AI ain't fine art!

Back in pre-digital days, taking a great photograph required an array of artistic, camera and dark room skills.  As such, fine art photography remained the domain of the true professional or dedicated enthusiast with deep pockets.​  Then along came 'Digital' and the imaging world changed forever.  

 

At the outset many purists, including myself, were very wary.  On the one hand, the amazingly potent imaging programme Photoshop was welcomed in how it empowered the refining and manipulation of high resolution scanned film files.  Yet on the other, there was the digital camera!  

 

The early hybrids of the late 80's were ugly, cumbersome, outrageously expensive (+£22k), painfully temperamental and took horrible 2MB files that required much attention in 'post-processing'.  Something that when over-indulged by attention seekers and sensationalist red-top newspapers, introduced the derogatory term 'photoshopped' into common day usage and sullied professional photography's good name to this day.

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

However as the years passed, the digital camera came of age.  Incredibly hi-resolution sensors and the Raw file format brought the winds of change.  To the point where not even the harshest critic could deny the medium's incredible versatility and creative potential.  Beyond its excellent durability, digital photography now matched, and in many areas, exceeded the capabilities of film.  And the skills required in fine art digital image editing, proofing and printing aligned with those of the darkroom.

​

Yet, as ever, commercialism will always win the day.  Huge investment from Imaging's biggest names saw the medium streamlined and repositioned to attract the attention of the mass market.  Soon it became accessible to anyone interested who had the money to buy a digital camera and a lap top loaded with derivative imaging software.  

 

A brave new world

​

This opened up a brave new world for enthusiasts both old and new and the digital photography market burgeoned.  Many educational bodies and institutions (often with few or no artistic credentials) jumped on the bandwagon, opened up photography departments and offered certificated courses.  Digital training books and CDs flew off the shelves, while on-line 'how to' videos were streamed inexorably on a new online resource called You Tube.  Suddenly everyone was a 'photographer' and the line between analogue professional struggling with Photoshop and computer savvy newcomer was blurred indistinguishably to the untrained eye.  

​

The subsequent DSLR boom, that saw sales doubling year-on-year from 2000 to 2011, turned commercial photography on its head.  By 2010 the market was oversaturated with naive graduates, 'semi-pros' and cheap online stock outlets who were being exploited by penny-pinching clients.  After all, as one said to me "A little bit of tweaking on the computer and any snap will be fine!" 

​

Or would it?..

​​

For now, all these years later, the imaging world is 99% digital and computer generated imagery (CGI) has been re-packaged under the more marketable term artificial intelligence  And the blinkered acceptance of 'AI' is threatening the integrity of photography as a true art form.

 

While many consider AI a relatively new development, it's been around in the background since digital's birth.  A prime example comes from the days of slow dial-up modems and expensive storage.  Commercial business interests that relied on digital imaging needed something to speed things up and bring down costs.  So they greedily got behind the introduction of an image file format that was based on a built-in lossy-based ('artificially intelligent') algorithm.  A clever digital interloper that interrogated an image file's make-up and alongside sharpening and enhancing the colours, it compacted its pixel count, colouration and dpi levels, to shrink its size when saving and closing.  It could then be exported, transferred and downloaded far quicker, and stored more economically.  Then, upon reopening the file, the algorithm kicked in again to magically reinstate something closer to the file's original size parameters.  

​

'Jury of Photographic Experts Group'

​

​This all sounded great, but in fact it was all smoke and mirrors.  Because the quality of the original image was being permanently degraded every time the file was shrunk, saved, exported, opened, closed and re-saved.  So to give the process credibility, the developers announced a grandiosely named, independent 'Jury of Photographic Experts Group' had overseen and agreed upon the integrity of the algorithm's settings.  The resulting file format was called a .jpg and almost overnight it became the industry standard.  Because it was okay for what it was intended for; speedy, cheap transfer and storage.  Yet for the quality conscious Fine Art Photographer it was crap!  Saving to .jpg cannibalised pixels, over-egged colouration, mashed the tonal palette and crudely exaggerated detail.  When zoomed into on screen or looked at under a linen tester, the extent of the damage between .jpg and original file was clear to see.

 

And while the .jpg's AI algorithm has been enhanced over the years, this deception carries on to this day.  I never use .jpg's for anything other than online applications, and only then with strict manual control over the profiling. 

