AI in Photography: where do you draw the line?

[etiennescamera]

On one end of the spectrum sits film photography, using full manual settings and manual focus. On the other end is completely AI generated "photos".

In between we have technological advances, some fairly simple like Auto ISO, some more advanced, like ever improving autofocus, now with AI processors that decide what you are focusing on.

In the editing sphere we started with basic Lightroom functions which really only mimicked what you could do with film in the darkroom, then we got masking and a few other tools, but now we have things like sky replacement and lately Photoshop's generative AI which you can use to expand the background, but also to add elements to the photo which were never there to begin with.

So, my question is: Where do you draw the line? Should we all go back to being fully authentic and not use any of these tools or should we fully surrender to the lure of modern technology? If somewhere in between, where exactly?

 

[iamdlewis]

For me photography is less about the final image and more about the outing/setup and how the turned out. So I will only use AI to "enhance" and image to do something kind of silly rather than improve my image.

I don't mind using AI for things like "magic selection" to assist in some masking processes that can be rather tedious or even the removal of minor items from an image (a sign, a branch, people). I don't like that people will use AI or even heavily manipulate the image without AI and still call it photographic art. If you use AI or manipulate an image so much that it doesn't align with what is real or even possible with basic skill levels than it is artwork and not photography.

For example a lot of people have a problem with Peter Lik and his "Fine Art" because he is a photographer and the vast majority of his images can't be accomplished with combining several images like A Sky Full of Stars (don't know that place so not even sure if getting those images from there is even possible) or doing the impossible like Lunar Veil. I don't have issues with his work because everything, including images that could be a single image, are listed as Fine Art and not photography. Those that like Lik start with a real image but manipulate into something else, regardless of how nice the results are, and still call it photography I do have issues with.

 

[liggy]

I’m fully embracing ai. Trying to learn how to use it at the moment. Topaz is excellent for noise reduction imo.

For me the problem is transparency. Users should own up to it

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have no problem with people creating images, but I would prefer that they don't call them photographs. Maybe "digital art"? People have been making art for a while now (starting with cave paintings, I guess), and they have created "impossible" images all that time. We cannot stop people creating imagery. I guess the "line", if there is one (or more than one), comes with what I think is called "passing off" - representing a created image as a photograph of something real. There are multiple ways of creating images that aren't real, but it's getting hard (perhaps impossible) to tell the difference.

Amusingly, I think it's reached the point where it's easier to deny the evidence of a photograph. It is so easy to fake images that no photograph, by itself, stands as incontrovertible evidence I guess that is why we are seeing the introduction of an industry alliance to "prove" that an image is real.

I had a bit of a play with Adobe's new AI-generated backgrounds, and found the experience unsatisfying. I realised that I actually prefer the effort of shooting the image with a better background. That surprised me, a bit, because I don't think of myself as a "straight out of camera" person. Maybe I've found a line I don't want to cross?

 

[Jeff A]

I agree with one professional photographer who stated that if what the photographer does in processing doesn't change the narrative of the photo, then he feels it's OK. I agree with that premise. I can use a couple examples that I used not long ago. The first one was a car show and I shot different views of a looooong Pontiac Bonneville. To shoot the front of the car, I had to stand under someones Easy-Up canopy the one of the supports for the canopy was right next fender of the car. I used Lightroom's Generative Fill to make that support disappear. It had nothing to do with the car, it was just in the way. Poof, it was gone.

On another shoot, I was shooting aircraft photos inside and outside of a privately owned Gulfstream. I knew better that to include the aircraft's registration number in the photos because I used to be a pilot on these type of aircraft and the owner does not want to see a story a about his aircraft that ties that aircraft to the owner. I was very careful when I shot the exterior not to show the registration number. Later when reviewing all of the photos I discovered that I had missed the Aircraft number that was on a placard on the instrument panel. I knew better, I just missed it in haste. Generative Fill in Lightroom solved that for me as well. I made those changes and don't feel bad about it. I have never used Generative Fill to ADD something to a photo and will not. do so. This is just a couple of examples of me "Embracing Technology".

