Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Face it, Artificial Intelligence applications are here to stay; they aren't going anywhere. Best get used to it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Nobody said they would be going anywhere. Read the article. Nikon is encouraging photographers to forgo AI and rely on the natural beauty of the subject and to use natural intelligence to capture it. Just because AI apps are available doesn’t mean you have to use them.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

I agree that AI is here to stay but when you view a photo now you will wonder if it is what was actually photographed or was it created by or manipulated by AI. Gone is the true meaning to the phrase that a photo doesn't lie.

I'm not saying AI is a bad thing but is it a good thing?

Dodie

scallihan Loc: Tigard, OR

👍👍

fantom Loc: Colorado

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

Now the "Chain of custody" for photos becomes invaluable!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Yeah, it's completely different from programming a camera to modify, enhance, or whatever you want to call the manipulations a digital camera performs.

Natural beauty...

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Mac and luvmypets have it right, just because AI is here there is nothing that states it must be used and there has been no general opinion made that it is either good or bad. It is very similar to the RAW vs. Jpeg debate, it is a personal preference.

BebuLamar

I am not a pro. If I am a pro I would want AI to help me do the job and I just collect the money. But I doing it for fun I don't want AI takes all the fun away from me.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

And I do it for fun, not for praise.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

We are talking about two different things. Tools in themselves can not think, or be artistic and a tool in the hands of a mechanic or artist is different. The issue I see is that when we use AI as a mechanic or Artist, Musician, Photographer, Designer, and so forth we have issues. I think that some people feel threatened, jealous, and unsettled because we have not had to deal with AI in the past. The AI that we have access to currently is in the infant stage and I don't know what is out there that perhaps is classified or not available to the public. Most are not threatened or jealous of software programs because we use them to assist us. No one thinks that a writer is not doing the work of writing a book by using a computer and software but editing will become much easier with AI. Technical writing writers have or are much closer to AI than most would imagine. All of us use material written by technical writers, manuals, and instructional literature that is tough to follow and AI will help us by producing material that is more readable and useable. Most recently the use of telework has caused panic and fear among people, cities, counties, states our federal government because some are threatened by new technology. A lot of people of all ages have embraced this technology along with other that is becoming commonplace.

One of my favorite remembrances is the laws that were passed in the US making an effort to limit automobiles and keep horses, and carriages alive in the US. Very few people are still alive while that was going on and don't give it a thought today. There are many of us that remember manual typewriters and I was so thankful when computers came along, it was a slow start but we got there.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Why do you say “threatened” and “jealous”? Are you threatened and/or jealous by things you disapprove of? If not, why would you assume that others are? Or are you being a passive/aggressive troll?
For the record I disapprove of using Artificial Intelligence in place of Natural Intelligence in photography, but I am, in no way, threatened by or jealous of AI.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The idea that a photograph doesn't lie has always been wrong. Removing or adding objects to photos was done in the darkroom since photography was invented. And photographers have always been able to mislead or lie just by the way the photo was taken - what is or isn't included in the composition, the timing of the exposure, the effect of different kinds of lenses, etc. Even in court photographs are not accepted at face value - the photographer must testify, or the attorneys must stipulate, that the photograph is a true representation of what it is supposed to show.

Bill_de Loc: US

Around thirty years ago a camera club I belonged to wanted to make slides the only way to show color images. The board decided it was the only way to verify it was real, compared to editing prints. I used four images I had taken in an Arizona desert on a sunny day and combined them into one slide. I was awarded first place in that month's competition. At the end of the night I rejected the award and had them put the photo back on the screen. One member saw the intentional flaw that the judge and everyone else missed. Not only did the same cactus appear twice, flipped once at 180 degrees (OK) but so did the shadows.

If I could fool a room full of people, except one, with a composite made from four slides, using one slide twice, AI done well, will be able to fool most of us, IMHO.

---