments have been appearing all along. Wedding photographers have lost their trade, newspaper photographers have lost their trade, magazine photographers - oh well, the magazines themselves have gone. Almost everything connected with photography and photography based income has been blown to smithereens by smartphones already. And of course AI will create "new" stuff. To believe the opposite is either wistful thinking or simply naïve. Even human artists rely heavily on the creativity of their forerunners. This also affects hobby photographers. The tools for their pastime get more and more into a niche market position and subsequently more and more manufacturers will stop producing them.

We've been using advancements in technology, and more recently, AI in art and photography for a long time. Photoshop and Lightroom for editing, for example - the former has had AI features for years now. There is also AI in our mobile photo processing as well. New technologies have always come with the threat of breaking this, disrupting that or taking people's jobs. But people adapt and carry on. Photography didn't take away painters and DSLRs didn't take away film photography. Another point in the video is if there is any skill in writing the prompts. If you use Midjourney then it's very easy to get a 90% good image from it. From Stable Diffusion you'll struggle to get a 60% good image. It's that 10% and 40% extra work on the prompt that takes a good image to a great one. As an artist and photographer I don't have that skill. I'm not creative or articulate enough to write prompts to create great images. So to me there is definitely a skill to it. In fact if you have a photographic or artistic background you have the potential advantage of being able to write exactly what you want from any image.

I think large companies who usually license images from Getty for example could decide to have a dedicated person create those needed images through Mid journey sites and alike. Ie. if there’s a story about a bear attack and they don’t have a photo of ‘that’ bear they will just create one. That’s where I see this going.

if anything, i think it will affect fine art photography (and illustration). i don't see how it can affect commercial photography. if you need a product, person, house, etc. photographed, you will need to hire a photographer. i think cell phone cameras have affected the hiring of photographers more than a.i.

It may still be interesting to take a look on the internet at what is called the first AI art gallery in Amsterdam. It opened it's door about half a year ago. It surprised me I must admit.

Stock images were cheaper but we lost authenticity in the process because the images no longer reflected the unicity of each business.

If you're an art photographer who wants future generations to consider your work, you need to be concerned with providing those future audiences with a provenance showing your work is not digitally altered or the product of a computer.

My perspective as someone who trains AI for living (in real estate) is that we humans build up our personal experience by learning from other people's experiences. To a large extent, this is how AI is "trained". I think we will witness a time when it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between "organic" human art and artificial computer-generated art. This includes commercial. This sucks but it's what it's!

"And 4x5 film Crown Graphics will never be replaced by 35mm cameras".....Art and photography have both changed / evolved every 10 years or so... I'm sure that will continue...

Hi Ted - how would you react to Jeff Wall asking a program to output 'a river in vancouver in the style of Katsushika Hokusai Yejiri Station" and out pops 'A sudden Gust of Wind'. The art is in the question and thought as much as the image and process. Dismissing it seems a little like painters dismissing photography when it developed. Replacing painting = no, but another way of producing art = yes.

I think you have summed up the overall impact of AI pretty well, and I agree with your assertion. When I think of AI generated images versus "real" photographs, I like to use the comparison of equipment images used by KEH versus what you find on eBay. KEH uses images of equipment in very good condition as illustration only (duly noted on their webpage) whereas on eBay they are images of the actual item in question and many sellers state that the images are literally part of the description. So, is there a role for AI? Absolutely, but not where a genuine likeness of the subject in question is needed (think of evidence photos at crime scenes, etc.). You pointed out some great examples of a new building with a unique design that the architect needs to illustrate, or celebrity portraits. Of course AI would not be suitable for vacation photos since you want to capture the unique experience that you had. It seems to me the best fit for AI will be in the stock photography arena. The subject of the legitimacy of AI from a copyright point of view is entirely different story.

Great video - well thought out and covering all exits.

IMHO most of us are already using AI in our smart phones. The computational algorithms in our phones are auto adjusting our light, or focus, our background, our color balance, etc, etc. This is going to mean that smart phone photos are going to get better and better with AI technology behind the scenes. This is going to put many photographers and camera companies out of business.

A couple of thoughts. Since Ansel Adams, there has been movement away from photography (in camera image) to imaging out of camera. Most of us know Ansel was a photoshop geek far before photoshop ever existed. In one of the biographies about him, Ansel tells the author that he worked on one single print for three days, busy dodging and burning. There is more imaging and photography today that there ever was in the past and it's only logical that massive changes in technology and procedures are going to occur. And these changes are going to affect some professionals in the marketplace. For example, a wedding photographer really can't be replaced by AI, however AI might be used to enhance the looks of a groom and bride much like portrait AI is being used now and in the past. But I will invent software. So lets have seniors of high schools and universities take a photo of themselves from the nipple up against a plain background. The photo could be taken on a phone or camera by friend, family, lover, enemy; no need for any professional work. That image can then be forwarded to the imaging department of wherever and input into the AI software. The appropriate cap and gown added, the appropriate background is added and the photograph is good to go. No need for a professional photographer.

