Using Ai in photography. Where is the line?

[@RemediosKeeling]

kahma AI fixes this. Photograph alteration: A response discussion.

[@aerialfilm1]

Every landscape photograph I see these days looks like every other landscape photograph. They’re all unnaturally perfect. I’ve even found myself doing the same stuff when processing my own images. We all seem to be faking it with the same techniques, tools and influences. It’s all become rather boring. To quote Major Frank Burns, “individuality is fine as long as we all do it together.”

[@RH-adventure]

@@aerialfilm1 very good point. I think we need to take the next step.

[@MiscellanyTop]

Hi. I agree about cliches and the "sheep mentality" (ie all following each-other). But I think that is aside of the editing question. For example, we could all decide to do no editing whatsoever and we'd all still all produce similar-looking photographs. I would submit that individuality (increasingly difficult because so much has been and is being photographed) lies in the togger having different approaches and ambitions. For example, why does the sea have to be blue-grey? Why not tangerine? Why not produce upside-down images which challenge the viewer? There is no one-size fits all because we'd then be back all doing the same thing. However, I don't think editing for "perfection" is the causational sin here. Cheers.

[@mattbibbings]

The beauty being that no one is the only photographer on earth. If someone doesn't like our representation of a scene they can move along and view another's work.

[@RH-adventure]

@@mattbibbings So true, It’s all about connecting with the audience.

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I actually agree with Thomas Heaton on this one and it is something I've been doing for quite awhile is not removing things and just accepting the fact that that's part of the scene and having something like a powerline or a small house or whatever it is doesn't detract from the image if the images still shot well with good light I think too often we reach for the cloning tool to remove something and then it becomes something else.

[@AmorLucisPhotography]

An important and complicated topic. The first thing to say is that authenticity is important, but it is not the external reality that we need to be authentic about but the inner reality. Authenticity has the same root as author - we must be true to ourselves. Specifically, as landscape photographers we are trying to capture in an image how we relate to the world as we experience it rather than the external world as such. To do the latter would be documentary photography, but if we aspire to produce art then what we are "documenting" is how we relate to the world through our experience. Think about conversion to B&W. When we extract the colour from an image (or simply shoot with B&W film) the resulting image is clearly not what (almost) anyone would see. Is (almost) all of Ansel Adams' photography therefore "fake"? Surely not. Much the same applies to cropping. If we crop out the ghastly construction site next to the cathedral the resulting image is not depicting external reality and is not even what anyone would experience. Ansel Adams was right when he said the following: "Photograph not only what you see but also what you feel". "I’m interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without." And, "A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed."

[@RH-adventure]

@@AmorLucisPhotography Well said. All good points. The core point is intent I think. Think through what you are doing. I also think Ai changes the rules significantly. Soon everyone is going to second guess an image and accusing it of being Ai. Great post, thanks.

[@robphilips8147]

Hi I live in the Highlands of Scotland..I'm surrounded by incredible scenery everywhere...I take pictures for myself...I also know almost nothing other than very basic lightroom techniques....continuing your analogy....who wants to shoot fish in a barell...I'm happy with the occasional success....thanks for a great video and having the balls to deliver it!... Rob.

[@ericmathisen2825]

A few years ago I took a pinhole picture in a big city train station. It was a low light situation and the exposure was quite long. After developing and scanning the film all the people in the otherwise busy train station were gone. A very cool effect and despite not being manipulated digitally was not a reflection of the true reality.

[@SummersSnaps]

Yes, I think this is not so much about post processing tools, but rather the nature of photography reflecting reality.

[@RH-adventure]

@@ericmathisen2825 The line is kind of blurry and there are no hard rules really. I’m just against using cloning tools and Ai.

[@MarkRomine]

@@RH-adventureisn’t the result the same, just different tools? One man uses cloning/AI (thinking of your picture of the alley in Italy) and another (the subway station mentioned above) uses a long exposure to remove the people. I’m not saying that either method is right or wrong just observing that the result is the same from two different methods.

[@jacob.munkhammar]

That photo was actually a reflection of true reality. The photo shows everything that was there during exposure time. The longer an object was there, the clearer it is. The people are there too, only very very faint, as they where there a very small portion of the time. It *looks* different compared to what your eyes see with their shorter exposure time, but it is still as real and as true.

[@derbyshirewalker]

Your video is a breath of fresh air. The norm now is for so called professional photographers to create an image they want to see rather than what he/she actually saw. Far too mush post processing/manipulation.

[@RH-adventure]

@@derbyshirewalker Yes, It needs to be turned down a bit.

[@danielborcard2720]

Sometimes there is a workaround. For instance in the Sienna church and place situation, throw in a 15 stop ND filter and take a 5 or 10 minute shot. This will maintain the building and place as they are but render the crowd as an aetherial blur with the occsional, random figure of someone staying in place for some time.

[@RH-adventure]

@@danielborcard2720 Great tip. Lots of patience.

[@ac1646]

He's probably translating in his head before he talks. I think you need to bear that in mind. 😊😊

[@nelsonclub7722]

All photographs are fake - every single one - its the nature of our game - been a Pro for 35 years - seen a lot of changes but the one thing that has always been the same is that an image is an image no matter how it is created. For example 25 years ago we were sandwiching 5x4 tranny's in an enlarger for HDR - now a handheld phone can do it. Tilt and shift was a work of art, LR has sliders. Dodging and burning for a B+W with shaped cards on wires took hours - now seconds with LR. The problem is and always has been a level of skill - those that don't like it are usually the ones that can't do it. Acquisition is only part of the story - teach yourself how to do it in post and your images will be very different - biggest advice crop, straighten, crop some more, then crop again and then just when you think you are done crop some more which in reality is the single reason why megapixels matter.