 

[Unframed Dave]

My own view, it has nothing to do with photography. Sorry and all that.

 

[etiennescamera]

I guess I've never thought of either of these as AI, but I suppose you could. One would have to assume that Minolta/Nikon/Canon employed AI in the in 1980's for both of those features.

Editing is different. Masking isn't new, it's derived from masking in the darkroom, same as we do it now expect then we used something to block the light from certain parts of the image during exposure. I don't consider that editing, I consider it processing. Changing a background or sky, cropping, plopping Aunt Betsy in front of the Eiffel tower, etc. is what I consider editing.

In truth none of this is AI, except in the very loosest interpretation of the word. In order for it to be AI, it has to be able to learn as it goes. What we have now is a bunch of programming that someone developed to do certain things. True AI is scary.

Where do I draw the line? I dislike sky replacements and massive changes to backgrounds. If you want to do it for some artistic reason that's fine, as long as it isn't presented as something that came out of the camera like that.

As for real, AI, I'm pretty much against it, period. It's dangerous in the wrong hands, and pretty much everyone is the wrong hands. Governments trying to come up with some kind of regulation is a joke, since they won't live by their own standards to begin with.

I recently saw an article about camera manufacturers developing a standard to encrypt authenticity data in the metadata that proves it came out of the camera and wasn't completely generated by a computer. Of course, anything you can develop can be hacked so it's probably pointless.

Fair point Tim, not really AI, as my son, who works in software, also keeps pointing out to me, but to the layman like myself, perhaps we should paraphrase Clarke's third law and state that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from AI". Perhaps I should rephrase my original question then to: "Technology in photography: where do we draw the line?"

For me photography is less about the final image and more about the outing/setup and how the turned out. So I will only use AI to "enhance" and image to do something kind of silly rather than improve my image.

I don't mind using AI for things like "magic selection" to assist in some masking processes that can be rather tedious or even the removal of minor items from an image (a sign, a branch, people). I don't like that people will use AI or even heavily manipulate the image without AI and still call it photographic art. If you use AI or manipulate an image so much that it doesn't align with what is real or even possible with basic skill levels than it is artwork and not photography.

For example a lot of people have a problem with Peter Lik and his "Fine Art" because he is a photographer and the vast majority of his images can't be accomplished with combining several images like A Sky Full of Stars (don't know that place so not even sure if getting those images from there is even possible) or doing the impossible like Lunar Veil. I don't have issues with his work because everything, including images that could be a single image, are listed as Fine Art and not photography. Those that like Lik start with a real image but manipulate into something else, regardless of how nice the results are, and still call it photography I do have issues with.

Thanks for that perspective David, just an honest question: if removal of a minor item is acceptable, is extending a background with Photoshop generative fill acceptable, since you are not really adding something that wasn't there, simply extending something that was there to start with?

I’m fully embracing ai. Trying to learn how to use it at the moment. Topaz is excellent for noise reduction imo.

For me the problem is transparency. Users should own up to it

Agree, transparency and honesty are essential, but unfortunately not necessarily the norm.

I have no problem with people creating images, but I would prefer that they don't call them photographs. Maybe "digital art"? People have been making art for a while now (starting with cave paintings, I guess), and they have created "impossible" images all that time. We cannot stop people creating imagery. I guess the "line", if there is one (or more than one), comes with what I think is called "passing off" - representing a created image as a photograph of something real. There are multiple ways of creating images that aren't real, but it's getting hard (perhaps impossible) to tell the difference.

Amusingly, I think it's reached the point where it's easier to deny the evidence of a photograph. It is so easy to fake images that no photograph, by itself, stands as incontrovertible evidence I guess that is why we are seeing the introduction of an industry alliance to "prove" that an image is real.

I had a bit of a play with Adobe's new AI-generated backgrounds, and found the experience unsatisfying. I realised that I actually prefer the effort of shooting the image with a better background. That surprised me, a bit, because I don't think of myself as a "straight out of camera" person. Maybe I've found a line I don't want to cross?

