U-oh, quiet the subject. The questions you ask, imho, can only be answered on a personal level. There is no answer that is valid for all, a "universal truth".
Some people let technology lead their life. Others only want to use it as an instrument. I used a pocket calculator as a schoolkid, technology as an instrument. Now phones give shape to the social life of schoolkids, technology as a life shaper.
Same goes for photography and AI: do we allow/accept it to become more than an instrument? That question can only be answered on a personal level. Some parents give their kids a smartphone, others don't.
Personally, I use technology as an instrument. I refuse to let it take over my life decisions. I think that makes me happier, in the end.
As you said, it’s no longer about technical perfection – which is increasingly accessible – but about the story we want to tell. The new reality doesn’t call for better cameras but sharper visions. And the occasional mistakes :)
I prefer (at least for "artistic" endeavors) knowing that what I've created was fully the result of my own effort and whatever skill I may or may not have. Whether that's adjusting the tonality on a print using darkroom techniques, or making reasonable edits to a digital RAW to produce an end result which pleases me, or putting thoughts down in words somewhere.
A large part of my enjoyment of the process is the hands-on craftsmanship aspect of it.
But that's just me. Most people who might see those results don't care at all how I got there.
Very much agree on the need to sharpen vision. One effect of the technology-driven democratization of photography and now large-scale editing of images using AI/smart tools is that it's no longer enough to be technically proficient or have a "good camera". Anyone can capture a well exposed, well focused image with a cellphone. Or even create one from nothing and have it be good enough for most viewers not to question.
Good write-up, Marcel. I was thinking about this the other day, snapping a photo with my shiny new iPhone. It's incredible to have a camera like that with you at all times, and I definitely use it and have been happy to have when my preferred camera wasn't nearby, but for me, the computational decisions it's making rub me the wrong way somehow. Not all of the time, but there are situations where I don't want it to "fix" something that I aesthetically really like from my mirrorless or Polaroid cameras. Looking forward to reading more.
I think AI has a place in photography, but I also see the dangers of it. Using it as another editing tool for artistic expression would be equivalent to any type of photo enhancement techniques. The problem lies when AI is used for deceit and manipulation of the viewer.
I'll look forward to your next two installments, to see where you go with this. For the first part, your answer is a start. Sure, technology is a means. The story is the ends. But as you were contemplating the sunset image, were you really thinking that it didn't matter if it was AI-generated or not? Would you perceive two of the same photos of an iceberg at sunset similarly, even if you know that one photo was generated on an iPhone in 15 seconds by a 12-year-old kid playing with Ai prompts and Snapchat filters in his bedroom, while the other photo took the photographer days of preparation and travel, hours in a Kodiak battling freezing waters, and hours in the darkroom? Does process not play a role in our perception of art?
I find the process extremely interesting. That is the reason I started this newsletter, I eanted to know how other photographers' way of working was. Still do. Regarding the role it plays in my perception of art, that is limited. I can enjoy a photo (and with that I exclude AI imagery) no matter what effort the photographer had to endure to make that photo. I judge the image on what is shown, not on how it is made. Like it is also total irrelevant with what kind of camera the photo has been shot.
Fascinating topic Marcel. I was thinking the other day that these narratives are similar to those in the late 19th century when photography became the latest technology. All people knew visually were paintings and press printings. Can't wait to read the rest of this!
More in general I meant. We are much more aware of what is happening in the world. We do see more images and news in a day than a person in the 19th century in his or her whole life. Imagine that.
U-oh, quiet the subject. The questions you ask, imho, can only be answered on a personal level. There is no answer that is valid for all, a "universal truth".
Some people let technology lead their life. Others only want to use it as an instrument. I used a pocket calculator as a schoolkid, technology as an instrument. Now phones give shape to the social life of schoolkids, technology as a life shaper.
Same goes for photography and AI: do we allow/accept it to become more than an instrument? That question can only be answered on a personal level. Some parents give their kids a smartphone, others don't.
