Why Ai will NOT beat photographers.

[@cameron6190]

I absolutely love this format for videos where you discuss a topic related to photography while also showing individual scenes of you taking photographs, it keeps me interested in the video while still giving me an insight into your own artistic style!

[@teocrawford]

Aww lovely, that’s exactly why I wanted to try this style out - glad you enjoyed it!☺️🙌🏼

[@Dan_Dvorak]

Art is with us for thousand of years, and I think AI will change some things but artists can always find a way.

[@teocrawford]

Exactly!🫶🏼

[@changez77654]

I am a hobby photographer - I am not worried about photography dying or AI overtaking me. My primary objective is to document my life for myself and leave something behind. I would welcome AI if it can help me do this better in fact. I would have a very different view if I was a professional. Wedding photographers will not go extinct, but I can very practically see a reduction (30-70%) in the number of people being able to make a full time living doing it. My optimistic outlook is that this will take the art and craft of image making into new areas previously unimaginable. We will find out soon enough haha.

[@carphi]

I don't see why there would be any reduction in wedding photography jobs unless you have a camera operating bot. Any sort of documentary photography is per definition un-generatable.

[@changez77654]

​@@carphi There are at least 5 ways I can see this happening, I offer to you my simplest and highest probability outcome here, without mentioning robots even though that is also coming - drone are arguably robots: A job that previously took 2-3 photographers 80 hours to do (with editing being the biggest time sink) now will take only 3-5 hours. It can take minutes for a well trained AI to identify all the best photos with everyone in focus, apply edits and generate a photobook/photoblog that puts it all into a coherent narrative. Removal of bottlenecks means the most in demand photographers will be able to take many more jobs (and do it cheaper too). This reduces the overall demand for photographers, as demand will will concentrate into fewer numbers. I want to say that I do not celebrate this - but I feel its inevitable.

[@Attya-y2y]

" would welcome AI if it can help me do this better in fact" -> In some ways it already does. Don't you use things like AI auto-focus and editing programs like Lightroom (many features rely on AI). As you said, now a lot of the post photo-shoot process is greatly simplified by AI from culling the photos to editing them to putting the results together. The main question is not "if" AI will take over, but "how much" of the AI will take over. Once the cameras' AI software get even more efficient, not just auto focus but everything, auto composing the shots, efficient auto exposuring, basically turning current cameras into AI point-and-click cameras, people won't need to hire professionnal photographers anymore, they can just easily take some photos themselves with close to zero skill and have AI handle both the shooting settings and all the post processing as well. And that's for when people actually need to capture real moments like photos of themselves or their pets or anything that is actually related to their lives. All the photos that were usually meant to be shared with total strangers on social media, that have no link whatsoever to anything in their life, I can see them easily being totally replaced by AI generated images (once they become good enough) because people won't be able to tell the difference anyways. Take for example the photo of a wild animal or a landscape. How will you be able to tell the difference? As you said, the only thing left is doing photography as a hobby for yourself and the people you personally know. Sharing photography with total strangers on social media will become more and more pointless, as well as trying to live off photography.

[@nyurons]

Thank you for the non-doom&gloom view! Worrying is a waste of time, when we can use the energy to be creative, right :) I really liked how you focused on the user, not just the AI, because some content creators only focused on the AI. For example, your “reactionary process vs imaginative process” idea focuses on the photographer/AI-user; this was a refreshing view for me as most of the KZbinrs’ concerns are materialistic. 5:20 Anyway, this was me in the morning today haha

[@creasik_]

great video as always ! i'm so impatient to be able to shoot in osaka and kyoto next week for the first time :)

[@itsjusttravis692]

Hey Teo, your wedding example was a really good one to use, and here's why i think so. So, im a little bit guilty of perpetuating the stigma against AI, particularly it's 'overthrowing' of humans in certain professional outlets, namely in my case Voice Acting. I've written a book (shameless plug) and it's honestly my dream to one day see it on Audible listed as an audiobook. To do that, i would need to scout around for an actor that i like and would want to work with, hire them and pay them. Human actors currently are leagues more superior than AI due to their ability to be more varied in tone, emotion, sarcasm, and understanding. And, they can be directed. I cant tell an AI that i want them to whisper in a certain scene, that has to be programmed or solved with a random prompt that may take a while to get right. However, i dont have to pay AI, or at least they're a lot cheaper. Right now i cant afford a human voice actor, because although they'll produce much much higher quality work, they need a living wage which is a lot for me right now. That being said, the human aspect of it is whats keeping me from putting all of my cards in the AI boat. Because even if i cant afford it right now, id still rather have the higher quality of a person's interpretation of my work rather than the close mimic that an AI would be able to produce

[@teocrawford]

Good example as well. Also congrats on the book!🤩🙌🏼 You said it right. In this case you didn’t replace a human, but instead your creation was only made possible thanks to Ai. If you can someday afford the human voice you‘ll take it and that proves that the human aspect is still so valuable and will probably stay that way :)

[@Chris43791FTW]

that final shot of the train with the skyline is straight out of a movie

[@teocrawford]

Aww thanks!🥹🙏🏼

[@MacnTeensVisuals]

Great points Teo, totally agree with you. Japan is such an interesting place too, definitely on the bucket list.