Thanks for your perspective Tony. Agree that it's more personally satisfying to go back and shoot the image with a better background, but what about situations where this is not realistically possible? Would you then use AI generated background or rather accept the imperfect photo as it is?

I agree with one professional photographer who stated that if what the photographer does in processing doesn't change the narrative of the photo, then he feels it's OK. I agree with that premise. I can use a couple examples that I used not long ago. The first one was a car show and I shot different views of a looooong Pontiac Bonneville. To shoot the front of the car, I had to stand under someones Easy-Up canopy the one of the supports for the canopy was right next fender of the car. I used Lightroom's Generative Fill to make that support disappear. It had nothing to do with the car, it was just in the way. Poof, it was gone.

On another shoot, I was shooting aircraft photos inside and outside of a privately owned Gulfstream. I knew better that to include the aircraft's registration number in the photos because I used to be a pilot on these type of aircraft and the owner does not want to see a story a about his aircraft that ties that aircraft to the owner. I was very careful when I shot the exterior not to show the registration number. Later when reviewing all of the photos I discovered that I had missed the Aircraft number that was on a placard on the instrument panel. I knew better, I just missed it in haste. Generative Fill in Lightroom solved that for me as well. I made those changes and don't feel bad about it. I have never used Generative Fill to ADD something to a photo and will not. do so. This is just a couple of examples of me "Embracing Technology".

Thanks Jeff, I like the concept of not changing the narrative of the photo. Question: When you state that you will never add something with generative fill, do you consider extending the background with generative fill, to allow a different crop, as adding something?

My own view, it has nothing to do with photography. Sorry and all that.

Thanks Dave, a real purist it would appear. So I assume you will never buy one of the new Sony cameras with the "AI-powered" autofocus? And in your photo processing, do you do all masking etc. manually rather than use the automated functions?

 

[Unframed Dave]

Fair point Tim, not really AI, as my son, who works in software, also keeps pointing out to me, but to the layman like myself, perhaps we should paraphrase Clarke's third law and state that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from AI". Perhaps I should rephrase my original question then to: "Technology in photography: where do we draw the line?"


Thanks for that perspective David, just an honest question: if removal of a minor item is acceptable, is extending a background with Photoshop generative fill acceptable, since you are not really adding something that wasn't there, simply extending something that was there to start with?


Agree, transparency and honesty are essential, but unfortunately not necessarily the norm.


Thanks for your perspective Tony. Agree that it's more personally satisfying to go back and shoot the image with a better background, but what about situations where this is not realistically possible? Would you then use AI generated background or rather accept the imperfect photo as it is?


Thanks Jeff, I like the concept of not changing the narrative of the photo. Question: When you state that you will never add something with generative fill, do you consider extending the background with generative fill, to allow a different crop, as adding something?


Thanks Dave, a real purist it would appear. So I assume you will never buy one of the new Sony cameras with the "AI-powered" autofocus? And in your photo processing, do you do all masking etc. manually rather than use the automated functions?

My post processing consists of cropping and straightening. Very occasionally, I will adjust exposure. That's it.

 

[badgood]

I have no issue with using every tool in my camera to achieve my best image, however, from a purely personal viewpoint I never use external software eg Lightroom to enhance the image I see through my A7iii viewfinder.
My only exception is to crop my images when i feel it necessar.
This is only my view and I am just putting it out there.
As for AI and the way it is going, I feel it will remove all the skill necessary to really understand and take our art forward.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

For me the problem is transparency. Users should own up to it

Sounds similar to guys using PED's at the gym. I've always had the philosophy of being completely honest about our experiences, then we can all learn from each other. ️

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I use AI denoising but apart from that I keep it pretty original, I don't really remove anything in an image as I believe in getting it right in camera.

AI will destroy the industry but there will still always be a criteria for people who value the art of photography. They've created a lazy quick fix world of people who have no regard for purpose and true achievement, they just want a photo for their instagram where their like minded ignorant friends will applaud them for doing nothing. I've said for many years, we'll know the devil has done their deed when the majority are not only excepting stupidity but are actually openly celebrating it.