[@hanklevesque426]

I subscribe to both Thomas Heaton AND Morten Hilmer. To use Mort to rebut Thomas is such a poor choice. Morten literally works to document the natural world, often commissioned to travel to remote locations to video and photograph animals in their natural setting. He would be violating his professionalism if he modified his results, much as a National Geographic has a policy to not edit their photographs. Thomas, on the hand, is not restrained by any agreement to not modify his photos. His images won’t sell if they’re not near-perfect. He also takes his followers along and shows, real time, what he’s shooting. He strives to get it right in-camera, but also works toward making his finished images art. You have every right to leave your photos untouched, as Thomas has every right to do otherwise.

[@HippyNZ]

This is like telling painters they should make their paintings photorealistic. edit as much as you like, it is your choice. you are not capturing evidential photos for a court case, you are creating art, do what you like. just do not pass it off as 100% real if it is not.. Set your own guidelines as to how much you add or remove to get the image you want based of what you want to represent.

[@RH-adventure]

@@HippyNZ I agree, it’s a post modern world so anything can be done. In the end it’s all about the audience reaction. But I think Ai is about to change art a lot.

[@philmartin5689]

A photograph doesn't need manipulation to be art. A perfectly straight image can be just as artistic as a manipulated one and often more so.

[@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo]

@@philmartin5689 - * Some* photographs… ! It is not about ‘need’, it’s about what I want the final image to look like, as well about whether,or not the photo is intended to be a documentary of what the scene was, or whether it is used as a basis for creating an image that pleases the person making it without having to be a documentary of what the scene was like in real life - there is no single ‘this is how it should be done’ -

[@michaelhall2709]

With respect, I hope your photography is better than your analogies.

[@philmartin5689]

@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo You miss my point. There are many who seem to think that a photograph can only become art through manipulation, and that is simply not true. A straight image can be just as artistic as a manipulated one and often more so. And why do images have to " please"? Why can't they be unpleasurable and thought provoking?

[@tremaincheerful4189]

"The only currency we have is authenticity." Great statement. Reportage. Nothing wrong with that telephone pole.. Some photographers, some of the time, may be allowed to have a different purpose as well. One would hope the intention is clear in both cases. That depends on the self knowledge and skill of the photographer. One wants to show the "is" ness, another wants to show the idealized creation. Styles come and go. Photons are free of dogma, and at our service.

[@renepawlitzek7298]

Your comment is spot on. Don't take a picture if you don't like what you see. In the age of AI, authenticity is indeed key to genuine photography.

[@composedlight6850]

which is your opinion -- others have a different view which is just as valid .

[@Chromatomic]

I think you're right on here. And generally, I'm still okay with removing temporary features, a piece of litter, a stray branch, etc. but so much can be altered now that even if the goal is to represent the best possible version of a place, is it real? Some genres are different and I think as long as you are honest to the subject there is more or less room for alteration but at a certain point it stops being a photo and it's just digital (or AI generated) art. Some people don't want to feel like there are limits to their art. And if they want to be an artist that is fine. But photographs are still bound to the reality that light through a lens has created an image and there's a point where that image is no longer real.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

I stopped shooting landscapes because it is a genre of photography which is not photography anymore. Now I do street photography. Nothing is more real and authentic than that

[@RH-adventure]

@@carlosandreviana9448 It’s a bit sad to hear. I love street as well, but I don’t have the balls to do it.

[@danwoodliefphotography871]

@@carlosandreviana9448 Yes. I like to also show how people are acting as tourists and photographers. I have been considering doing that even more.

[@MarkRomine]

… but can’t street be faked too? Take the example in the video of the alley in Italy, wasn’t that street? Just because the genre is ‘street’ that does not make it more authentic than other genres.

[@RH-adventure]

@@MarkRomine Thats true. Now that Ai is here its super easy to fake street shots. Before Ai it was quite hard, usually would turn into mush and take a long time. Now it’s just one click away. Crazy times

[@danwoodliefphotography871]

@@MarkRomine Unfortunately, about anything can be faked, and it destroys the wonder when it is legitimate because people wonder if it is also fake.

[@LeifEliasson]

Support your opinion and share it. As long as you are honest and transparent with what you do it’s fine to remove objects to create images.

[@christianpatton1852]

Landscape photography is an art form it is ok to remove things to get a beautiful picture to sell or hang on the wall otherwise you would be a documentary photographer or photojournalist.

[@RH-adventure]

@@christianpatton1852 A documentary landscape photographer🤔Good idea. Maybe a new genre is the way forward.

[@matthewkausch8481]

I love your comments about authenticity. I got to the point in photography when I realized that my approach was not much different than my list of preferred authors. I like realism. When it comes to books or photos -- don't interpret it for me. Give me a beautiful composition and let me consider it. I don't say other people shouldn't heavily edit if that's what they choose to do. Just be honest about what you've done. Most photographers aren't.

[@peterebel7899]

My core interests in photography are (either as taker or viewer) - transporting emotions and special moments - expressing creativity in composing and selecting subjects. I am neither a friend of letting AI do the thing nor traveling to those epic places to copy what thousands shot before. But I do see no difference in physically taking out a flower with a distracting color physically or by a clone tool - beside the aspect of protecting the environment by no physical manipulations. Watching a picture like Thomas Heaton's sheep (google picture search first pick) makes me following an artist. Detecting AI makes me change the channel. Me composing photos makes me proud, a feeling to last - some for the rest of my life. Triggering AI might cause some amusement, a fast dissolving feeling. Instant food and fast food never replaced high cuisine. AI will never replace decent photography, just the former postcard holders at every edge of interest around this earth.

[@RH-adventure]

@@peterebel7899 I don’t mind removing smaller things either. But I would mind a cloned a sheep or other key objects. Ai makes it so easy to add or remove trees. Thomas can easily move his lone tree to the exact position he wants and nobody would know he did it unless he tells us.

[@peterebel7899]

@@RH-adventure The good thing with Thomas is: He is presenting what he is doing in his vids. And his fun evolves in the wild, not facing the screen. He will go on promoting real photography and he will have fun by doing so.