 

In the last few years AI has become ever more powerful and readily accessible.  And in many ways, so it should!  Because it offers universal attributes and benefits that are relevant to us all.  We are told AI is set to transform our lives and (as long as it doesn't become fully sentient and try to eradicate mankind!), it get's my vote...​ Except when it comes to Fine Art Photography.  

 

From Photograph to AI-composit

​

For lazily relying on artificially regurgitated iterations to make a picture is in not true art!  As soon as presets, plug-ins, brushes, effects, HDR filters, sky replacements etc., etc. have been applied, a digital photograph has undergone a fundamental change in integrity.  It has gone from Photograph to 'AI-composit' and should be flagged as such and kept well away from fine art photography.  Otherwise we are blindly heading down a path where, once again, commercial interests, assisted by consumer indifference, are degrading the true skill and creative inspiration in our wonderful art.

​

To put this viewpoint into perspective.  While I always capture my images 'in camera', in much the same way darkroom techniques and print substrates can be used to bring out the best in a film image, there are many refining measures in my digital workflow.  Yet each one is a considered, manual enhancement that I am in complete control of.  They are not artificially dictated.

​

Back in 2022, we had a stand at the NEC Photography Show.  One afternoon, I left Sam and Garry to it and went for a wander.  I dropped in on the Live Stage just as the speaker said something to the effect of... 'Either embrace AI in your photography workflow or be swept away!'  

​

Software crutches to support lame processing skills

​

I was gobsmacked!  A thesaurus of emotions erupted to my usually placid surface.  Puzzled, perplexed and dumbfounded, right through to outraged, annoyed and, not least, bloody worried!  For this sweeping statement openly vocalised what I had until then considered the surreptitious adoption of software crutches to support lame processing skills. 

​

And here it's worth looking at the evolution of imaging hardware, for it has relevance to my argument.

​

I first went into a 'Digital Imaging Suite' back in 1986.  Set up by one of London's largest Colour Houses at a cost of over £2m, it was a state-of-the-new-art, air conditioned, windowless room housing a huge IBM computer cabinet the size of a freezer and a massive monitor propped on a desk.  In an adjoining room was an even bigger film scanner.  

 

The sales rep and owner had invited me to come in and take a look and I was wholly impressed.  What I was told the set-up could achieve was simply mind-blowing... As was the £250 per hour charge!  So unfortunately, while I wanted to be at the leading edge, I knew none of my accounts would bear such costs.

 

Up until now, when I needed to change or adapt a film image, I would show a highly experienced lab technician the 5"x 4" or 10"x8" transparency in question, and brief him on what I needed to achieve through what was called Photo-Composition.  A skilful, labour intensive and therefore costly process that entailed film duplication, dissection, matting and retouching.  And once in receipt of the finished 'Photocomp tranny' it was never a good idea to look at it too closely, and certainly never through a linen tester!

 

But now, a few days later, here I was talking to an 'Imaging Technician' regarding the seemingly insurmountable problem I had with a young puppy's willy and poo!  For I was working on Andrex toilet tissue, and after a horrendous studio shoot (that totally vindicated adopting the adage 'Never work with children or animals'), here I was with the only 5"x4" to come from a day's shoot, that vaguely suited the portrait format of the Adshell poster the client had kindly added to the shoot itinerary after we had wound up!

​

It featured an ebullient puppy, rolling on its back amongst a lovely white nest of loo paper.  Eyes in perfect focus, cheeky expression, mouth open (but not too far), an adorable pink tongue just popping over the perfect milk teeth and the softish depth of field required for the leading brand of bum-wipe.  Everything was ideal!  Other than this was a puppy dog and his 'little chap' was on full display and he had a big scuff of excrement on his flank!  

​

The willy and poo had to go!

 

To add some context here.  It took a team of four professional cleaners a day to go through the hire studio and clean up the mess made by six excitable puppies that had yet to be 'potty trained'.  As a result, between the constant naps and interminable defecation, and the fact we were shooting for multiple doggies in a landscape format, this single transparency was the only choice I had.  Neither the budget nor timings were there to convene another shoot, so the willy and poo had to go!  But how could such thing be achieved for reproduction at such a large size?

​

A bright idea popped into my head and I had called my friendly Colour House rep.