In regards to us photographers going out in the field, me personally I like to go with minimal AI alteration, but I don't see the harm if someone wants to soak it all up. So long as it's your base image you made the effort to get then I think you should be able to use whatever tools you have available to make it look the way you want, it's your image to do whatever you like with. For many years I've been looking at ridiculously saturated landscape images with fake lighting etc by so called professionals which don't serve the original in any way shape or form, so completely false images are nothing new if we're being honest.

 

[liggy]

Sounds similar to guys using PED's at the gym. I've always had the philosophy of being completely honest about our experiences, then we can all learn from each other. ️

Yeah - I get it. I really don't care if photogs are juicing their photos or guys are using PEDs.

Doesn't affect me in the least but if they're being disingenuous or outright dishonest it's uncool.

Me not liking the use of it isn't going to make it go away so if I think it's useful I will use it. Truthfully I LOVE it on my iPhone portrait modes etc. Really fun actually.

Just put AI smart removal into play last week while giving the A7RV a workout. Did a shoot for a dog rescue fundraiser. Had a kid knock over my fill / backlight flash and it was replaced incorrectly. Ended up in a few shots. Removal algorithm to the rescue. Worked a treat.

Everyone was happy and they raised over $15K in donations/sales over the two day event.

 

[iamdlewis]

Thanks for that perspective David, just an honest question: if removal of a minor item is acceptable, is extending a background with Photoshop generative fill acceptable, since you are not really adding something that wasn't there, simply extending something that was there to start with?

It has to be true to the area and the image. If you are adding ivy to walls that don't have it that is not being true to the area. If you are replacing a porta-potty with it that is fine.

Like this:

• ILCE-7RM4
• Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS (SEL24105G)
• 66.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 1250

Remove the bird = fine
Remove the crane = fine
Remove the radio antenna in front of Penn 2 = not fine, it was there before Penn 2
Remove the boat = not fine - that boat is a river cruise boat that will be docked there at sunrise everyday
Remove the blue booth box = not fine, it has been there more than 20 years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future

 

[DaveC Oz]

In my mind, nearly all photography contains some element of editing, or artificial rendering. After all we all make choices about lenses, framing, exposure, lighting, and so on. If my camera is assisting me to achieve focus, or a particular look, that's an assist to do something that has been a part of photography since well before Ansel Adams. In the case of astrophotography, to pick just one of the genre I dabble in, my cameras can actually pick up much more of the night sky than my naked eye is capable of. But my photo's are showing what was there at the time. When it comes to masking, and other techniques, they are tools to be used to emphasize a particular aspect of the image, or to reduce distractions.
Although it's not something I choose to do myself, removal of distracting objects can also be placed into the same category, but I feel that if that is done it should be declared if the photo is published. Where I personally draw a hard line is with things like sky replacement. For me particularly when doing landscape, or nature photography, it's as much about being out in nature, taking the time to enjoy my surrounds, as it is about the photo I end up with. I want perfect memories more than a perfect photo. Anyhow that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[Jeff A]

Thanks Jeff, I like the concept of not changing the narrative of the photo. Question: When you state that you will never add something with generative fill, do you consider extending the background with generative fill, to allow a different crop, as adding something?

I'm not sure of your meaning of the last part (above), but If I remove something using Generative fill, and leave the background, technically that is adding something. I had not considered that but it would not change the meaning for me.

Another example of conflicts in policy could be as follows: I don't believe in sky replacement, but I do use de-haze. I guess that is sky replacement in the pure sense of the word. In the end, I guess I just do what I feel is right.

 

[etiennescamera]

Thank you all for your perspectives, which seem to be quite varied. I think, in the end, we all do photography for different reasons and come at it from different backgrounds and with different world views. My personal feeling is probably closest to what Jeff said, that the processing shouldn't change the narrative of the photo. I do feel that AI is a threat to photography, much as it is a threat to many other art forms, but then true AI, as mentioned by more than one of you, is really a threat on a much larger scale than just art and photography.

