Will AI Ruin the Art of Photography?

[MarshallG]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis. They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis.

Not just Apple iPhones but a number of "proper" cameras including Sony and Nikon have been able to do that for years.

They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

I think some painters expressed the same fears when photography was first invented. But there are still plenty of people enjoying taking classes in how to draw and paint likenesses of people and things, despite any camera being able to do it much better.

Why do you think AI being able to do something better will spoil the fun of doing it yourself? For decades we've been able to buy chess playing programs or apps which can play chess much better than we can, but that hasn't stopped people having fun playing chess.

 

[Krusty79]

I think AI will get better and better at producing good exposures, but I don't think AI can master composition and timing. I'm sure there will be algorithms to use the rule of thirds or something similar, but when will the AI know when it's time to break the rules? Or when is just the right moment to snap that portrait of a kid? Photographers have visions of how they want the final image to appear - AI lacks that vision.

If programmers can design an algorithm to capture emotion in a photo, then I'll really be surprised and impressed.

 

[MarshallG]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis.

Not just Apple iPhones but a number of "proper" cameras including Sony and Nikon have been able to do that for years.

They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

I think some painters expressed the same fears when photography was first invented. But there are still plenty of people enjoying taking classes in how to draw and paint likenesses of people and things, despite any camera being able to do it much better.

Why do you think AI being able to do something better will spoil the fun of doing it yourself? For decades we've been able to buy chess playing programs or apps which can play chess much better than we can, but that hasn't stopped people having fun playing chess.

 

[Aaron801]

No... AI might be able to produce more reliable exposures, just as improving tech has done with auto exposure in cameras already for years. What makes a photo really striking though is the creative choices that a photographer makes not any kind of perceived "perfection" with the technical aspects. As far as the pulling shadows thing, there are lots and lots of great shots that are great in part to created use of limited DR, so just being able to do HDR effects automatically isn't going to suddenly make everyone a brilliant photographer... far from it.

 

[Bobthearch]

A.I. isn't going to help people get out there where the photos are.

Or maybe it will? Zoom in with Google Earth, click on a location, and Google Photo A.I. creates a beautiful image of what it imagines the spot looks like. And all with wonderful lighting, interesting subjects, and 'artistic' compositions added right in...

 

[Burnt to a Crisp]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

 

[TacticDesigns]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis.

Not just Apple iPhones but a number of "proper" cameras including Sony and Nikon have been able to do that for years.

They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

I think some painters expressed the same fears when photography was first invented.

+1

I read that.

But ultimately certain artists ended up using photography / cameras to enhance their painting / art.

Using photographs as references in their paintings.

Finally proving that a horse can have all four legs off the ground at the same time! LOL.

Motion studies turned into showing motion in painting . . . Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Stair Case No2.

But there are still plenty of people enjoying taking classes in how to draw and paint likenesses of people and things, despite any camera being able to do it much better.

Why do you think AI being able to do something better will spoil the fun of doing it yourself? For decades we've been able to buy chess playing programs or apps which can play chess much better than we can, but that hasn't stopped people having fun playing chess.

 

[Aaron801]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[Burnt to a Crisp]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

You think so? In an era when we have self-taught AI that has become the world's greatest Go player?

This ability to self-train without human input is a crucial step towards the dream of creating a general AI that can tackle any task.

Surely, judging a mere photograph better than a biased human isn't too tall of an order for such a formidable creation.

Self-taught AI is best yet at strategy game Go - Nature

Artificial-intelligence program AlphaGo Zero trained in just days, without any human input.

www.nature.com

 

[TacticDesigns]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

FWIW . . . automated photography!

Automated Studio 'Live' Is Set To Take Photography Jobs In Product, Catalogue, & Fashion

The writing has been on the wall for ages, and loosely translated it reads: much of photography will be automated by the time you wake up tomorrow. But if you’ll forgive me for saying, photographers aren’t too often a group that adopts and embraces a shifting tide as the wave forms, as much as a...

www.slrlounge.com

Take care & Happy (automated) shooting!


--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .

My Favs

Some of my personal favourites from over the years . . .

www.flickr.com

[FL][RP][LS]

 

[Bobthearch]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have.

Maybe that's good? Instead of being judged subjectively, like a figure skating, photography will be judged more objectively, like basketball.

Never again would be an un-winning photographer wonder what childhood memory or personal prejudice influenced the human judges. Could A.I. be bribed, or influenced by personal and business connections?

Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

That's the whole point of A.I., to teach itself as it advances and accumulates experiences. Ideally it would learn which photos benefit from deviation of the 'rules'.



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[Aaron801]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

You think so? In an era when we have self-taught AI that has become the world's greatest Go player?

This ability to self-train without human input is a crucial step towards the dream of creating a general AI that can tackle any task.

Surely, judging a mere photograph better than a biased human isn't too tall of an order for such a formidable creation.

With all due respect, what you're proposing seems so preposterous to me that I can't really be sure that you're not pulling my leg.





Judgement of a piece of visual art, or really any art be it a novel, a movie, a piece of music, painting, etc is always going to be a subjective judgement. It just doesn't make sense to take a way the human element of something that's especially a human expression... It's not a math problem where there's a right and wrong answer.



--

my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[tony field]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis. They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

I have no idea if it will ruin photography or help improve it. Imagine pointing your camera at a beautiful mountain scene, a girl in a fashion setting, a piece of beautiful architecture, a family scene, Etc. & having your camera tell you that this is a good or bad or otherwise photograph.

In a way we are already there... In a sense that a program can evaluate your jpeg images.