Just a quick comment or two applying not law but common sense. Photographers, if you have a business relationship with a business or person BEFORE you sue, before you talk to a lawyer talk toTHEM. It's easy and it costs you very little time. When a photographer first learns of a perceived injury to their hard work they are going to be angry. That's not the time to have a chit chat with the offending party. Take a deep breath and try and see this situation from the perspective of the other party. When you can come up with a couple of points in their favor then and only then give them a call. Don't start off by laying out your case, rather listen first to what they have to say with an eye toward finding a mutually beneficial solution before even filling a suit. Just my common sense approach to life.

The landscape at 1:13 almost gave me a heart attack. I took an incredibly similar image in Iceland and had to check if it was stolen by the AI. I'm skeptical about the composition but the mountain is a different texture/shape. Still I choked for a moment.

I've been into photography since 2003 and it was only two years in when I began hearing "this will kill photography," "photoshop this, photoshop that," "the new guys are undercutting us" etc. etc. And look! We are still here talking about it. If anything, I believe AI images will push the value of film photography even higher as did hand illustrations when photography came along.

2:50 Being a professionel photographer for 30+ years I’ve always supported technical evolution. On the other side Via my secondary activity as photography teacher for the past 15 years I saw the evolution of visual content. As we all know there’s a huuuuge load of daily visual content being spread around the globe and between people. It’s sad, but at the same tile stunning to see the younger generation X and Z use more visuals than words to express themselves. The need for photographic collages and montages was increasing immensely… hence the evolution in super easy/quick masking and selecting in all photo and video editing software. For the moment I don’t think the AI generated imaging will be a threat for photography. 10 years ago CGI was the photography killer number 1. But instead of killing photography, it pushed itself out of contention because product photography for instance got back to proper photography instead of CGI thanks to major photographic developments in editing software. What this AI generated imagery will cause is an extended way of expressing ideas and feelings that can be created “on the spot” and shared instantly. It will only benefit photography because of the obvious big quality difference. I could go on for a bit longer, but it’s an excellent item to share especially te subject on copyrights… who owns the AI generated image for instance if it’s created with visuals of other people, artists and visions 🤔🤔🤔 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻 subject

People were doing a lot of the same doomsaying when photography first came around. "photography is not art", "photography requires no skill", "photography is all derivative". There is a whole lot of irony of Photographers quickly dismissing a new medium. I love photography. I think AI-generated art is deeply interesting, and we haven't even begun to see "good" AI art. Just like photography, a lot of the creativity will be in A) what to make, and more importantly B) what to keep and show. My opinion is everyone should just take a deep breath for a minute and lets see what comes out of AI art. perhaps it will be a flash in the pan and come and go quickly. Perhaps people who were otherwise unable to pursue other art forms find this as their medium of choice. who knows. but lets wait and see before we write it off. Every artist has influences. AI art is no different. Neither is photography.

I agree with You... He has already sold the work... I am happy to allow people who have already paid to get more use of My work. If They take away credit it is annoying and I would not work for Them again, but I would tend to move on.

Exactly Ted…. Photographers be it amateur or pro, bring their art to their followings along with building great relationships you build among your followers of your work….those u can’t replace with AI ;) ps Becareful out there Ted, the roads were interesting this am on my drive to Irving from ft worth….glad I am originally from the north….

A note to everyone out there making a living by photography.... You WILL be replaced. Period. It is naive to think otherwise. You can still shoot for fun and expression, but forget about any idea of photography as an income.... the party is officially over.

I'm afraid Ted's video will not age well. Ai is already advancing exponentially as we speak. It will be perfected sooner than we wish to believe. (it's already replacing vast swaths of careers in multiple sectors.) Ai will not replace the intuitive creative DNA of humans (nothing could), but in the near future, there's no question it will effect photography, design and illustration as a means of making a living.... so if you love to create, by all means keep it up, but also be prepared for the unfortunate prospect that your creative impulse will not be able to put food on the table.

In the beginning I was pretty skeptical about AI generated "art" until I started experimenting with it myself. There is something interesting and strangely beautiful when you can turn your ideas in your head into something close to what you originally had envisioned and then make further adjustments. Sure this is lazy, but also in many ways a new possible medium of art so to speak if you even want to call it art. That being said I do see it affecting photography in the future, more specifically certain genres or niches like stock photography or product photography. Just like when digital came along it forced many people to either change with the times or lose jobs. It's important to still stand true to yourself and visions but also be willing to reinvent yourself in a way, and it will most likely also open new opportunities and the possibility of new jobs as well. I see this more as an ethical thing especially for purists where there is still a debate between film and digital photographers. Genres like photojournalism, documentary photography, wedding and portrait photography will always hold some importance and value, especially when heavy editing or manipulation is frowned upon or outright forbidden like in the case of photojournalism. I do see this technology improving significantly with time just as we do with others, the question will be for those who are actually impacted by it, will they be willing to adapt or make adjustments to their own craft to stay relevant and make a career or living.

