I found myself photographing a tiger the other day, as one does! More on that, and my surprise in a future post. The age old problem of course are the bars between him and me! Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they were there, or was I? More on that too! The photo was as expected, then a thought crossed my mind – bung it in Ai and ask it to “remove the bars”. I reckon I could do it in photoshop myself, but it would take me ages! Here’s what I got….
First of all, if I just presented this image would you look twice or just accept it as is? I’m not sure I’d know anything was amiss and I was there!! I like the image, it’s a good image of a tiger, but it’s not the tiger I saw. Ai has done more than “remove the bars”. It has obviously been trained on “photo’s of tigers” and found the closest “good one” to use. Compared to mine, it’s markings are different – close, but different. It’s paw is different too. The instruction was to “remove the bars” not create, edit or invent the tiger too!
I guess what “worries” me about this is not so much my playing with my image – image manipulation has being going on pretty much as long as we’ve been able to make images, but that Ai has got to the point where it’s indistinguishable and it’s becoming all about trusting the source.
Ai of course doesn’t just do images, important as they are. Businesses use Ai all time to write, order and correct writing, in order to save the “author” time. Does said author always read the result fully and carefully? If not, why not? If not – who knows what may be in there! If said author does, then how much time has actually been saved? What then, is Ai actually worth?
BBC now has an entire “verify” department. Some of the video I see, I wonder how anybody would think it’s real, but I’m visually “switched on” – many aren’t. Some are very good and less easy to spot. I’m thinking of the “head replacement” of President Obama a couple of years back – if I’d seen it on some you-tube channel I’d have doubted it – if I saw it on BBC would I have questioned it? It’s long been time to question the source. When someone says to me “did you hear about….” the first question I now ask is where did you hear that from? In other words, is it a trusted source.
My photo of a tiger is of no consequence – did you recently watch the coverage of the Artemis II mission? What did you see? What do you think you saw? What did you actually see? Did you even consider what you were watching? I didn’t! For the record I’m not suggesting for one moment that anything is wrong or fake about the Artemis II mission, in fact I’m really excited about it. The point is I sat up (11:30pm here) and watched the launch. Same again for the splashdown (1.07 am! here) – I trusted the BBC and never even thought about what I was watching.
Of course an image in a piece of analogue film is harder to fake or is it?
S.H.O.U.T. 
Nice post, Andy.
I’ve use the generative AI function in Photoshop sometimes as a glorified spot removal tool for larger blemishes – water marks, scratches, that sort of thing – and it often does a very good job. But not always. It doesn’t (yet!) always replicate the film grain in the replacement sections, leaving oddly smooth blobs or stripes which, while probably not noticeable on smaller resolution displays, are quite apparent to me if I look at the full size version.
I’ve nothing against using AI (or other tools) for these types of re-touching jobs – it’s essentially the same things as, say, using inks to retouch scratches on a darkroom print, just using a more advanced technology.
Like you, I don’t want to use it to change the scene though. I like the fact that a photograph is a record of the scene that existed in that moment and my attempt to capture it for posterity / art / personal satisfaction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nige! Yes, that’s the point, if I make a photo of something then it’s that point in time “the decisive moment”! If one changes the sky and sticks something else in the foreground, for me that steps over the boundary of retouching, into creating. Not that I’m against creation either but either make it obvious that it is a creation or label it as such, I say.
The wider point is that I think it’s got to the stage when we are not really sure what we are looking at these days, except when it’s poorly done and that is surprisingly often. I’m thinking of solar panel pop up adverts for example. Now I must find those holiday pics of me driving my red Ferrari in the Arctic 🙂 Cheers Andy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience about AI use in photography. There is no way to stop the train, but it is worthwhile to spend some time considering how we all got on and where it is going. I think the ultimate effect will be even more profound than the switch from analog techniques to digital. Discussions about that change tended to focus on aesthetic and ethical issues, but economic, political and psychological effects need consideration as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mike! I quite agree that there is no stopping the train! From a creative point of view I think some aspects of Ai are great, the issue I have is that “photographically” just about anything can be created with such realism that anything becomes easy to fake. In my early years I used to sell outer boxes of Polaroid 600 film to the council (20 twin packs at a time) for the wardens issuing parking fines! They had to take a photo, 35mm was too long winded and early digital was apparently not considered “safe for legal use”. I’ve sold cameras the RSPCA and back in the day they has to have a date function to burn into the film or they were no use for “court use”! All of that has long since gone digital but I wonder where Ai leaves all that – especially when things can be changed at pixel level!! I’m reminded of the ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times!!”
Loved you Optimist’s Creed BTW – I may just have to print that… Cheers Andy
LikeLike