The lead image of this story wasn’t made using AI or Photoshop — but when I showed it to a Gen Z friend who looked at it on my phone, she thought it was made with AI. The reason why was because she didn’t think that what I did could’ve been done in-camera. Plus, the man in the scene is really popping out of the background because of the use of white balance and flash. That’s what flash duration does — acts as a second shutter speed to stop motion. But photographers have been taught for a while that in order to make images like this, you have to do compositing, perhaps use some generative AI, or use something like Gaussian Blur on the background. Those people tend to be more Photoshop artists than photographers. So, if you’re nothing without Photoshop, should you really be a photographer at all?
I can import an image into Photoshop and probably use AI prompts to do a lot of the heavy lifting these days. But in the end, the image would probably be more of a photo composite than a photograph. The problem here is that since the beginning of photography, folks have been misleading others — and it’s that we be honest here.
If you’re only working on a single image, then what you’re doing is making a photograph.
If you’re importing something in from another photograph to composite it into the frame, then it’s a composite. By that definition, if an HDR image is made using bracketed photos, then it’s a composite. But that composite can be made in-camera. Still, it’s a composite.
However, some options make an HDR image from a single photo by adjusting the dynamic range to that single photo. This isn’t a composite — it’s intentional processing and editing done by the camera.
A multiple exposure photo done in-camera is a composite — but it’s still a composite done in-camera. One that’s done in post-production is also still a composite. So what’s the difference? A multiple exposure done in-camera requires you to do it in-camera — therefore then making you a photographer. The latter requires you to do it in post-production — therefore then making it Photoshop art. Both of these forms are a type of art in the form of imaging — but only one can be called a photograph because it was all done with a camera. A retoucher or anyone with photoshop can take two images and put them together — therefore then meaning that they don’t need a camera to make an iimage.
All of these are things that I’ve thought of recently in the past. Vanity Fair recently released an article on how photography these days is completely untethered. In fact, it argues that photography for a while has been very disingenuous to capturing reality because digital imagery throws away so much of the information and only records certain areas of the frame. Of course, modern cameras also have high-resolution modes that lets you get those pixels back for the most part.
It’s a valid point, but by that thinking, we can make a photograph with generative AI. But the problem then is that what generative AI is making aren’t photographs — they’re composites. And this is what we have to do with photography — be authentic about telling people what’s what.
Here’s the thing: when I was in first grade, one of the most fun projects that I worked on was making a diorama with dinosaurs inside of a shoe box. I still remember it very vividly. I used grass, dirt, glue, plastic toy dinosaurs, and more to make it along with glue, etc. Plus, I had to draw a background of some sort using paper and crayons and then glue it to the inside of the box. But I wouldn’t call that a sculpture simply because it isn’t all made of clay, resin, etc. to make up the scene. It’s a composite of a bunch of different materials and such. In the theater and cinema world, you’d call that a set. And in many ways, I think that Generative AI is first-grade Chris making a diorama.
With that said, it’s definitely not first-grade Chris making a sculpture of a single or multiple pieces of clay to construct an entire scene. At the same time, generative AI isn’t making the scene when I set up a product shot, light it, and then photograph it.
In contrast, a song can be a remix — but still considered to be a song. Though in the music world, we give credit to the multiple artists involved. So why can’t we do that with photographs?