 

[Clix Pix]

No sky replacement here, no background , sun, moon, animal or people replacement, etc. I will judiciously remove items from a scene when it was unavoidable that they were going to appear in it or when I simply didn't notice them at the time of shooting. I will at times use AI to increase resolution in some situations, especially when I have shot with my RX10 IV. That's about as far as I want to go with AI.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Fair point Tim, not really AI, as my son, who works in software, also keeps pointing out to me, but to the layman like myself, perhaps we should paraphrase Clarke's third law and state that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from AI". Perhaps I should rephrase my original question then to: "Technology in photography: where do we draw the line?"


Thanks for that perspective David, just an honest question: if removal of a minor item is acceptable, is extending a background with Photoshop generative fill acceptable, since you are not really adding something that wasn't there, simply extending something that was there to start with?


Agree, transparency and honesty are essential, but unfortunately not necessarily the norm.


Thanks for your perspective Tony. Agree that it's more personally satisfying to go back and shoot the image with a better background, but what about situations where this is not realistically possible? Would you then use AI generated background or rather accept the imperfect photo as it is?

I have done adjustments to backgrounds in the past (like taking an aircraft out of a pristine blue sky). But that's not the same as replacing the entire background. I'd liken it to removing a pimple vs replacing a face - one is retouching, the other is generating a fake.

If you do replace the entire background, you're not showing us a photograph. That's why I suggest calling it digital art.

Thanks Jeff, I like the concept of not changing the narrative of the photo. Question: When you state that you will never add something with generative fill, do you consider extending the background with generative fill, to allow a different crop, as adding something?


Thanks Dave, a real purist it would appear. So I assume you will never buy one of the new Sony cameras with the "AI-powered" autofocus? And in your photo processing, do you do all masking etc. manually rather than use the automated functions?

"AI autofocus" - it doesn't change the image, it just makes it easier to take the image. I dimly recall an article in a photo magazine which decried the introduction of the first autofocus cameras, insisting that everyone should be using manual focus, or they weren't really taking photographs.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I have done adjustments to backgrounds in the past (like taking an aircraft out of a pristine blue sky). But that's not the same as replacing the entire background. I'd liken it to removing a pimple vs replacing a face - one is retouching, the other is generating a fake.

If you do replace the entire background, you're not showing us a photograph. That's why I suggest calling it digital art.


"AI autofocus" - it doesn't change the image, it just makes it easier to take the image. I dimly recall an article in a photo magazine which decried the introduction of the first autofocus cameras, insisting that everyone should be using manual focus, or they weren't really taking photographs.

As it goes, I use an A1, but still use small spot (in the centre for wildlife), it works now and again.

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 800

I have no problem justifying using autofocus. I cut my teeth on split screen manual focus. Beyond the age of around 25, my eyesight could no longer do the job. The focus magnifier gets used occasionally however and I revert to manual, particularly with a bird in confusing brush.

• ILCE-1
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 5/10000 sec
• ISO 4000

It was the only way of getting a semi decent shot of this water rail.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

To me, the range goes from "manual everything, film, no editing" to full on "AI digital art". The latter can be so far fetched as to include text-based generative AI; a fascinating example of which is Mia Gezellig:

Mia: The Story Behind an AI Persona

Mia is a woman who has attracted a sizeable following on Instagram for her gorgeous looks, but she's an AI creation...

petapixel.com

But I digress. That's the far faaaar end of the spectrum.

As someone who jumped into photography late, I'm not going back to film. I'm definitely using modern autofocus (whether its branded AI or not), and I enjoy the newest technology in cameras. Its the editing, or post-processing, where the line in the sand can be found for me. I've tried automated (AI) editing features in ON1, really only out of curiosity, but I think if all its doing is manipulating sliders in a RAW file then that's acceptable.

I do use "magic" eraser type tools sometimes to remove dust spots, and I've even used it to try and remove a leaf/branch here or there which got in the way of my composition but it felt like cheating. Similarly, background replacement like ON1's sky swap, is just too far. I've not tried AI generative fill, I don't have it in my editing software, but that is also solidly on the other side of the do-not-cross line if I wanted to claim photography vs digital art.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Whatever the views and opinions photographers may have about AI , the inevitable reality is we live in a highly commercial world and supply/demand will ultimately dictate the direction and integration of traditional photography with AI...together with what the politicians come up with as regulatory dictates (do not hold your breath)......