[@RH-adventure]

@@peterebel7899 Absolutely, he is honest and authentic for sure.

[@ronpettitt6184]

As a landscape photographer I have struggled with the issues discussed here. How much is too much? I have come to the conclusion that I am not a working professional, no one is buying my work so I’ve decided that removing people from a scene is fine, as is removing some trash or whatever. I’m not aiming for documentary photography so I can sleep at night. My work is aimed at art and painters certainly don’t keep it real.

[@RH-adventure]

@@ronpettitt6184 It’s all about intent, thinking your way to a position that feels right.

[@largeformatlandscape]

The thing that is uniquely photography is its veracity. Painting can make anything up but photography has a unique connection. My stock phrase is “do not deceive”

[@anthonymrbs]

I think it all comes down to what photography is to you. I shot slide film for many years and of course one of the great aspects of slide film in my opinion was the slide you got back was what the scene actually looked like without any post exposure manipulation. Photography has always been about capturing what I have seen in my life, and once you start adding or deleting items after you took the picture it is no longer the case. On the other hand if photography to you is all about creating artwork then I guess it doesn't matter what you do in post.. But what was a photograph really becomes something else.

[@RH-adventure]

@@anthonymrbs Thats it. My feeling exactly.

[@GS-vb3zn]

I like your point of view. Subbed.

[@CoxJul]

You may argue that for commercial work, deep manipulation is acceptable to achieve a brief; for artistic endeavours I agree with your "authenticity as currency" comment. Cleaning up noise and aberations created in the camera is probably acceptable, but mass removal of real world objects or insertion of subject matter that weren't there is the 'lie'.

[@RH-adventure]

@@CoxJul Exactly, when I do matte paintings for work it’s all just a mishmash of photos to achieve the look we want. Thats why I like analogue photography, less time by the computer.

[@jeffreysproule]

Great video, subbed. Theres always a line to cross for myself where I need to ask myself if I've gone too far or not. I'm going to follow up on this!

[@davidlewis5929]

For me what is acceptable in manipulation depends on what the use is. If you are selling photos then I think only minor things are acceptable but if you are selling art then whatever you want to do as long as you are honest about it. If you are using photos for your personal use than whatever makes you happy goes.

[@RH-adventure]

@@davidlewis5929 I agree with all of that.

[@edwardsmall5580]

Great subject to discuss.Also,what about placing a chair in the scene,or a bicycle against a wall?

[@RH-adventure]

@@edwardsmall5580 Hmmm, if you are shooting street photography that would be a big no no. I have been thinking of getting a fog machine like we have on movie sets. That way the forest is always covered in mysterious fog. They are a bit heavy to carry though. But mostly I’m just against the over use of cloning and Ai.

[@BigBlueRabbit]

:-)

[@chrisvalford]

Interesting point of view, I will go and watch the TH post now. I don't take many landscapes as I feel the genre has become fake. Looking at postcards from the last century, even they will include tourists and telegraph poles, but try to show a place in its best light. I live in Barcelona, one of the "over tourism" capitals of the world, but still manage to get images without too many tourists, but try to get a local in the image for "scale". In my case I'm not keen on the graffiti you see everywhere, so I try to avoid it or remove using composition and depth of field, where as some photographers use graffiti as a major compositional factor in their images. I feel a lot comes down to where you are from, and what you have been exposed to in your formative years. As a portrait photographer I really dislike the fake beauty, but even this has been around for 60 years in advertising, worse still are the posed locals in exotic places. Last thought, I previously took a lot of factual photos showing how places change, but eventually gave up as the constant trash and mindless destruction became depressing to look at, we all need a bit of fantasy.

[@RH-adventure]

@@chrisvalford Very well thought out response. Reality does get a bit depressing at times. In India I cleaned up a lot of garbage from my images to get that magical Indian look. In Madeira now it’s full of windmills ruining the shots. Rules in art are meant to be broken, just have to know why you break them.

[@davesteen2622]

My interpretation of Thomas’ initial question is he recognizes some things go too far. He looked at the one scene with the power line and thought “I could remove it’ but also wondered if that was too far. I feel like many of us would have had the same initial thought…it would be interesting had James Popsys for example been with him as he looks upon that human and nature struggle differently. I think Thomas is searching for what the middle ground is. I like his recent approach to his videos where he’s showing the raw and edited version of the image. You can then see what he actually clones out if anything. His recent video he removed a bright spot from water in a reflection image. I don’t think that was too heavy handed and something that could have been done in the darkroom. I think Thomas would agree with your viewpoint on the examples you gave. The Siena church one is for sure heavy handed. The street scene might have been improved by waiting 2 minutes for the couple to move past. It’s hard to tell what’s behind them, perhaps it was a giant tour group of white tshirts and gelato. :-) I would imagine a street photographer would give it couple more minutes to see if the scene improved or take it a different way. I’m sure to all but a certain influencer set or magazine editors, showing a location in a hyper-unrealistic way does nobody favours. I also think “pro” photographers are a bit of their own worst enemy. I feel like because they scenes in such detail, the flaws or distractions are more amplified to them vs the average viewer who may overlook or not see the flaw.

[@RH-adventure]

@@davesteen2622 Great post. I think Thomas realised he was getting to close to the edge. We all hate those power lines. Ai allows us to make really heavy handed edits with just a click. Before you would mess up the photo snd it would take the whole day.

[@emilzimm]

A refreshingly amazing video about originality and authenticity. I hope there are lots of people out there who will discover this video and channel. I do support artistic editing even extensive one at times,, but art is lot more than just chasing and fabricating the perfect shot

[@alicedell8595]

I agree. It's the same with AI writing programs - you lose your individuality, your voice. x

[@RH-adventure]

@@alicedell8595 Ai really flips the table. If you don’t use it you be left behind. I hope there is a way through this where artists can thrive.

