02-AI, the replacement or the tool?

by Brandon Poirier

When I mention “AI,” what comes to your mind? Do emotions of anger or excitement arise in you? Do you feel overwhelmed or indifferent about AI. The subject of artificial intelligence has been a significant point of discussion for the past year and a half. Chat bots that initially provided amusing and disorganized responses have transformed into something much more eerie. With a single press of a button, you could produce any image, any video or text response using AI. In late 2022, Open AI, a company founded in 2015, based on the advancement of AI, unveiled ChatGPT. A large language AI model that scouts the internet and compiles that data into informational conversation with your prompt. From then on, Microsoft made their own AI software, Copilot in late 2023 and made it available at the start of 2024. They plan on having it integrated with all new windows computers with a simple click on a button. Apple just unveiled “Apple intelligence" Their own AI large language software to compete with the other big tech companies. Their AI software will be integrated with the newest IOS update starting in late 2024. As much as I wish to remove AI from my own workflow, it seems as if AI is forcefully being added into my life. Should this frighten me? Or should I embrace the new age? 

For the past 4 years, I have been using Adobe software as a key part of my photography workflow. The way I use their software, I would describe as fairly uncomplicated. Lightroom classic for culling & organizing my files. Apply some basic retouching on my images and exporting my files. Photoshop is used for more advanced editing and other endeavors. Just like other major tech firms, in late 2023 they unveiled their own AI software. Adobe “Firefly”. Unlike other AI software, their AI reflects the service they provide. Image generation, or as they call it, “Generative Fill”. This function allows the user to generate anything in their images with either a press of a button or a quick filled prompt. This recent update has changed the way creatives engage with Adobe's software. Whether you're for it, or against it, Adobe firefly has changed the photography industry. For better or worse, that for us to find out. 

The use of AI in photography?

Firefly, the large image learning software from Adobe, can eerily do more than what adobe is currently showcasing. Generative Fill has given many creatives an extensive easy to utilize tool for their specific needs. From expanding your image, to generating objects, changing the subject clothes & removing people or objects in the background. The results are, nonetheless, 50/50. Sporadically the results generated are very well executed. Other times, some elbow grease needs to be done after the image generation to finalize the image. For example, here I present an image of the groom walking his grandmother down the aisle. There are some people in the background I find relatively distracting. I selected them, right clicked and went to Generative Fill. I ask the AI to “remove people '' with a simple prompt. Here are some of the results. Incomplete generation & adding objects without asking. After a few attempts I achieved a result I liked, but needed to be retouched manually to match the perspective and look natural. 

The finished result is decent, and it didn't take me long, just around 5 minutes. In comparison to doing it manually, it took me around 15 minutes. I attempted it rather quickly to try to be efficient since every photo of the wedding party walking down the aisle has these two sitting at the back. With that in mind, which image is better. For that, I conducted a poll on my Instagram page to see if people could tell which was AI generated and which was done by a person. Subsequently, I asked which version they preferred. 55% of my viewers guessed correctly which was the AI generated retouch. Surprisingly, even without knowing which one was AI generated, 64% of the audience still preferred the second image that was not retouched by AI. Even if a retouch was done by AI, in which it would be hard to detect, if given the choice people still prefer a retouch that was done without the use of AI. 

AI photo generation in photography is nothing short of controversial. As the polls suggest, there is a preference for non-AI use in retouching. On one hand, it’s remarkably efficient. These tools offer considerable benefits to those who are not as experienced with Photoshop. Parts of the image I was planning on already retouching with the use of Photoshop could be done more efficiently with Generative fill. On the other hand, it feels disingenuous to have AI edit or change part of your image. It bothers me when It's used to fix mistakes that I could’ve corrected in the moment while the image was captured. So with that being said, Images that have a part of it edited by AI, can I still consider that art? 

AngieG. from the Medium asked the very same question in her article. If AI art is still considered art.18% said yes, that Art is Art. 58% said no, AI Art can not be considered art. 12% said that only if a small part of the images used AI. The other 12% had chosen Other. This poll encapsulates all artists and not just photographers. Although I would say the feelings are the same in the photography industry. So that’s that; AI use in images removes the art from the image. 