Cast your mind back no furrther than the transition from film to digital and digital to mirrorless....millions of people complained and suffered financial loss for one reason or another but utimately the march of technilogical progress won out.

No point in beatinng our brains, individuals will either join the club or not but those who rely on photography to generate a living will either go with the flow or drop out whilst those who wish to stay in a time warp, as in the past, will only do so for so long before industry/commercial pressures squeeze them out of the market or they adapt and go with the flow..

 

[Unframed Dave]

I believe there are only a handful of commercial photographers on here that contribute. In the main, the discussion is being held by those that do it for the pleasure.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

There is little distinction, the worlds "photographic" infrastructure will be dictated by commercial linterests and those that have starter or enthusiast interests/passion will ultimately, after a lag time, be forced to engage or find themselvs outside the arc of technological change........refer to the Ludftes of olde......

A 21st century website and its members which fight such change, willl ultimately be doomed to failure, if for no other reason than the pressure from its inherent commercial manufacturers/sponsors.......

 

[Unframed Dave]

Nobody's fighting, and it's spelt luddite.

 

[evacguy]

AI is a complex issue in photography, as it is in almost every other aspect of life. As far as photography is concerned, I don't have a problem with using AI to assist in editing, such as in noise reduction or in removing unwanted 'minor' components of an image, its just another tool, and human kind are users of tools. However, at some stage the AI has 'assisted' to the point where the image is no longer a photograph taken by a human, but something else, to borrow a phrase already used, lets call it 'digital art'. I don't have a problem with AI being used to assist in the creation of photography based digital art, but we shouldn't get the two confused, they are different things. And just like in any art form, the artist should be credited, this includes the human and the AI that contributed to the creation of the digital art. The difficult question is, where do you draw the line between photography and digital art, whether the digital art is AI assisted or not?

For me, the demarkation between photography and digital art is when the story being told by the photograph has been substantially changed. For example many astrophotographers create composite images where they take a star field (e.g., the Milky Way) and blend it with a terrerstrial foreground (e.g., grand canyon or St. Pauls cathedral). They have effectively artifically created a new scene, a new story, a new narrative. To me, this is no longer photography it is digital art created from photography. In this case, the blending may or may not be AI assisted. I also include sky replacement in the category of digital art as the story told by the original base photograph has changed substantially, e.g., from a grey overcast bleek day, to a sunny day with blue skies. This distinction does not in of itself make any value judgement about the image, it simply provides a descriptive label just like a drawing is different from an oil painting or a water colour. They are different art forms and have their unique appeals and values.

I don't fear that AI will devalue photography, in fact, I suggest that it will make photographic images created by a person even more valuable. And with anything of value, we have to ensure that 'fakes' are not passed off as the real thing. Nothing really changes, it just gets a little more complex.

 

[evacguy]

It has to be true to the area and the image. If you are adding ivy to walls that don't have it that is not being true to the area. If you are replacing a porta-potty with it that is fine.

Like this:
View attachment 52550
Remove the bird = fine
Remove the crane = fine
Remove the radio antenna in front of Penn 2 = not fine, it was there before Penn 2
Remove the boat = not fine - that boat is a river cruise boat that will be docked there at sunrise everyday
Remove the blue booth box = not fine, it has been there more than 20 years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future

David, your opinon as to what constitutes acceptable editing in this photograph is fair enough, it is your photograph after all, but I think we will all draw the line between what is acceptable photographic editing and what is creating digital art, at different points. To me, all the proposed edits are acceptable in creating an interpretative photographic landscape, they are not creating what I and others would call 'digital art'. If the sky was changed to show a stary night sky with the Milky Way, that would be digital art, not photography. Alternatively, if your aim in taking the photograph was to create a factual photographic record of this place at this time, then none of the edits would be acceptable.

 

[evacguy]

What about in-camera processing? Is that AI? Every time your camera spits out an image in jpeg or heif, it was processed by an electronic device making decisions.