​

So here I was in the Digital Imaging Suite, sat in front of a 'Display' ready for my puppy to 'Load up'.  For the 5"x4" had been 'Scanned in' and 'Imported' onto the 'System'.  Swirling a large 'Mouse' on his 'Mouse mat' with a flourish, the operator revealed a 'Drop down menu' and selected the 'Image file' on the 'Desktop' and 'Clicked' 'Open' to 'Launch it'.  

 

Ooooh!.. all this new terminology was so exciting!  Especially for the techie who was just loving dropping them and looking at me as though I too should be in some sort of digital ecstasy as we sat and waited for my puppy to appear.  

 

The screen dimmed to grey and the room filled with a deep whirring hum as a small, colourful spinning 'Icon' appeared centre screen,..  and we sat and watched its rainbow spiralling...

​

Then the whirring intensified as the 'Fans' 'Cut in' and there were a series of whines and clicks.  And just as the thought this might be a prank and any second Jeremy Beadle would barge in to say I was a twat, the screen went blank and then slowly, line by line, the image of my little golden retriever manifested in front of my eyes.  "Bugger me that's good!" I exclaimed, as I leant forward and gawped at the incredible detail.  It was indeed truly great stuff!

​

The first thing now was to get rid of the offending appendage.  So the technician selected an 'Eraser tool', entered a few typed parameters and then brandished the 'Cursor' across the puppy's abdomen.

​

Cue the greyed screen, spinning icon and lots of whirring...  and we sat and waited...​ ...and waited... for a full five minutes.

 

A burning £10 note

​

Just before I was going to suggest a burning £10 note might have been a better choice of icon, the spiralling stopped and the image reappeared line after line, but this time a neat grey and white chequered area now appeared where once had been a little knob!

​

Then he 'Selected' another tool that 'Copied and Pasted' a nice inoffensive area of tummy and 'Brushed over' the grey area,..

 

...Spinning icons, whirring, waiting etc. etc. ... and after a few refining tweaks, quite miraculously the little willy was seamlessly replaced by lovely, soft puppy tummy.  The digital emasculation was unbelievably good! 

 

The same process saw the nasty smear disappear in the much the same way.  Some two hours later with the job completed, the owner came in to join us with a glass of bubbly to toast his new set-up.  And no doubt, in his mind, to ease the delivery of what he thought was going to be a £500 + vat invoice.  

 

Yet I had negotiated a discounted 'trial charge' of just £150.  So I thought I'd sup up and let the sales rep to inform him of the fact later.  Instead I waxed lyrical at the amazing result conjured by the impressive new technology.  And it was just as we leant in to the screen to look at the detail, the screen went blank and the system 'Crashed'!

 

A stoney silence filled the room.

​

"You did press 'Save' didn't you?" the owner insisted.  And when I saw the ashen look on the imaging technician's face, I knew it was time to for me to leave, and for him to start all over again!

​

I mention all this because it highlights not only the digital medium's incredible capability but also how quickly it evolved.  For the year after this took place, Adobe launched Photoshop.  Admittedly it took another five years before Apple made a computer that had the processing power to truly unleash its full potential.  But by 1992, with your Power Mac, Photoshop and hi-res Desktop Scanner standing in at under £3,500, you had easily surpassed the imaging capabilities of the colour house's £2,000,000 investment just six years earlier!

​

It's also worthwhile mentioning the evolution of the software market.  Because it too has had a heavy hand in leading to where we are today.

​

After enjoying Photoshop's twenty year stranglehold on the photo editing market, by 2007 Adobe's grip was loosening.  All the DSLR newcomers and struggling analogue pros looking to convert wanted an accessible, affordable, image editing (and storage) solution.  And this was not Photoshop!  For 'PS' had grown into a digital imaging behemoth that, alongside fine art photography and digital printing, worked right across graphic & web design, illustration, video and 3D art.  For those users whose skills had grown alongside these bourgeoning assets there was a natural progression to everything.  Yet to the uninitiated they presented PS's Achilles heel.  