[@chris5706]

Thank you. Very thought provoking. I think that how far along the spectrum from realistic reportage to artistic interpretation is a matter of taste that is different for each viewer & photographer. Even straight reportage is only a snapshot of a single point in time often when there are nice conditions like sunrise or sunset. My favourite painters are the impressionists but even Constable was painting idealised scenes. The problem is AI is now so good that you don’t need a photographer at all to create nice pictures. Ultimately the joy of photography is in the doing and achieving images that others want to see. It matters to we photographers but not to the viewers who cannot see the difference.

[@RH-adventure]

@@chris5706 Well said. Even documentary photographers only shoot when something interesting happens. But I think many observers would be disappointed if they found out that Bresson was faking all his photos. They know that he was all about capturing the moment. Its interesting times for sure.

[@dennismwallentin296]

Thank you for raising the question and for your point of view. A photo itself is a container of a story. The "perfect" photo doesn't tell any story. It's just an empty container. That's why I call the present era for emptiness.

[@MarkRomine]

Even the ‘perfect photo’ tells a story.

[@jamesraykenney]

What do you think about using, for example, 100,000 and above ND filters to increase exposure time to eliminate people out of pictures?

[@ch_boki]

It depends on who is your audience and what ''service'' you provide to them. I do macrophotography and edit them 180 degrees into an art piece. I no longer call it a photograph when selling them. Likewise, I also shoot underexposed 90% of the time and my subjects are always lit with artificial light. Balancing between art and design is the question you have to answer when taking the photographs, does your work answer questions, or does it create some? There is no right or wrong. Fantastic video!

[@fujishoot]

For me, a photograph contains everything that was captured. After that its a gradual slope of firstly removing some noise perhaps, then sensor spots, that leaf, the litter, some people..... replace the sky... add sun beams... add some fluffy bunnies. Where does it start. where does it end. As I say, a photograph contains everything that was captured. Its The Capture. After that its a digitally manipulated image - art.

[@RH-adventure]

@@fujishoot I very hard line, I respect it👍 I draw the line with adding or removing key objects.

[@fujishoot]

@@RH-adventure its a never ending debate. 🙂 After the debate I still admire everybody's work. 😊😎🙏👍

[@RH-adventure]

@@fujishoot It’s just a debate like you said. I find it interesting, it helps me figure out what I want to do with photography.

[@j.frankparnell3087]

So B&W images aren't considered photographs because the color wasn't captured? What about using different film simulations (or different actual film types)? Are those acceptable even though they all produce different results? Are some more "authentic" than others? What about using a fish-eye lens? It captures everything in the scene. But it certainly doesn't reflect reality. Is an optically manipulated image more acceptable than a digitally manipulated image? Is anything beyond the flat, lifeless, unedited RAW file considered digital manipulation and no longer a photograph? What if it is done in the camera? Does it then become part of The Capture?

[@MarkRomine]

Suppose you remove the leaf, the litter or wait until the people walk out of your shot or maybe ask them to move before the capture is made, is that permissible? Or is that simply different method of achieving the same thing with cloning/AI? Isn’t the end result the same?

[@BjornVeno]

Photography is in the same position as painting was when photography was invented. This time photography must redefine what it is…

[@RH-adventure]

@@BjornVeno I agree with that. It’s a huge challenge for us.

[@michaelhall2709]

I like and admire Heaton’s work, but I tend to agree. Past a certain point (and I’ll grant that we all draw the line in different places there), image manipulation ceases to be photography. If anything is possible, then nothing matters.

[@stevesmith76]

Using film and a darkroom greatly restricts photo manipulation when compared to current digital photography. As a bonus each silver darkroom print is hand made and therefore no two prints are exactly alike. Digital is like buying the poster of a painting and film is like owning the painting. Digital trivializes the art of photography and removes the prestige it would otherwise have.

[@simonmaney3438]

Authenticity - Excellent commentary thank you! In Thomas' defense, he is a 'content creator' and works hard at providing us with something engaging. He probably doesn't have the time to be as discerning about his images as he would like. He did however ask for his viewers thoughts. I was surprised at how many responded it was fine to clone away to your hearts content, with the justification that it is 'art'. [Regarding landscape photography] this sounds like an excuse to me, to trade off the perception of authenticity, but call it art (if someone asks...), because it is easier to clone than crawl around in the mud ;)

[@RH-adventure]

@@simonmaney3438 We all love Thomas Heaton, the hardest working you tube photographer out there. Nothing lazy there. But he started to clone to close to the sun and if we can pull him back a bit it’s a win.

[@raymondcragg7282]

I never use AI. The photos i take are, for me, to represent reality. I do take the odd bit out if it is an unnecessary item and a distraction. Keeping what i see and photograph is for me the real photo.

[@colinjamesphoto]

What's your thoughts on Aurora/Astrophotography when it comes to authenticy? a lot of editing can go into those and they definitely don't look as good in real life

[@colinjamesphoto]

Great video and talking point by the way 👍

[@RH-adventure]

@@colinjamesphoto I haven’t got anything against regular editing. But let’s say you use Ai to add few extra swirls in the Aurora or some cool nebulas, that would be the same as removing a house that you don’t want in the frame.

[@colinjamesphoto]

@roberthennings i get that and definitely agree, but most aurora shots of seen use a huge ammount of editing...I don't really know where I was going with this other than the line of too much editing is more blurred in some arenas of shooting than others...its a hard really hard one to win down i my mind..its sure a headscdatcher lol

[@RH-adventure]

@@colinjamesphoto We should probably not overthink it. I think most people know when they have gone to far. If you feel embarrassed when you get asked how much editing you did you probably edited to much.