I once had a guy who taught photography tell me that if you aren't shooting in M, you're in Auto. P, S, A, choose one. He set that forth as someone should be ashamed of their self for using auto anything. This guy was still stuck on an old second generation DSLR (talk about a luddite) and he failed to recognize that if you're using an in-camera meter, processing, exposure comp, or almost any of the others features, you're in some degree of auto regardless of what the mode dial says. Truthfully, I don't know if he failed to understand or purposely chose not to.

However, none of this nor the vast majority of this discussion is AI. They are programmed functions. They do not learn nor improve. They are subject to the user's input and settings. I take exception to (almost) none of it.

True AI is a different story. Don't take my word for it, look up Stephen Hawking's opinion.

Tim, I'm no expert on AI, so my understanding may be wrong, but as far as I understand AI and machine learning are similar but different. Machine learning is a subset of AI. An AI system mimics how a human makes decisions, it is a set of alorithms that have been trained through machine learning to undertake a particular task. For example the facial recognition system in the latest generation of cameras are AI systems that has been trained through machine learning in the Sony labs. They used thousands and millions of images to train the AI system to recognise human faces, bird faces, dog faces, etc and distinguish between them. When the lab based AI system achieves a high degree of accuracy, they graduate from the learning process and make their way into the AI system in your camera. The facial recognition AI system in your camera is not learning, it has learnt to identify faces of particular species to a given level of accuracy. When the next SONY firmware update comes along, they may have improved the accuracy of the faciial recognistion AI or expanded the AI system to also recognise trains and planes.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I was a lousy history student. At best, I enjoyed the stories and then forgot them; at worst, I daydreamed about something else.

But a braincell thinks that it recalls something about Luddites. They weren't quaint old folk drooling over their hand tools (and going home to their vinyl and tapes ) but an early incidence of resistance to "modernisation" because it threatened their jobs.

Which might, or might not, be relevant here. Anyone feel threatened in any way by AI in photography?

 

[AlphaWorld]

I was a lousy history student. At best, I enjoyed the stories and then forgot them; at worst, I daydreamed about something else.

But a braincell thinks that it recalls something about Luddites. They weren't quaint old folk drooling over their hand tools (and going home to their vinyl and tapes ) but an early incidence of resistance to "modernisation" because it threatened their jobs.

Which might, or might not, be relevant here. Anyone feel threatened in any way by AI in photography?

Ned Ludd's Luddites were more like a trade union resisting changing that de-skilled their jobs - they were trained skilled workers who felt threatened by mills using machinery so they could employ less-skilled workers.

In photography that's less about AI and more about production line Santa photos - put the box in the viewfinder over the kid's face, push button...

Arguably, AI based tools threaten retouchers more than photographers, although a lot of us are both.

 

[evacguy]

No doubt that AI is involved in the process, but once in the camera or processing software they don't continue to learn. The generally accepted definition of AI is that it continues to learn. The term has been coopted by marketing departments to make it sound like more than it is to entice you to part with your hard-earned money. I refuse to perpetuate the lie.

Tim, I don't think your definition is strictly correct as a formal definition of AI, at least not one that I am familar with. As I suggested earlier, machine learning is a sub-set of AI which means machine learning is definitely a form of AI, but not all AI needs to actively involve machine learning (a Robin is a bird, but not all birds are Robins). For example, rule engines and expert systems are all part of AI, but don't involve active machine learning in their application. Machine learning could have been involved in the training of the AI, but the AI product does not need to actively continue to learn and adapt to be classed as AI. These are not concepts cooked up by marketing departments but by scientists and engineers. However, as you say, marketing departments may take these concepts and bend them to whatever purpose they consider will make them money, but that does not mean that AI MUST involve adaptive learning. So your camera facial recognition system is a form of AI, even though it is not adapting and learning. The Photoshop AI based content replacement algorithm probably continues to learn with use (e.g., users selecting the option that best suits their needs trains the system leading it to make better judgements), but both the facial recognition in camera and photoshop content replacement are examples of different types of AI. At the end of the day, it is just a defintion and one form of AI may be more threatening or concerning to some people than others.