A Prompt Can't Replace a Photographer
The ethical dilemma facing photographers in the age of AI
AI’s ability to generate images is both interesting and horrifying. In many ways, it has cheapened the value of producing a real image.
People are accepting AI generated images as a part of their lives. Tools that replace a human photographer -- for some -- are now an inevitability.
Imagine a tool where you could provide a couple of establishing images from your phone, as well as a couple of group photos of guests, and then have AI produce convincing wedding images for you.
While this might sound unimaginable to some, consider the economics. The going rate for a good wedding photographer can easily exceed $5000 for an average wedding. If an AI service significantly undercut that price while providing the ability to customize your photos after the fact, there would be at least a portion of people willing to save the cash.
To survive, photographers, like artists of all mediums, will have to differentiate their work from AI generated content. For most, AI will become a large part of their process. The ethical use of AI technology, though, will determine whether or not a photographer maintains their credibility.
Showing what was really there
Part of what makes creating an image special is that you were actually there and witnessed what you photographed. It’s not a recreation from memory. It’s the viewpoint of someone who experienced it, as they experienced it.
In some fields, it’s critical. Imagine a photojournalist altering an image using AI to change what a war zone looked like. Their career would be over.
For the real estate photographer, using AI to change the layout of furniture, or altering the landscaping to show more mature plants, is a legal minefield.
A landscape photographer who changes their image to appear like it was taken at sunset versus the middle of the day is making a creative choice. In a vacuum, it’s a victimless change. In the real world, it cheapens the image and makes it closer to CGI than a fine art piece.
Many of these things -- and the arguments for and against -- are being hotly debated in photography communities. Real estate photographers, for example, use tools that take a single image of a home at noon and show it convincingly at night and in the morning.
On one side of the argument are those who say this makes the job of the photographer easier. They don’t need to be at the house multiple times in a day. This is an obvious argument, but ignores some important questions.
Consider the slippery slope that begins to emerge. If the realtor starts making requests like, “I really don’t like how this grass looks here. Can we make it look more lush?,” or “The chandelier in the dining room is an eye sore. Can you hide it?” what does the photographer do?
Does the photographer have an ethical requirement to deny requests that tangibly alter the appearance of a home? In the digital era, photographers and photo editors have had the capability to do these types of things to varying degrees of realism. The prevalence of AI makes it difficult to say no.
The counter to the ethical question is the practice of retouching portraits. After all, photographers routinely retouch skin.
For this, you must consider the norms already established for the industry. Most people see portraits and assume they have been doctored to fix flaws. Home buyers, too, likely assume the images are shot to make the house look good. It’s reasonable to assume, though, the images aren’t outright fake.
Each photographer will have to navigate this dilemma themselves. I believe photographers who see their images as a craft, not a service, will be on the side of keeping it as realistic as possible. Those simply looking to collect a paycheck, though, might lack those scruples.
It might help them survive, but I don’t think it helps them differentiate themselves from a realtor who could also opt to just go all in on AI altered images they took with their phones.
A good photographer who understands the craft will adjust to new demands appropriately, while those who rely too heavily on AI tools are simply on the path to replacement.
Understanding the line
So, what is the line?
Like most art, it’s a simple question with a ton of nuance. What you’re shooting, who you’re shooting it for, and how you are portraying your work are all major factors.
When you look at your final image, you have to ask yourself some basic questions to understand where you stand.
First, are you changing the meaning of the image in a deceptive way? If you were in the audience of a photo, and found out the real image was significantly different, would that hinder your ability to appreciate it? And then you have to ask, what have they faked in the past? Can you trust their future work?
Second, has AI changed your image so much it is no longer recognizable? Have you generated something new that can’t be considered a photograph, but is instead borderline CGI? If it’s your goal, it’s one thing -- but you can’t parade it as something it simply isn’t.
And finally, are you incorporating elements that aren’t even yours? Are you adding something that’s now plagiarism? With AI tools, that’s an extremely easy trap to fall into. AI is trained on works that already exist. If someone took the beautiful bird you photographed and dropped it into their image of a tree, would you be OK with that? That’s basically what AI is doing -- and it should be unacceptable to anyone who takes their photography seriously.
Photographers who understand AI shouldn’t be afraid of it
Photographers are not new to technology disrupting their art or business. With AI, we’re grappling with a lot of the same questions Photoshop started asking over thirty years ago.
The difference here is the ease with which we utilize these tools. With Photoshop, making retouches look natural was an actual skill someone had to learn. With AI, typing “Put a bird on this branch” doesn’t take skill. It takes access to a tool that can do it.
This is why an ethical approach to photography is so important. Setting your own boundaries is critical. You are already surrounded by people who haven’t set those boundaries. When someone looks at your photo, knowing it’s the real deal will still mean something. In the age of AI, it will mean more.
AI is just the latest thing that has supposedly killed photography. People who believe that were never your target audience. They were always willing to replace you with the latest app.
The people who appreciate what a photo can communicate and aren’t willing to let AI change it were the people you were shooting for all along.
As a photographer, you’ll likely have to accept that the number of people who fall into this category is smaller than it once was. The ease of AI will win people over. Jobs that you could once count on might dry up. Photographers who remain steadfast in their craft, though, will find that creating a genuinely good image with minimal AI usage will be more rewarding.