[@Survivorshark1]

I 100% agree with what u said, unfortunately a lot think of the editing process as part of the art where the fine line between processing a negative and adding or deleting for a special effect is blurred and here lies the problem , its the thought process that one can add or delete an object , color or light at will to get the desired imagined picture , this in my humble opinion is not art , its faking the reality its misrepresentation of the reality , yes we are not documenting a crime scene , but we are representing the beauty of nature that we see after all its why we go to nature to capture its beauty , if the idea is to create from within then either just draw what’s in ur head, or clearly state the unreal things u did as this is no longer the reality , to be real , to be authentic, to be unique and truly impressive , u need to capture reality as is with an artistic view , that is ur composition , ur timing of the shot , the angle u shoot from, the depth u impart on the image, and the motion effects u capture , that is the artistic dimension of a photo not creating what’s not there, there is no real effort in that , any one can come up with the most amazing light , but that is not art, u can see this very clearly when people jack up the green color of the aurora, or super saturated their sunset or sunrise shots to beyond what is real or reasonable , this fake view is so so easy to detect to a seasoned photographer who knows the real colors out there .

[@m3photo726]

I can just imagine this exchange in front of “The Storm”: Man in exhibition: I’m not sure if this can be considered authentic as you obviously included more than the storm actually offered. J.M.W. Turner: I confess I had to. Those waves wouldn’t keep still and the clouds were constantly changing. The never ending ridiculous argument now perpetuated by photography …

[@grimlightwildoutdoors]

Photography you take your time to get the right shot if it takes 5 mins to get the shot or it takes several hours to get the shot. Taking a shot with the end vision being what you can remove or photoshop in or out of the image is the wrong way to go about capturing captivated moments it’s just lazy and fake. Totally agree authenticity is paramount with photography. AI will really damage the photography and marketing sectors across all business sectors due to it being fake and an image lie.

[@thomashilmersen711]

Good points, but how about using very long exposures? This also creates an image that is "not real", since all movement will be blurred out.

[@danielspenner3683]

I perceive the process of photography as gathering all information in a scene that seem relevant to me as a person. The image itself is created in postprocessing by emphasizing what made the scene interestering to me and removing, what distracts from this interest. To me photography isn't about reproducing reality, but rather about representing my perception of the scene.

[@johanp8391]

From my understanding, authenticity belongs to genres that purport to be Natural, such as documentary, wildlife, landscape, etc. And those rules of authenticity, specifically no AI, should be adhered to. For other genres, it is about a photograph created from an artists vision, and that artist can use whatever tools that they wish to share that vision. What is important is that the work the artist purports to be theirs is in fact their own work.

[@RH-adventure]

@@johanp8391 Spot on. I’m only thinking about the role of the landscape photographer at this point.

[@NickG65]

I completely agree with you. I specifically like your thoughts on authenticity vs AI, and how it is even more important to be authentic to "battle" AI. I'm not sure about people in the pictures, but I guess if tourists are constantly there, you have a point. I think a good rule is that if someone views your image, then goes to that location, they shouldn't be disappointed. I also think removing things that aren't always at the location are OK; a few people, a bird, etc. I think everyone's opinion on this is valid tho, and to each they're own. I just think the main point is the "battle" against AI. Thank you for this video.

[@nicholaseales]

It's just about not wanting to get up early to document the best version of a scene.

[@tommynikon2283]

DISAGREE. I’m a grizzled 68/44yr in the commercial trenches; started out as a PJ. I have ZERO problems with NON-reality…especially cleaning up a scene. IF you want to capture reality, no editing….BE a photojournalist. And good luck. Otherwise…BE an artist, CREATING your vision….of what YOU think it should look like.

[@RH-adventure]

@@tommynikon2283 Respect for embracing Ai so wholeheartedly. I’m not going to lie, Ai scares me.

[@theblackandwhitefilmproject]

The fatigue of bright packaging. I prefer imperfect to flawless.

[@e8poo]

“The only currency we have is authenticity” absolutely agree.

[@DesertPackrat]

I was about to disagree with you until you said that the only thing landscape photographers have over AI is authenticity. That is 100% true. I still believe that remove tools are a good educational tool to learn composition and be able to pre-visualize. I also have no problem with amateurs using it when time disallows them to get the perfect shot but the editing provides them a certain satisfaction. For professionals I think there needs to be to be more restraint. Thank you for your thoughts.

[@RH-adventure]

@@DesertPackrat Yes, Ai is what worries me most. There will come a time very soon when everyone’s first question will be “Is it Ai?” I agree with you about the learning process. In the art world we used to call it a study. Maybe bring back that term, might liberate us a bit.

[@canturgan]

A photograph isn't real life, it's just an edited memory.

[@freetibet1000]

When I look at the whole corpus of my work I ask myself “am I authentic?” Why do I ask that? Because non of my images show any sign of human presence. Nothing! Just nature. Not because I’m very keen with the clone tool. No. But because I never chose to press the shutter button if there’s even the slightest hint of human presence in the frame. So my question is; “am I faking reality by not including any man-made objects at the time of capture?” My simple answer is that since these environments exists and they interests me infinitely more than man made environments I will continue to only shoot images that only shows a world that lack any signs of human presence. The limitations of the frame is my best companion. It provides me with the best tool in the arsenal for keeping my images free of disturbing human presence. I don’t do it because I believe in some sort of purity in my art. Neither am I particularly interested in the concept of objectivity. In fact, I do not believe “objectivity” can ever be achieved. Far too many considerations are involved even before we press the shutter button to claim our work to represent an objective rendering of reality. No, I just find undisturbed scenes of nature infinitely more interesting and beautiful than what human creation manage to achieve. And the variations are endless and often a source for great surprises. More often than not it is the way light interacts with the scene that interests me the most. In fact, I would even go so far as to claim light to be the sole creator in everything I see. On the subject of Ai I have nothing to add. It is just such an alien territory to me that I wouldn’t even know how to approach the subject at all! I only know that I personally would never engage in anything remotely resembling a struggle or fight against such superficiality. That’s part of a commercial world that doesn’t interests me the slightest.