Going back to the image in which a background subject was removed due to being distracting. When they were retouched out of the image, my perspective didn't change. My shooting style didn’t change. My colors and exposure didn’t change. Did it really remove the art out of my image? I believe there is an argument that it does not. I would argue using AI in a non-destructive way, alters the image in a way that benefits every party and does not remove the “Art” out of the image. The section I’ve edited using AI from the example, takes 10%-15% of the entire image. It did not change the story I am trying to tell. It does not change the main subject & the location backdrop. As per the polling I made mentioned earlier. It was almost a 50 / 50 split on which Image used AI and which did not use AI. Even so, both images were retouched and had the same end result for the entire image. Although, what if it wasn’t a minor portion of the image that was retouched by AI. What if it was 100% of it. 

AI complete Image Generation

In 2023, the emergence of AI was not only marked by the popularity of text-based AI, but also AI-generated images. The two most popular software was DAll-E and Midjourney. With a simple prompt, you could generate any image you thought of. Want to generate a happy duck swimming, here you go; A generated Image of a duck swimming happily. Had something a little more complex, here is an image of an otherworldly landscape where ancient ruins of a futuristic civilization are being slowly reclaimed by a lush jungle. Above, a constellation of neon-colored gas clouds forms a mystical symbol that hovers in the sky, emitting a soft glow that illuminates a path leading into the dense foliage. In the foreground, bioluminescent creatures with iridescent scales and translucent wings flutter around ancient stone pillars adorned with glowing symbols of an unknown language. A gentle rain falls, creating ripples in the reflective pools that surround the ruins. 

When we talk about complete image generation, how does it affect photographers? Images photographers capture, they document real life. How can you replicate that? While the idea of automated AI image generation may seem exciting and harmless, it's important to note that these images could have been generated without the need for a database. A very large database. Approximately 16,000 artist works were used to create the Midjourney image generation database. The entire body of work was taken without permission; No one granted authorization for their creations to be utilized for Midjourney Image generation Database. How many professional photographer images were used to create that duck? It's likely that the number is higher than what I would like to think. Luckily, multiple copyright infringement lawsuits are currently in the works for these large learning AI models. Even so, it is not easy to prove that your work was stolen for an AI database.

The purpose of AI Image generation is to produce original images from a user's prompt. This can offer a fast & cost effective way to achieve some creative needs without the need of a professional. Unfortunately, this can affect many creative lines of work such as photographers. Here's a demonstration of what I mean. As part of your field of work, you need a professional headshot of yourself. This has to be done on your own time and out of pocket. You decide instead of paying a professional photographer to capture your headshot; You can do it for the fraction of that cost. You search online and are able to generate your own headshot effortlessly right from your bed. Playing the role of this office worker in need of a headshot, I found a free software in which I can generate my own headshot. Below I have the original Image I've taken and the one that was generated for me. Not bad, right. Clearly you can tell which is AI generated based on the quality of the image and the fact that I slimmed down 30 pounds or so. 

While yes, some circumstances may lead to the need of an AI generated headshot for professional use such as cost and accessibility, the creation of a professional headshot done through AI may showcase a lack of professionalism, independence or initiation. Most workplaces don’t really accept AI generated Headshot in relation to their company. When you use an AI generated Headshot for linkedin or your website, it lacks you. It’s not authentic to yourself. It’s a general headshot with a lack of personality.

As a photographer, when I do headshots, I try to consult my client to figure out who they are? I strive to showcase their humanity and individuality. For example, my self-portrait I did back in 2022. I wanted to do something flashy & fun but also professional. As talked about from my previous blog starting a Photography business in 2024, my branding was a modern retro style with vibrant watercolors. I got the idea to do a pop up headshot since many logos back in the 70’s & 80’s were a 3D pop out style. Which led me to the creation of my headshot shown here. 

