The Untold Promise of AI Imaging | Artificial Intelligence | Articles | Ant Smith

Hysteria abounds regards the 'threat' to photography that AI imaging techniques pose.

But, these 'threats', as is ever the case in a climate of change, are also opportunities.

[AI is just some marketing term. Sometimes called Neural Filters, because that's an exciting term yeah? We're really talking about simple 'big data machine learning' - ie. don't forget the robots can only 'create' that which they have seen before!]

On Authenticity

I've written previously on the nature of authenticity - on how it comes not from the lens nor the algorithm, but rather from the heart of the creator. The camera provides no more a true view than does the computer screen. Things can be excluded from the field of view, perhaps even physically removed. Or else deliberately posed for the benefit of the camera. But more than that, the decision of what to photograph (and what not to photograph) creates a bias; contains in itself a subjectivity. But more than that, the very mechanics of the camera (its sensitometric characteristics and optical projections) create only an impression of 'reality'; certainly not a true record of 'how things were'.

And yet there is a seemingly unassailable mythology that, given due care and attention, photographs can be 'evidential'.People get quite upset when the idea is questioned. But when a photojournalist embeds themselves with one or other of the agressors in a Theatre of War, can their work honestly be considered 'objective truth'? Can we gloss over the fact that war images are, at least at times, staged?

And are the images somehow more real if they are staged in the field rather than manipulated on-screen?

Fretting over AI's corruption of the authenticity of the image is a false opposition. This idea that images are fundamentally 'true', unless corrupted by process, is pure nonsense. A nonsense that leads us open to propaganda and deep manipulations of our emotions and our mental well being.

This sudden appearance of AI technologies upsets our deep rooted faith in the photographic image. But that is how it should be, because that faith is misplaced - and like most faiths, downright dangerous.

If faith has any place at all in our lives, it should be placed in the creator not the creations. "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth"; and photography is art. Of course it's easier to pretend that the camera is some kind of dispassionate scientific instrument, than to accept that our belief in its creations is a matter of faith. But I believe to do so diminishes the likes of Capa by discounting the artifice he employed to tell us greater truths. He was more than just a remote robotic eye.

Far from bemoaning the artifice of AI interventions, we should take this opportunity to reassess our relationship with The Image.

On Ownership

When I finished Project 269 (one image of each station on the London Underground) I sat down with TfL™ and agreed which images I could do what I wanted with; and which would be commertcially restricted - on account of TfL's claimed ownership of the 'Roundel' device. Despite going to all this trouble with them, TfL have ever since routinely complained to RedBubble about my work. So here I've edited the image to eradicate their so-called- intellectual property from my picture. I rather like the result!

Fender did the same to me, because the head of a guitar that they made once upon a time appeared in a shot I had used as a christmas card. Volkswagen too, complaining about a shot that included 'Herbie' in the middle of a parade.

As an amateur photographer who might sell as many as 6 christmas cards a year, I have to contend with endless Big Brand Bullies. They litter our day-to-day environment with their logos and products - then have the audacity to complain when those same things turn up in our photographs..? It's absolutely ridiculous. Of course the online platforms side with the bullies and simply remove any effected work whether the complaint is 'reasonable' or not.

I am free to counter the claim. But then the online platform will pass my contact details on to the complainant so they can take legal action against me (they say)... it's a stacked game.

So the idea that I can pay whatever royalty and get my computer to generate a car, or a guitar, is suddenly a little intriguing. Or better still, get a robot to eradictae all trace of TfL from my images.

There's a sense of democratisation here. Perhaps a chance for the little-guy to fight back against the mighty corporations. At least somewhat.

Who owns any part of any image in a world where our entire environment has been built by, or else is owned by, someone else?

The whole idea of ownership is deeply suss.

It certainly isn't solid ground on which to base an argument for or against AI interventions.

I welcome the day when anyone can create any image they like, without restrictions. If AI helps with that then Bravo! We can't all manage to negotiate freedoms with the Big Brand Bullies, or hop on a plane to some exortic location. But we can all have a creative eye and any tool that broadens the access to image making is a thing to be welcomed.

On Parity

There's a fear that unbridled use of AI will give some of us 'an advantage'. We don't need to be quite as skilled, or lucky, to get that magic shot if we can afford to pay the robots to make it for us.

See if you can tell which image above is an actual shot of a stage performance and which is AI generated.

When it comes to generating entire things through the power of AI the results are basically laughable. For sure they'll get better, but I seriously do wonder if they will ever be good enough.

And that's not just a matter of the quality of the render (the generated image here makes the guitar look distinctly plastic). When all other considerations are taken into account (object perspective, position, rotation, lighting and unique character) generative content will fail to please.

Perhaps for replacing patches of grass, or entire skies (if that's your thing) AI generative fills might be useful. Sometimes. For some images.

But the reality is we will come to see a handful of truly awesome pictures whose suprise and novelty will wane remarkably quickly. Then we'll see a flood of poorly executed Frankensteins - exactly as happened when HDR stunned us all.

The practical reality won't be that we're all constantly 'beaten' by robotic imaginings. Advertisers might end up saving a few bucks by using these kinds of tools, but they won't stand up (certainly with any longevity) in the creative world.

The eye is very keen, and it can sense fakery.

AI isn't just about generating something from nothing. Its getting very good at sensing the difference between detail and noise, and also in defining boundaries (detecting subjects, objects and backgrounds).

When managing noise, sharpness and selections AI is wholly operating on the pixels we captured; it isn't importing them from somewhere else or making them up from nothing. Should we draw a distinction between interpolative and generative AI tools? The former being entirely appropriate to the digital photographer and the latter reserved for the world of digital image making?

I think so, although it seems too fine a nuance to ever be understood in the main.

Interpolative AI represents very fine tooling for the digital photographer. Generative AI not so much, but it will at least be a flash in the pan...

Wrap-up

The one thing we can't do is halt progress. In fact the very idea is the highest treason in a capitalist system. Progress fuels markets fuels profits - but can of course be disruptive. And it is this threat to the livelihood of the profiteers of the status quo that more fuels the 'AI' debate. Follow the money. AI is a real threat to a small clutch of 'industry specialists': Camera sales, top-flight commercial photographers, magazine advertising revenues, etc, etc, etc... But is more democratic and enabling to the genuine, authentic, image maker.

So AI (or rather machine learning) is here and is here to stay. We can rail against it, if we wish to live a futile life. Or we can take the challenges it presents as an opportunity for growth.

It is the provenance of The Artist, not the pixels, that helps us realise truth.

And if you're interested in the real threats of AI read my next article on the subject.

A few of my commercially banned images from Project 269. The original agreement was that I should not commercialise photographs of the roundel, but it would be fine if the roundel was just 'part of the scene'. Obviously that's pretty subjective and some of the complaints made me think 'oh well, fair enough'. There's a fair few here though where the complaint seems pretty unfair to me, but hey - you can make your own minds up as to whether TfL™ are one of those Big Brand Bullies I mentioned earlier...