[@dionantwon]

love this video. Beautiful perspective here

[@RH-adventure]

@@dionantwon Thank you

[@alangibson3293]

It's called warts and all, or don't take the photo. Or take it from a better angle.

[@dbl1db]

Like the television or cinema, a photograph is a rectangle of entertainment. I would say that journalistic evidence should not be so manipulated as to bias the event being communicated.

[@raulal00]

Simply no, with AI use is not a photo, it is graphic design

[@lohikarhu734]

I think that I pretty much limit myself to "fixing" relatively minor things, like that leaf, or branch, which could really have been "eliminated" with a sharp knife, if you weren't concerned with nature... Even power lines, but that risks disappointing a person who travelled to the beautiful landscape, only to find their enjoyment affected by 6 high voltage power lines... But cutting out a house...nah, that's too far, if you are calling the images "landscape photography"!

[@TS84NO]

I really like your view on this! 🙂 The way I see it, some people EDIT nice pictures, while others SHOOT nice pictures.. Personally, I have sometimes removed things like a powerline, but only if I couldn't find a good framing to leave it out when shooting the picture (Due to my health, I can't rely on taking long walks, so finding good locations that are close to my car, can be a challange in itself😅)

[@RH-adventure]

@@TS84NOMaybe we should make a special exception for power lines😊.They ruin so many great locations. Even in remote Nepal there would often be a line that cuts through the mountain.

[@TS84NO]

@@RH-adventure Yeah, true. And where I live in Norway isn't that remote, so finding locations without powerlines, are pretty difficult 🙈

[@richardcoomber925]

But removing the people in front of the cathedral or down the alley still leaves an image that is possible even if unlikely. It depends on the story you are trying to tell - there’s an amazing cathedral or it’s not worth visiting the cathedral because of all the tourists.

[@RH-adventure]

@@richardcoomber925 Thats true. Not completely fake but maybe lazy? I could have waited for a time when the people aren’t there. But, yeah it’s tricky.

[@douglashaag1127]

At the outset, you said you went to art school. I have never been a painter. But I guess when painters paint a plein air landscape scene, they always put the telephone poles and wires into the scene rather than leaving them out. And they never move a tree a little left or right for a better framing, huh? Real artists don't take liberties with reality, right?

[@RH-adventure]

@@douglashaag1127 Painting is a very different medium than photography. All artforms have different strengths and purposes. But mostly I’m talking about how we should relate to the new powerful Ai tools. It is now too easy to make major changes in just seconds that would take days to carefully paint out before.

[@KirkDurstonquest]

I'm not sure that the *only* objective of photography is to reproduce the reality in front of your lens with no room for creativity. I am more interested in creating a feeling or mood. However, I do draw a line between AI-generated images, where a computer does the work and a human mind-generated image. I find little interest in an artist who is technically extremely talented but uses their talent to paint a scene that looks precisely as real as a photograph. I am much more interested in an artist who creates a mood or feeling with a painting of a scene that might never exist in the real world.

[@BigBlueRabbit]

I’m also fed up of colour crazy grading in films & streaming blockbusters. The colour grader even gets a credit nowadays. Just pack it in! We’ll hopefully be repelled by this in the future.

[@canturgan]

Morton Hilmer is a KZbin photographer. The chase is good for views.

[@lphilpot01]

"Try another location". This is key, IMO. But at what point does framing, composition, etc., become deceit? If we crop out the waste dump one meter from the beautiful flower, are we honest? I don't know where that line is crossed (nor indeed if it exists). But my personal guideline is to make only those changes / edits that could plausibly have naturally happened. And start from less human-influenced subject matter, if at all possible.

[@phoenix-_-1983]

buy a light

[@RH-adventure]

@@phoenix-_-1983 Good idea, thanks. It’s a bit dark for sure😁

[@richardtoft6998]

Robert does his photo editing in a darkened room… so perhaps this is an example of being too authentic 😂

[@MiscellanyTop]

Hi, thanks for this; an interesting response. Nonetheless, we disagree. I think what you seem to be talking about is not landscape photography per se but travel photography. Now the latter is a form of documentation (see Brendan VanSon's YT channel). To wish to display what one sees is perfectly legitimate but it is a desire to document reality - which is right if one is trying to offer a travel prospectus to prospective visitors. However, landscape photography is not travel photography. Landscape photography is a fantasy - always has been. Ansel Adams himself spent ages carefully setting-up specific shots, only to engage in much post-processing later. His photographs do not represent a realistic day in the mountains; they represent an idealised vision. Now, sure, "Photo-Shopping" via any such programme goes way-beyond the technology available in Adams's day but the concept is similar - viz: shoot the best image you can, then edit it to produce the vision you want. You said you'd been to art-school. But surely, realism is but one strand of possibilities to a painter. Were Dali, Bacon or Klimt producing realism? Picasso produced both but is best-know for his unrealistic images methinks. I shall probably never visit the areas you photograph and I am not involved in environmental campaigns related to them. I want an artist's perspective of what might-be - an idealised view, or, at least a fascinating view. If I simply want a snap-shot, I can see zillions of amateur images for that. The human input in the day of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is precisely to use an artist's perspective to interpret and change a photograph. Any old AI could produce a sterile image but the human artist's input is what makes the difference... it may be impossible to tell in the future but an artist can only do their best and simply taking a photograph without due regard to the resultant image is hardly their best. All the best; thank you. (I have subscribed).

[@RH-adventure]

@@MiscellanyTop Great post. What I’m really after is that photographers should have a well thought out position, which you clearly have. What I’m against is taking the tools for granted and cloning out stuff without a real motivation. And I’m sure Ansel Adams would be the best Midjourney prompter if he was around today😁

[@MiscellanyTop]

@@RH-adventure Hi, thank you so much for your kind reply... we agree! Cheers.