[@teocrawford]

Ohh I hope you get to visit some day!☺️🙌🏼

[@arturogutierrez3]

I loved your video format, congratulations.

[@joseerazevedo]

Nice perspective, makes total sense. AI is just a tool, after all. How and what for people will use it is more a reflect of those using it than the technology itself. This is what might be scaring many people :)

[@Attya-y2y]

I think the point isn't that AI will never be able to capture something real, more that people won't be able to tell the difference anyways in many situations. Unless you're directly supposed to be the subject of the photography like in a wedding, or that the photography is supposed to represent something directly linked to your life like the interior of your house, you probably won't be able to tell if a photo captures a real moment or not. Everything else from landscape photography to product photography to portraits of strangers that you don't know, to wildlife etc... you won't be able to tell the difference. As the photographer taking the picture, obviously you will know, but as a consumer of photography with no direct link to the content of the photo, probably not. Just as a painter will know for sure that what he painted is a real painting because he painted it himself, other people won't. Personal photography, taking photographs for oneself to document your own life or experiences, or photography directly for people who hire you to document their own life and experiences (like a wedding photo shoot for example), will for sure survive AI, but if find it hard to believe that anything else will. Especially the sharing of photography on social media with total strangers, once AI will be so "talented" and produce photos so realistic that you can't tell at all the difference between a real photo and a generated photo, then you'll have to rely on people "trusting you" that your photos are real either because they personally know you or because you've been on the platform for a while already and people already trust you. But what about someone just starting? And to be honest, AI will probably be able to produce photos that look actually MORE real than many of the edited-in-post photos that are shared on social media these days.

[@colinleonard]

That shot at 8:00 goes crazy!

[@skywithoutend]

What was the name of the shop you went to? I was just in Yokohama but did not look for film stores sadly and that place looked crazy with their selection

[@teocrawford]

Champ camera👀

[@theowlfromduolingo7982]

I think even the whole process of ai shows us the key differences between ai images and photography. Ai needs images in the first place to generate new images while photography captures the moment. To use your words photography is “reactive” and ai is “double reactive”. So imo ai and photography merge in some areas but are in many ways totally different.

[@StarkEvan]

my lecturers once said, that the AI probably already created the same artwork as the humans do, but the AI will never be able to remove and replace the "humanity" aspect that the artist/creator put in that artwork they said, we artists put our hearts and minds into our artworks that brings emotion from looking at the artworks, and that's irreplaceable by the AI

[@eternalsession9]

100% agreed, you said everything I believe. In terms of the labor force and/or job market, many people will likely lose their jobs or livelihood, and that is sad to me. However, an AI will never be able to replicate the process. A human artist will always be infinitely more valuable, no matter how amazing the image it produces is. Like you said, it just can't compete with what a human can create.

[@teocrawford]

I‘m happy that you could connect with the video☺️ Exactly!✨🙌🏼

[@mise_photography]

Amazing statements Teo, greetings from Croatian photographer

[@teocrawford]

Thank you! Glad you could connect with the message 🙌🏼

[@clintwesly]

i envision that at some point weddings will succumb. imagine a drone video-photography net literally covering a wedding with 360 degree cameras. capturing every angle and perspective. feed all that high resolution capture and associated data into an ai system then simply provide the prompts for the pictures and videos desired. voila! some years/decades away, but it could go that way.

[@toddysurcharge771]

How does AI understand the human element of what to capture? Is it just going to take continuous shots? Because only a human will really understand the timing of key moments and getting the true essence of the occasion. Feelings and emotions are why humans are superior to AI.