Evaluate your photos at this site. If your camera is attached to the internet, the artificial intelligence embedded in the program could guide you in pressing your shutter button. Effectively your role as a photographer is seriously reduced. Maybe for some Shooters this would be a benefit since you would now only take good pictures.

The everypixel.com Site seems very sophisticated. It even gives a reasonable indication about "how good a photographer you are" it is fun to try and figure out what intelligence guides to the evaluation process.

 

[Bobthearch]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

You think so? In an era when we have self-taught AI that has become the world's greatest Go player?

This ability to self-train without human input is a crucial step towards the dream of creating a general AI that can tackle any task.

Surely, judging a mere photograph better than a biased human isn't too tall of an order for such a formidable creation.

With all due respect, what you're proposing seems so preposterous to me that I can't really be sure that you're not pulling my leg.

Judgement of a piece of visual art, or really any art be it a novel, a movie, a piece of music, painting, etc is always going to be a subjective judgement. It just doesn't make sense to take a way the human element of something that's especially a human expression... It's not a math problem where there's a right and wrong answer.

The results of photo competitions are very much black-and-white, either Yes or No. The photo won, or it didn't. It was the Right photo, or it was the Wrong photo.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[TacticDesigns]

I read that Apple employs 800 engineers who work specifically on camera technology. As we know, these technologies apply more and more computing power to the act of taking a photograph. They analyze everything in the scene — they detect faces, judge exposure based on a AI algo’s, etc, etc...

At some point, this tech will expose a very high DR and automatically lift shadows based on very advanced scene analysis. They might even crop the photo, shift its colors, and do everything short of composing it for you... which they may somewhat do as well.

I just wonder if we will reach a point where there’s no joy left in being a photographer and creating images, because point and shoot will have so much of its own intelligence.

I have no idea if it will ruin photography or help improve it. Imagine pointing your camera at a beautiful mountain scene, a girl in a fashion setting, a piece of beautiful architecture, a family scene, Etc. & having your camera tell you that this is a good or bad or otherwise photograph.

In a way we are already there... In a sense that a program can evaluate your jpeg images.

Evaluate your photos at this site. If your camera is attached to the internet, the artificial intelligence embedded in the program could guide you in pressing your shutter button. Effectively your role as a photographer is seriously reduced. Maybe for some Shooters this would be a benefit since you would now only take good pictures.

The everypixel.com Site seems very sophisticated. It even gives a reasonable indication about "how good a photographer you are" it is fun to try and figure out what intelligence guides to the evaluation process.

 

[Aaron801]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

You think so? In an era when we have self-taught AI that has become the world's greatest Go player?

This ability to self-train without human input is a crucial step towards the dream of creating a general AI that can tackle any task.

Surely, judging a mere photograph better than a biased human isn't too tall of an order for such a formidable creation.

With all due respect, what you're proposing seems so preposterous to me that I can't really be sure that you're not pulling my leg.

Judgement of a piece of visual art, or really any art be it a novel, a movie, a piece of music, painting, etc is always going to be a subjective judgement. It just doesn't make sense to take a way the human element of something that's especially a human expression... It's not a math problem where there's a right and wrong answer.

The results of photo competitions are very much black-and-white, either Yes or No. The photo won, or it didn't. It was the Right photo, or it was the Wrong photo.

Yes, but the decision that lead to that judgment wasn't an objective call at all, it's still an opinion and that's how art works...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[Bobthearch]

To the contrary, advances in AI are poised to restore a modicum of respectability to the art of photography and how it is judged.

Here's just one example:

Google's New AI Can Score Photos on Technical and Aesthetic Quality

Google has introduced a new AI system that's trained to rate photos on whether or not they are good technically and attractive aesthetically. It's called

petapixel.com

I call BS on that... A computer is in no way equipped to judge aesthetics or especially the context and emotional power that a photo can have. Even as far as technical merits I'd say that it doesn't make sense to use this kind of thing as a judge. A lot of great photos are technically "wrong" but have broken the rules for a specific effect and that's what gives them their power...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

You think so? In an era when we have self-taught AI that has become the world's greatest Go player?

This ability to self-train without human input is a crucial step towards the dream of creating a general AI that can tackle any task.

Surely, judging a mere photograph better than a biased human isn't too tall of an order for such a formidable creation.

With all due respect, what you're proposing seems so preposterous to me that I can't really be sure that you're not pulling my leg.

Judgement of a piece of visual art, or really any art be it a novel, a movie, a piece of music, painting, etc is always going to be a subjective judgement. It just doesn't make sense to take a way the human element of something that's especially a human expression... It's not a math problem where there's a right and wrong answer.

The results of photo competitions are very much black-and-white, either Yes or No. The photo won, or it didn't. It was the Right photo, or it was the Wrong photo.

Yes, but the decision that lead to that judgment wasn't an objective call at all, it's still an opinion and that's how art works...

That's how A.I. could work too, the A.I. gives an opinion based on it's programming and experience. A.I. is not static, it's intelligent and it learns.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[tony field]

I think AI will get better and better at producing good exposures, but I don't think AI can master composition and timing. I'm sure there will be algorithms to use the rule of thirds or something similar, but when will the AI know when it's time to break the rules? Or when is just the right moment to snap that portrait of a kid? Photographers have visions of how they want the final image to appear - AI lacks that vision.

AI has the ability to learn about photographs. You can see this in action with your photographs by exploring this webpage with your images It can be surprisingly revealing and entertaining.

Humm. the link does not work. go to https://everypixel.com

If programmers can design an algorithm to capture emotion in a photo, then I'll really be surprised and impressed.

 

[yardcoyote]

Just because somebody makes something it doesn't mean you have to use it.