[@insightvideo6136]

I’m not looking for “reality” in my work. I’m looking to tell my story. If I can’t tell a story with my photography, I’ll put my camera away. My photography and my art are the vehicle, and authenticity may or may not be needed for the message. I don’t “represent” reality, with my photography because I’m not a photo journalist. I’m not necessarily trying to get the viewer to experience what I saw. If I wanted that, I’d buy the viewer a plane ticket and invite them to meet me there. It would be a lot easier.

[@RH-adventure]

@@insightvideo6136 Authenticity is not the same as reality. It means that the photographer is a honest, truthful and trustworthy person. This is why love KZbinrs so much and not corporations that just want to sell us stuff. If that clears it up a bit.

[@GaryChopik]

This is my opinion, if you are a photojournalist then no you should not use Ai to alter a photo but if you are an artist you have the right to change that photo any way you want. The photo you take is just a rendition of what you see. 'I'm a artist that uses a camera to show my vision"

[@cimbrerbushcraft-vikingheritag]

I agree 100%

[@bozoc2572]

Heatons work is pretty much everything I dislike in contemporary landscape photographys...

[@yixihuang8913]

..I do like a lot of heatons work…but I love your comment just the same 😊

[@rovibarn]

If they don’t want you to modify photos why do they well presets

[@jamesgerboc]

I, too, watched Thomas’s video. He has expressed a concern for AI in prior videos. I admire you guys for what you do. But here’s a few of my thoughts to add to this discord. Everything wasn’t fine before. Someone always pushed back. There were people in the 80’s that would have banned darkroom editing. Ansel Adams was criticized for manipulating the negative and the print. Photoshop was seen as evil when it launched. Cleaning up images through cloning and making fat people thin for commercial purposes was not authentic. Then came sky replacements. OMG how could anyone use this tool to make a good photo a great one? Then, along came AI that made all of this, and much more, easier and quicker. AI presents a different problem. But is it? The “treasure” can now be created from nothing. Multiple images can be combined. Edges of masks are easily defined. Colors can be drastically changed. People removed from complex backgrounds and filled in. These are things that could always be done but they required time, energy and talent. Authenticity is in the image edits. Not everyone can edit. Our currency is the final image, not the base image. It’s always been that way. People dont pay for a RAW file. People dont appreciate an image that looks like they could have taken it. I remember in the film days no one wanted to pay for a custom portrait when they could take the picture and have it printed at Kmart. What has value is an image (not necessarily a photograph) that speaks to people in a unique way. Very few will care how the image came to be, unless it’s part of a story, collection, exhibition, or book. As for editing, too many edits is the same as bad composition, poor color control, and incorrect focus. Most people wont be drawn to a poorly edited image. The Problem/Solution We have to realize now that an image does not have to be anchored in reality. It’s an image not a photograph. Some photographers like James Pepsis shoot for accuracy, others like maybe Nick Page, use Photoshop alot. Some people will want a purist photo-image, and some will be drawn to photo-fantasy images. My image reflects MY creative process, the same as MY photograph reflects what I saw. Everyone doesnt have access to exotic places and world travel. Everyone cant climb a mountain for sunrise, or risk their life in a thunderstorm. But any one of us with creativity and talent can make a seascape “snapshot” come to life by changing the sky to a thunderstorm and eliminating distractions to clarify the viewers mood and focus. The goal should be that others share YOUR appreciation for the final result. To think otherwise is to suggest Ansel Adams was supposed to have no darkroom skills. And now AI Use of AI is a skill not everyone will be good at. Cloning a deers ass to its face would not work. So it wont be done. Crawling around in the mud is not a prerequisite to a good photograph. That would suggest only the young, healthy and fit can make good photographs. Thomas and many others make a living doing what they love, what we all love. The process is everything. Being out in nature, seeing the sights, smelling the morning air, theres nothing like it. But editing and AI are part of the process. It should be managed and controlled. The final images need to be protected, just like photographs, as always. Maybe they should have an identifier added to the metadata along with any other edits. This discussion needs to be had, sooner rather than later. Look what Adobe is doing with our photographs training their AI. But AI is just another tool, but without boundaries or limitation. Authenticity comes from how it is used, not necessarily just that its been used.

[@joeisitt1904]

A can of worms... In my opinion any object that can move under its own steam can be illiminated as they are only there for the fraction of time you take the photograph and at a different time not be there at all. E.g. if you take a picture of a football stadium when the match is on it will be full of people, if you take the pic at 6am the stadium will be empty. If you take the pic during the match and then remove the people you will have a 6am looking pic, same applies to beaches and anywhere where people go. It will still be real. 😊

[@RH-adventure]

@@joeisitt1904 Oh man, gets crazy fast. Schrödingers photography🙂

[@celocelocelocelo]

i wish you also show this GOKARNA photos. this is almost a video essay. i liked it. have a nice day

[@RH-adventure]

@@celocelocelocelo Thank you. Really appreciate that. I wish I took those photos in Gokarna but I deemed it to be too messy. Regret that now.

[@stevenanthony578]

No photo is reality--each is an individual's perspective. The church in Siena, for example doesn't REALLY have people in front of it all the time. You could clone out the people like you did. Or you could make a photo with a 2-hour exposure and get an image with no visible people in the image. Is one more "real" thaaan the other?

[@RH-adventure]

@@stevenanthony578 I think you can approach the scene from many angles. The architecture is one angle. Here I’m approaching it as portrait of a place in a specific time. The reality of Italys finest cities is that are swamped by tourists at this time, even seems to drive the Italians nuts.