​​

The magic word 'Pro'

​

The myriad of applications, layers, tools, plug-ins and filters looked overwhelmingly daunting and made for a frighteningly steep learning curve.  And not even the stripped-back PS Elements (that was given away free with most photo publications throughout the early noughties) was user-friendly enough to stem Adobe's leaking marketshare.  Blood was in the water and myriad of new programmes flooded onto the market.  Computer manufacturers updated their basic OS imaging and new software providers jumped in alongside.  Packages such as Paint, Corel Paintshop, ACDSee, DxO Optics, Gimp, Phase One Capture One, Pixlr, Photo Manager, Aperture 3 alongside on-line options like Picnik all vied for a piece of the action.  Each offered a far simpler and if not free, a much cheaper option to PS.  In many cases the magic word 'Pro' was added to the name to instil a sense of credibility amongst a highly status conscious consumer base.  Because with PS remaining out of their grasp, there was an inherent need to be seen to use software that bore somewhere near the same caché and status amongst peer groups.

 

In recognising this, Adobe cleverly combined an efficient archiving platform with an approachable version of their Raw file processing solution.  The resulting package looked good, was easy and efficient to use, and in a marketing masterstroke, they called it 'Lightroom'.  

 

The positioning and brand proposition was spot on!  Adobe Lightroom appealed to the wider audience.  Importantly, it gained the support of a number of well known 'names', alongside many influential photo journalists, one-line platforms and photo business operators.  So it was happy days for Adobe!  The customer paid the still significant purchase price (and subsequent CC subscription), and the Imaging Industry was ready to crown a new king!  

​

Yet was it a case of 'the king's new clothes'?  

 

For while it offered easier, speedier, batch editing and archiving, when it came to achieving individual fine art image perfection, Lightroom could not (and still cannot) hold a light to Photoshop.  And no amount of AI bells and whistles is ever going to change this truth? 

​

Artificial insignificance

​

Now I realise what I am saying may ruffle some feathers.  But that's what I want to do.  Because otherwise we are heading down a slippery slope to artificial insignificance!  When I give talks to camera clubs and mention this state of affairs, there are always those (Lightroom or Capture One users) who will argue the toss.  And while I could write another article on the many reasons why it is so, to keep my response to a single truth which trumps all others - Photoshop is the only imaging software that works throughout the entire RGB colour gamut.  This provides the highest possible precession and refinement in image colouration, retouching, proofing and printing.  

​​

Now I completely understand why this capability might not resonate with every photography enthusiast.  There are many disciplines and applications where such fine attention to detail is not of paramount importance.  Yet to honestly achieve the very best in digital photography, you need to learn to use the very best digital tools.

 

In the last twelve years of running workshops, I have witnessed the growing acceptance of relying on AI to rescue a poorly/lazily captured photograph.  This has come through a number of reasons.  Not least that in the face of maturing technology and easy to carry and use phone cameras with in-built AI editing filters, the DSLR bubble burst and the software market fractured further.   

 

To address this, the response from camera manufacturers has been to go 'mirrorless'.  A highly capable format that is just as potent as the DSLR in most areas, but far lighter to carry and use.  However, in many cases, to try to keep up with phone technology, many now have integrated, automatic 'AI' capabilities tucked away in their settings.  Each one just ready be surrendered to by the 'If you can't beat em', join em' attitude.  

 

And I'm sorry to see many previously stalwart imaging publications are waving a white flag too.  When I look at magazines that profess to represent the pinnacle of photographic expression, yet see images that have been blatantly made through AI, I see little hope for the future.  While article headlines such as 'Five crazy short cuts to slash your editing times' make me despair. 

 

The mega businesses behind the AI imaging avalanche are rubbing their hands and happily doing their part in propagating the dumbing down of our wonderful art.  For their sole aim is to build and lock-in their customer base, sell more phones, get more users, generate more web traffic, through any means including taking AI to ever crazier and morally questionable levels.  As I write this, the UK government are looking into how Elon Musk's Grok app can remove people's clothing FFS!

​

So as I wind up this somewhat rambling rant, may I state for the record...

 

The true art and reward in Fine Art Photography will forever lie in an individual's skills and creativity in manipulating manual camera settings and software assets.   

​

I know there will be many who say my attitude is anything from 'airily highbrow' to 'outdated gammon'.  And to them, I would suggest opening up ChatGPT and entering 'An atmospheric image of Porthcurno beach at sunrise with big waves and an offshore wind' and see what the result is. Alternatively, if they can't be bothered, just take a look at the image at the top of this piece and perhaps think again...

​

Learn to keep it real!

​​​​​

​

​

​

​

​