Nightaxians Episode 17 Part 1 - A.I. and Photography

Love it or hate it, AI is here and it is changing how some of us process photography. Will it help photographers? Does it compete with them? Is there the possibility of peaceful coexistence? Let's discuss it!
What do you think of A.I. photography tools? Let us know in the comments!
Old Car City, Night Photography and Light Painting Workshop:
www.capecodworkshops.com/carcity
Ken Lee:
linktr.ee/kenl...
Tim Little:
linktr.ee/cape...
Mike Cooper:
/ nocturnal_ar_kansas

[@kilowhiskeywon3302]

Every time I think I have stepped into state of the art they change the art. Argus c3 to pentax SuperProgram to K1 ii. By the time I wear the K1 out. It will all be different I suppose. Binge watched & subscribed.

[@CapeNightPhotography]

Thanks for watching! Tech sure is moving ahead quickly. I hope my K1 lasts for several more years!

[@KenLeePhotography]

Thank you for watching and subscribing, and thank you for the comment. I think the K-1 will be a good, solid, usable camera for a long time.

[@Nareimooncatt]

I think the biggest issue with AI generated images is the honesty of the artist. If an artist is upfront that it's AI, not a huge deal. If an artist tries to call it photography, then it's a problem. When it comes to contest entries, it may come down to requiring photographers to give a detailed writeup of how they made the image, or even a video of the shot in the case of light painting. It would have to be detailed enough for the judges to be able to recreate a similar photo to prove it's something that could be done.

[@CapeNightPhotography]

I agree with the upfront par. I am wondering if there is going to be some sort of authentication that an image will be able to go through to prove it is not AI generated. I have a feeling if photographers have to put it a lot of additional work to prove the authenticity of a photo, contests are going to dry up.

[@KenLeePhotography]

When I had one of my photos included for National Geographic Books, they asked me to submit the RAW file to prove that it was an authentic photo. Perhaps in the future, more photography contests will have stipulations such as these. This would make it relatively easy for the photographer to do.

[@Nareimooncatt]

@@KenLeePhotography I use some of Topaz's programs as I know they have a converter that will export into a raw file. I wonder how hard it would be to essentially reverse engineer an image to mimic a raw in appearance and manipulate the EXIF data to get by such a requirement. I honestly have no idea if it's possible.

[@KenLeePhotography]

@@Nareimooncatt, very good question. No idea. I suppose if someone tries hard enough, they can re-code just about anything.

[@Wayneontheroad]

Been playing with the AI stuff more recently. Also been using for hero images etc for design work I’m doing. It’s crazy. On the flip side I’ve also called out a few submissions to photographer hubs on instagram because I knew some of the tells. I think photographers will eventually be tagging their work as authentic and called out when they’re not.

[@KenLeePhotography]

I am already considering #humanmade as a hashtag simply because so many people already think that our night photos are fake. But yes, as you use AI to generate images more and more, you can see the characteristics and more readily identify other people's AI-generated images. Thanks, Wayne!

[@CapeNightPhotography]

I think we are still at a point where a trained eye can tell but that is quickly slipping away exponentially. Some sort of authentication system, or standard will probably have to be established.

[@Wayneontheroad]

@@CapeNightPhotography They say that just as there is AI to create the images there’s already AI in the works to tell the difference. How it all plays out will be interesting. That said, I’ve been playing with the Beta version of photoshop and its generative fill. It’s a game changer. Like selecting annoying power lines, poles etc and clicking one button. No more healing brush and headaches. So there is an upside to some of it. 😃

[@richardgatineau]

Some people say the bokeh is fake because we don't see like this.

[@KenLeePhotography]

True. We also don't see droplets of water from the spray of a waterfall frozen in place. We don't see in black and white. We don't see vignettes. We don't see the blur of something moving. Photography in many instances captures something that we technically don't ever experience.

[@CapeNightPhotography]

Everyone has their boundaries. Whose to say which is correct rather than simply what is correct for their own likes or dislikes?

[@PentaxLife]

Sounds like fake to me if you haven't stood out in the cold night sky and taken the pitcher. Yes I do use a app snapseed but that's all I use. That's why we have the camera So we can do the work.

[@KenLeePhotography]

Oh yeah. Well, at that point, it's not photography in ANY sense of the word. It's not capturing light. It's not using a camera. It's its own thing, and the creativity is solely in the text prompt, so you're not truly even creating the image, certainly not by hand. This isn't a wholesale condemnation of AI-generated art, but it's simply not photography, and it's not art in the sense that it's human-made either, in my opinion.

[@CapeNightPhotography]

That's a good point. What fun is it when you never left the house? The photos are secondary to the experience, at least for me.