[@clintwesly]

@@toddysurcharge771 i'm not advocating for ai or in any way arguing for it. but, it's all just context. context can be trained. a smile is happy. tears are sad. a smile with tears means happy sadness. a hand extended at a certain time means ring exchange. the flower girl means the bride is about to walk the aisle. the person at the front of the wedding is the officiant. the two standing on either side are being wed. an ai can mimic a picasso painting. can create a literary work. an ai would not need to understand the timing or reason for something. it would have 480 fps at thousands of megapixels with infinite focus and endless angles. it would be able to produce exactly what was requested based on contextual training. like a multi-axis cnc machine loaded with the raw material, all the tools it needs, and programmed for the output. it doesn't understand the purpose of the output. it just produces it. i agree that it will all be soulless and lack empathy. but, so much of what is consumed today is already that. this would just be the next stage in the progression. does sound bleak. again, i agree with your overarching sentiment, but understanding doesn't really matter. context for the output desired is all that matters. the meaning and understanding would come from the human consuming the output.

[@teocrawford]

Interesting idea, however I don’t really see a couple opting in for that. And also someone would have to set that up and make the tools do the work and check the results - that might be the photographer themself. But back to the first point - it‘s two people’s wedding, I‘m pretty sure that they will not want to go a soulless route.

[@zidane9958]

@@teocrawford the portrait photographer of the past is the portrait painter. Technology will always win.

[@robjkim]

Very interesting take. Great video Teo!

[@gsadmtp]

Hey, I'm a 3D artist, I've been studying 3D for 5 years and then worked 2 years as a 3D artist, and when AI came it just destroyed everything I planned in my future life in terms of creations... So I tried photography, and fell in love with it, and I'm trying somehow to get out of 3D to make real content videos or photos of real moment of life , I've your channel this week and it's funny to see you made this video only 2 weeks ago, about when I was starting my first photograph and shooted my first roll

[@noReligion4ever]

I love the statement “Photography is based on the reality and AI is not real”.

[@Attya-y2y]

True up to a point. The massive editing that some people do to their photos these days turn them into something so far from actual reality that I don't see how it's more real than AI generated images. Photos that are only slightly edited and respect the actual reality of the captured moment will always be more legitimate than AI generated images though.

[@noReligion4ever]

@ Agree 100%

[@katherinefiori]

sure it can create images but can it take a picture of a real person and from that create some sort of fake photo shooting? like can it take body and face of the actual person and make from that for ecample a photo shooting on the beach in Hawaii?

[@beanerbon]

A way to beat AI is to add small watermrks just how artists do with painting along with coordinates of the location for evidence of real photograph

[@gonnaloveyoumore]

Eloquently said 👏

[@SanTM]

Film shop looked expensive. Well stocked, and still stocking expired for full price, but expensive....

[@ki001]

Both can obviously coexist, not to mention which AI and how it’s used or its intended purpose for photographers. Let’s not get too hung up on image generation only. I developed FOTOGs AI for photographers of all levels, not only for image generation, it is trained to answer photography-related questions, it also uses RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) for lenses which gets updated so you can ask about many lenses and its use cases etc… Just my 2 cents 😊

[@318isGood]

Great points and makes me feel at ease :)

[@teocrawford]

Ahh happy to read that☺️🙌🏼

[@TheFilmFellow]

In addition to that a photo you took of you and your granddad together on your last camping trip before he passed away could never ever be created in AI. Let alone simply the process of photographing.

[@coachtomas]

Until scientists understand the human brain fully, AI will never equal the creativity and spontaneity of true human made artistic work.

[@simplyratu]

This video is so needed

[@Justafonso]

As others already told here: if one loves filmmaking and photography, it’s irrelevant if AI can or will be able to do a better job because, for us Humans who love something, it’s the ability to feel and enjoy the process and the final result that makes it worthy. An AI will never enjoy the process

[@teocrawford]

A 100% valid point, love it! Thanks for adding this!☺️🙌🏼

[@Justafonso]

@@teocrawford 🙏🙏

[@tonymurphy9112]

Hi Teo, with relation to your video 'Why Ai will not beat photographers" have you got an email address I can send you a few Ai generated images that can't tell the difference?

[@hawdihashemi6449]

Dude i guess ppl worry about mony part more

[@ceecore]

For example I can upload your picture from that street in Tokyo and tell the AI to make a similar picture. It will give me that and in the ner future even a closer iteration to that. I can call it my picture then. that is a big problem for me.

[@teocrawford]

I think you missed the point. I never would have gotten the idea to shoot that photograph by sitting in front of the computer. Of course you can copy the idea and call it your own, but that’s something people have already been doing way before Ai haha😅 The point is that Ai cannot generate unique ideas.

[@ceecore]

@@teocrawford Yes maybe, but your picture will draw less attention and will loose value in the public eye when the whole internet is flooded and oversaturated with almost identical or similar pictures. In the end nobody will even see your pictures and you create them just for your self. This is fine but you also cant earn money with that. Maybe people will want the real "thing" again in the future and AI will become some kind of heresy. Maybe regualtions can help a little, but all visual art will be something different in a few years. Ideas and stories will be important but the craft to take a photo will be unimportant. Im a photographer and my clients already ask me to use AI in my process to some extent. I will not do it so maybe I will need a new job soon.