Now I may be biased, but I prefer the headshot I made for myself. Even if I could try to recreate it with AI, it just wouldn’t feel right. Plus I rather put effort into shooting and editing then prompting and typing. 

Will AI replace photographers?

A while back, in my old apartment, my roommate mentioned how AI would change the entire digital art industry. He made comments about how people will be able to generate an image of themselves just by giving the software a selfie of themselves. He told me this “Imagine, a couple uploads a photo of them two together and asks the software to create an image of their wedding day. Boom, in a few seconds, they are both at the altar, him in a really nice suite and her in a beautiful gown. The scene is right off a beach with the perfect sunset.” I just remember laughing at him. It just felt so complex and ridiculous. Who’s laughing now. Although maybe an image generation software that's too perfect is what we exactly need.

As humans, we are everything but flawless. Mistakes are unavoidable, whether we anticipate them or not. In every wedding that I photograph, there will inevitably be some photos that are not in sharp focus. Images that may be slightly blurry. Images in which the composition or posing might not be perfect. In spite of this, these imperfections can lead to some accidental creative images. Even if the photographer is perfect, outside circumstances can lead to your wedding being perfectly imperfect. The bride may almost trip walking down the aisle before catching herself and realizing how real the moment feels. The groom may crack up a joke that’s just slightly out of place because he’s extremely nervous. The weather may not cooperate, and your wedding day received rain as a last-minute guest. A guest child may start to babble off because he’s too young to appreciate the importance of your big day. Producing you much needed laughter to destress. These moments, AI can’t replace that. 

A great deal of individuals aim for perfection, with the expectation that AI will address their imperfections. A significant number of people will either not see the issues it creates or lack the motivation to discern them. While there are indeed many who are un concern, there remains a significant number of people who do not wish to have AI Generated Art as part of their lives. In late 2023, Late night with the Devil, produced under Spooky Pictures, Future Pictures, Image Nation, VicScreen & AGC Studios. Directed by Cameron Cairnes & Colin Cairnes was released with critical acclaim. Unfortunately, the film was found under some hot waters after it was found that some of the graphics created for the film were AI generated. This decision left many unhappy and disgusted. Overnight a critically acclaimed movie was panned with negative reviews due to the use of AI generated Art. Another case of a production company using AI generative art was the 2024 war movie Civil War. This film was produced by A24, directed by Alex Garland. The decision was made to make promotional AI Generated Art to market the film. The opposite reaction that was supposed to be curated by the promotional material discouraged many from viewing the entire film.

Despite its “greatness”, artificial intelligence will leave a margin of the population disconnected. This population will want nothing to do with AI. Even if certain individuals opt for AI over employing a photographer, there will always be a need for professional photographers. Especially those who always valued the work produced by professionals and those who still value it today. Truthfully, even before AI, there was always a margin of the population that never appreciated the value in hiring a professional artist. This population is most likely the same population that would rather AI work over professional work. 

My verdict

I’ve really only scratched the surface of the ongoing AI conversation. It’s an immense subject and with many things left to be determined. Especially in the photography industry. 

So what’s my opinion about AI use by photographers?

This year I updated my contracts to state the following:

Use of AI: Poirier Photography attempts to authentically capture images without the use of AI during or in post production of your images. Whoever, AI use may be used during the post

production of your images to help speed along the process from end of session till online Gallery delivery.

Software: AI software used during post production is Adobe Firefly service attached with Photoshop 2024 & Lightroom Classic 2024.

These may include;

-Use of Auto Tone, Colour & White Balance Correction,

-Generatif Fill is used to remove distracting or unwanted objects or people in the background or foreground of your images.

This may not include;

-Changing backgrounds,

-Fixing severe in Camera mistakes,

-Altering Subject appearance, clothes or anything related to the subject in the photo,

-Adding objects in background or foreground.

Agreement: The Client(s) agrees to have the possibility of their final images be edited with the help of AI in subtle, non distracting or altering ways in which the subject, location, or any

elements of the final image is not distracting, unrecognizable or ruined by AI use.