Personally, I use technology as an instrument. I refuse to let it take over my life decisions. I think that makes me happier, in the end.
As you said, it’s no longer about technical perfection – which is increasingly accessible – but about the story we want to tell. The new reality doesn’t call for better cameras but sharper visions. And the occasional mistakes :)
This reminds me of the fear of "button pressers" when Kodak started releasing cameras that are easy to use.
Check out the second part of this post for some examples: https://youssefyoussef.substack.com/p/improve-your-photography-on-differentiating
You have asked multiple questions. I think you need to delve into them ONE by ONE…
I prefer (at least for "artistic" endeavors) knowing that what I've created was fully the result of my own effort and whatever skill I may or may not have. Whether that's adjusting the tonality on a print using darkroom techniques, or making reasonable edits to a digital RAW to produce an end result which pleases me, or putting thoughts down in words somewhere.
A large part of my enjoyment of the process is the hands-on craftsmanship aspect of it.
But that's just me. Most people who might see those results don't care at all how I got there.
Very much agree on the need to sharpen vision. One effect of the technology-driven democratization of photography and now large-scale editing of images using AI/smart tools is that it's no longer enough to be technically proficient or have a "good camera". Anyone can capture a well exposed, well focused image with a cellphone. Or even create one from nothing and have it be good enough for most viewers not to question.
Good write-up, Marcel. I was thinking about this the other day, snapping a photo with my shiny new iPhone. It's incredible to have a camera like that with you at all times, and I definitely use it and have been happy to have when my preferred camera wasn't nearby, but for me, the computational decisions it's making rub me the wrong way somehow. Not all of the time, but there are situations where I don't want it to "fix" something that I aesthetically really like from my mirrorless or Polaroid cameras. Looking forward to reading more.
Exactly. We need to stay in control. What is done intentionally, should not be 'improved'.
I think AI has a place in photography, but I also see the dangers of it. Using it as another editing tool for artistic expression would be equivalent to any type of photo enhancement techniques. The problem lies when AI is used for deceit and manipulation of the viewer.
Yes I agree. AI definitely has a steady place in editing software and what more. The actual problem indeed is in misusing this technology.
I'll look forward to your next two installments, to see where you go with this. For the first part, your answer is a start. Sure, technology is a means. The story is the ends. But as you were contemplating the sunset image, were you really thinking that it didn't matter if it was AI-generated or not? Would you perceive two of the same photos of an iceberg at sunset similarly, even if you know that one photo was generated on an iPhone in 15 seconds by a 12-year-old kid playing with Ai prompts and Snapchat filters in his bedroom, while the other photo took the photographer days of preparation and travel, hours in a Kodiak battling freezing waters, and hours in the darkroom? Does process not play a role in our perception of art?
I find the process extremely interesting. That is the reason I started this newsletter, I eanted to know how other photographers' way of working was. Still do. Regarding the role it plays in my perception of art, that is limited. I can enjoy a photo (and with that I exclude AI imagery) no matter what effort the photographer had to endure to make that photo. I judge the image on what is shown, not on how it is made. Like it is also total irrelevant with what kind of camera the photo has been shot.
Fascinating topic Marcel. I was thinking the other day that these narratives are similar to those in the late 19th century when photography became the latest technology. All people knew visually were paintings and press printings. Can't wait to read the rest of this!
Yeah, that would be kind of similar, but I guess we now can relate more compared to those in the 19th century.
Relate to the technology you mean?
More in general I meant. We are much more aware of what is happening in the world. We do see more images and news in a day than a person in the 19th century in his or her whole life. Imagine that.
"It's no longer about technical perfection - which is increasingly accessible - but about the story we want to tell." 🎯
It's certainly a hot topic. I enjoyed this podcast which looks at what our abundance of images does to photography: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/gideons-podcast/1-dean-kissick-foXdMcqOBzt/
Thanks, will listen to it in my lunchbreak.
Very interesting podcast, Neil. Thanks for sharing. Recommend it!