[@stevenanthony578]

@@RH-adventure Yeah, that's the whole point of how no photos are reality--they are all interpretations of reality. What we see is an interpretation of reality as well. In reality, matter has no color. Color is a function of the brain. Like film in a camera, photons of various wavelengths of reflected light strike our retina, forming an image. But we don't see that image. That image is converted into impulses that get sent up the optic nerve to our brain, which then interprets, not always accurately, those impulses. And this is only explaining the process with respect to the "visible" part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[@erichstocker8358]

Except that a fine arts photographer is an artist not a documentary or journalist photography. One is pretty pictures the other is documenting reality

[@bamsemh1]

Sadly that's a lost battle 😬 and if you pay attention, the fake ones kind of gets more like and attention than the real ones. And then we have ai taking over everything.

[@mikehamilton7487]

I just do not understand any of this I’m afraid. I think because I am fairly new to photography and not a professional. Authenticity is important as a behavioural trait in people, but in photography why does it matter? Why does photography have to be about purely documenting things? I see myself as an image maker. The actual act of taking a photograph is just a tool to help you create a finished image. Ai is another tool. Not a very good one at present, though it is getting better. To me though, the reason you would go to all the effort of going out and capturing a photograph yourself is because you want the image to look exactly as you want it to, to capture what you felt when you first saw something, or to capture a unique moment. Those are things no Ai prompt, however sophisticated , will ever be able to give you. Sometimes though, to present what you felt or envisioned in an image it is necessary to get rid of visual distractions (like powerlines, excess people, houses, rubbish etc) you may not have even noticed at first, perhaps even to change or enhance colours and tones. It seems like every single photographer on social media sharesyour ideas , and maybe for professional photographers, the idea of ‘authentically’ documenting scenes becomes part of their very identity. Certainly, most photographers seem to be very emotional in their opposition to heavy editing techniques. I for one though, say each to their own.

[@Sierralara]

20+ year landscape photographer here. I completely disagree. I think it’s absolutely fine to clean up images. The only person that’s ever going to know about the Authenticity of a photograph, unless you make structural changes or obvious changes, is going to be the photographer/artist. The image is manipulated the very second the shutter closes by the settings in the camera. Cleaning up things in post just enhances the image. If one wants to think of themselves as a purist, then good luck taking photographs without filters and any changes in post whatsoever and see how that works for ya. As far as AI, those images are always going to be stunners as they incorporate perfection with every detail. Regular photography cannot compete with that…..

[@toke7560]

There is no right or wrong. Its up to the individual how he/she wants to interpret the scene. Especially if the picture is for themselves. Personally i do if its bits of rubbish.

[@bubbajones5905]

I don't think any of us have any right dictating the aesthetic of any one else. An AI modified composite may seem an abomination to us, but if that is what someone else is into, thats there business. We can only follow our own insperation and not think it is our job to police what other people are doing.

[@danwoodliefphotography871]

The real danger is the reshaping of reality. Most of us probably love photographs of events and places because we are amazed at the subject. If most is fake, the wonder dies. Look at all of the Aurora and comet photos we saw recently. Now, if 90% of those are composites or just simply faked, it kills a lot of the wonder and also makes you question the photographer's actual skill, dependability, and work ethic.

[@ibp2007]

If the photo was shown as original the people who live there just might clean it up.

[@RH-adventure]

@@ibp2007 I have seen a quite a few cleanup operations in India lately. Problem is also that it floats in from the sea to remote areas.

[@slarti42uk]

I have very little interest in phot manipulation for my own photography, so this is a bit devils advocate. So with that said, I still think there's a place for realism, in documentary or travel photography where you selling/showing the place or event as it is. But, would you ever insist that a painter on a stool with an easel MUST include everything in the scene in their painting? Or would it be fine for them to use their imagination to "generatively fill" what looks nice to them. Do you question their integrity, or are they fine to produce something the looks as they would like it to look?

[@RH-adventure]

@@slarti42uk All artforms are different with different purpose. Realism in painting is pointless I think. Landscape photographers searches for a moment and place to capture. But it’s a post modern art world so no hard rules anywhere.

[@BubbleGendut]

@4:12 in reality we don’t experience converging verticals so how is the church authentic perception! It has to be authentic only if a client requests it like documentary/journalism otherwise I photograph & edit to my rules not so called photo religious purists.

[@robertmccullough2981]

I hate AI. It’s the last thing we need right now. But are we landscape photographers or artists. If we are artist we should create an image that represents how the event made us feel. But again, no AI. If you can sit in front of your computer and make a complete image, you are not an artist. You are computer technician. Don’t call it art.

[@RH-adventure]

@@robertmccullough2981 Yes, we just need to find where the line is. Ai is going to have a huge impact in what we do and we need to have our mind sorted about it.

[@iphoneography]

100%.

[@ericvaughan11]

Not in art, world isn’t always authentic, would you put those same restrictions on somebody who is a painter, painting a scene in front of him

[@RH-adventure]

@@ericvaughan11 Not at all. All artforms have different purpose and different rules.

[@kevins8575]

Reality is over-rated. Unless you are portraying your images as news/documentary, there is no limit to image editing. If you say it's real, then keep it real. If you call it art, do whatever your imagination tells you

[@ianofawai2797]

Maybe you should consider if you're an artist or a documentary observer?

[@johnyoung1606]

RIDICULOUS , DISCUSSION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@robertleeimages]

👏👍

[@lohikarhu734]

Sometimes, with some stupid building, or power cables, in the way, you can say, "well, do much for this place" and move on, or, move closer, or move over, or, get a longer lens, and find some part of the landscape that "works", or do a least-often seen perspective, or try to "extract" something in the scene that can stand alone, or is, best of all, iconic of "the big picture"... Ok, blah, blah... IMNSHO {In my not so humble opinion 😉}

[@grahamleigh8398]

Ansel Adams made some terrible photo's.Period. Even with all the dodging and burning.

[@joeisitt1904]

On a lighter note, what if i send my android out to take a pic with my Nikon Z12 mk3 would that be fake because the pic was created by AI😂

[@RH-adventure]

@@joeisitt1904 The android would be the artist then I suppose🙂

[@joeisitt1904]

@@RH-adventure What a great response🤣