[@teocrawford]

@@ceecore Isn’t that the reality already? Nothing has really changed except that photography as a craft has become less valuable, however that just makes the creativity of the photographer more valuable. If your clients are asking you to work with Ai then that’s probably because they are the one’s generating the idea, not you. In that case, if your just the camera operator, sure that could become tricky. But I’d like to encourage you to train your creativity, because that is what will make you stand out and beat Ai, don’t give up!💪🏼

[@ceecore]

@@teocrawford True but this just went to another demension where people who are not interested in photography can create "photographs" indistinguishable from "real" photographs. So in the long run you dont need a photographer anymore, but just an art director. If you want and have the time I can recommend this discussion with some different views on this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3vEhGp3hdWCbrc

[@Punkrockphotographer]

There will be a great divide in the arts what’s real and what’s AI generated.

[@teocrawford]

Indeed, there already is and it’s evolving - let’s see where it goes🤷🏻‍♂️

[@andyr8812]

Photographers could use AI to their own advantage to enhance their own images, competing in this way against "soulless" and 100% fake images created by computers alone.

[@kuroexmachina]

well now that you posted those pictures, ai can be trained on them

[@vincentroy5093]

Except for a handful of photography genres like weddings, events, and photo journalism, AI will definitely overtake photography. It's cheaper, faster and will yield better results. It's sad, but this will be the reality for many industries.

[@PotatoSoKawaii]

AI already beat photographers. I would say AI can do more than 50% of what photographers can't and vice versa. AI vs Photographers are like 50:50. We use tools from AI too. Noise Reduction, Auto Framing, even Auto Focus we rely on AI. I can say there's no need to hire a photographer for most people in the near future as AI quality would look really good on small device. Not everyone wants to print big and frame on the wall anymore. Smartphone users are the target audience now. Like it or not, only Best Photographers will survive.

[@abhimanyurathore7853]

You Sound Like AI

[@paulhiggins5165]

There's a even more basic fallacy in the idea that text to image AI's can replace Artists and Photographers- the clue being the very term 'text to image'. Imagine trying to generate an accurate image of your own face by typing words into an AI- would the result look like you? Not really. Or imagine that you met somone who had never seen the Mona Lisa- would your written description of the painting be same as actually seeing it for themselves?- again No. So the notion that text to image generators can create any image we can imagine is an illusion- what really happens is that people imagine an image, try to describe that image in words and then, when the AI produces a rough approximation of their idea they declare that this image is exactly what they had in mind! So a sort of mythology is being propagated here. Note that you have not seen any 'text to image' cameras on sale- these would be cameras that have no lens, just a microphone into which you speak, carefully describing the view in front of you so that the 'text to image' camera can then create an image of that view based on your words. Of course this idea is nonsense- but in what way does it differ from the claim that by talking to an AI it will generate the exact image you have in your mind? Perhaps one day AI's will develop the ability to translate a visual image directly from the brains of human beings- but for now the best they can do is take a written description and from it generate a rough approximation of the intended result. And for many purposes a rough approximation will simply not be enough. The real threat AI may pose to creatives is more the belief that they can replace us, when in reality they can't, not in those situations where a precise outcome is required. AI's work well in scenarios where there is little need to control the final product, where a generic result is good enough- but in general Artists and Photographers don't get hired to create generic results- they get hired to provide specific solutions to specific problems- it's at this point that the weakness of the 'text to image' paradigm become clear. The gap between the words of the written brief of the Art director and the production of the final image is filled by the intution and common sense understanding of the Artist or Photographer, a vast resource of which AI's know nothing. Lacking this resource AI's can never really get beyond a literal and limited understanding of what they are being asked to do.

[@POINTOFVIEWVIDEOS]

Hey, i can edit these videos in more engaging way. Which will definitely helps to increase your audience retention graph.

[@grainfrizz]

Oh boi you are very wrong.

[@someguy_]

i personally think AI will definitely beat art (especially digital art) but not photography

[@coachtomas]

Art is not made to be "beat" it is a creative process. Ai will never match a human's complex way of creating things. Scientists still don't understand the entirety of the human brain yet.

[@iamderevo]

@@coachtomas agreed

[@conthemar]

cringe take

[@KajoCreativ]

Hello Teo, I tried to contact you on Instagram regarding your stay in Japan, it would be amazing if you could take a look!