Every time I get on YT, a new AI art channel is recommended to me. These are just slide shows of images created by AI software given prompts like "Supergirl as a 1920s RKO serial film" or "Dune as 1990s anime." I tell the algorithm not to recommend these channels every time. They are not creative but can replace a lot of creative jobs... until the copyright lawsuits start coming! We will see where it goes. I'm also a member at Model Society and recently voted on their survey to not allow AI created images on their website.

I'm really undecided on why this question comes up where these AI image generators got the datasets the algorithms were trained on. Sure, it was images from all over the internet, from famous artists, and less famous artists. But isn't that basically how learning works for humans as well? Or are photographers also paying licence fees to each famous artist who influenced their style?

Most of my work as a photographer has NO art in it, just a service or package I do over and over again. I haven't, but using AI for editing my portrait would be ideal for an immediate turn around, i can charge the same without taking a day for retouch.

This same people spoke about the cars. Horses are future. You can't beat horsers ;) but yes, here are two different ends of stick. One is commercial and AI will change a lot. Senond end is fun, creative part, you can't replace by Ai. ;)

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I think you are may be a little bit naïve as to how good this AI is and how creative you can actually be with it. I am seeing some things online that artists are doing with AI and it is outstanding so I would look a little deeper. Maybe give your view in a year from now and see how it contrast from your view currently.

Thank you always for the great insight 🙏

A thought on the copyright issue the photographer probably could not show any financial or reputation damages which is probably why the court did not take up the case. The photographer would have been smarter to have reached out to the company that paid him for the work and pointed out the mistake and give them the opportunity to correct it. Any reason to reach out to a past client is always a plus who knows they may have had more work to offer him!

I am a software developer myself, and recently I started taking up photography as an interest. The stable diffusion AI is doing a total BS, there is no art, creativity, or hard work in it. Photography can never be replaced by AI, yes it can be gimmicky but can never be evaluated to the level of great photographers creation. Also, I am concerned about the ethics of GPT4, like how they use data without giving proper royalty and what is stealing IP and what is not, its a very greyish area and soon corporations will be going against each other and laws will be made to restrict this free flow use of data.

As I see it, the progress of AI, both in software and in autofocus in cameras, is going to take photography farther away from being accepted as an art form created by a photographic artist. Already, digital cameras and Photoshop have had a huge effect in this field. What the public used to recognize as amazing image capture and processing has become mundane. I recently took one of my images to a frame shop to get it ready for a juried photo exhibit. He took one look at it and said, "Ah, you've got one of those good printers, haven't you". He knows a lot about framing but not much about photography. He thought it was a Photoshop image enhanced in printing to look like the background had been painted when actually I had done less processing on this image than I do on most snapshots. But I had gone to great effort to set up the shot with early morning natural lighting and natural background and one reflector card and then waited for a bird to land in exactly the place I wanted. It was a beautiful image printed on 310 gsm fine art matt paper . There was hardly any processing at all and I shot it with a D850. Still, people are so used to being inundated with incredible images created by various means post-photography that they hardly notice them anymore. Thank goodness the juror was a professional photographer and, with the aid of the curator, recognized it for what it was and awarded it first place in the animal category. On the other hand, best of show went to a large shiny image printed on aluminum and with so much processing and contrast and saturated color that at first I didn't recognize what it was. I have no objection to that at all, it was very well done for what it was, but it does bring up another important question about juried photography exhibits: which is more important, the finished image or the process? Maybe another topic for the future?

Maybe certain kind of photography such as stock and product. We are probably 1/2 a decade away from AI takeover wedding photography. But for people who do it as a hobby or for pleasure, AI means nothing except help in their workflow. Eventually, people shot photography will be much in demand. Reverse trend of some sort will happen in two to three decades.

It’ll be the biggest revolution in photography since it began. It will kill fashion, stock, product and fine art photography. And that’s no big loss. Maybe photogs will realise the medium was invented to capture the local, intimate and personal. Instagram ruined our taste where everything became synthetic and over processed. Photographers did this to themselves so that’s too bad. But lack of taste and chasing the Instagram aesthetic caused this. Galleries will be filled by AI images and photography work will diminish.

I am a bit more concerned about the future of a few genres. In many cases, stock photography can be replaced by AI. The images will get a lot better in a few years. That might also affect some parts of the advertisement photography. At the same time, I think this will make a genuine photograph more valuable. It certainly not will kill photography s a hobby. (edited the missing NOT)

I believe ART is about attitude and emotion, AI is a tool which make it easier for more people.

Additional thought: Imagine you replace the expensive photographer with a cheap student photographer together with AI generation tool. That student photographer/writer has no deep knowledge of the topic. What the image should portray what not. That student photographer never get the experience in the future because he has no push to force his creativity. The images you put on your web site may look cheap or wrong killing your business in the end.

To this question I would pose this additional question: which famous photographer’s body of work would likely be easier to replicate via AI, Ansel Adams or William Eggleston? Now think about why. What lesson can derived from the answer?

Interesting to see Getty images are suing mid journey and a few other Ai companies for copyright

Very well spoken about.