I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis. For those of you unfamiliar with Blake, he owns f/64 Academy and presents techniques and practices that enhance processing photographs. This presentation focused on the use of AI.

His contention is that its use is up to the individual but there are consequences. Aren't there always?

AI is a new buzzword. There's always going to be the next best thing. There is always something to entice the average photographer to purchase new software. There will always be improvements otherwise there's no need to upgrade software. But, is AI the way of the future, Blake doesn't think so. He then presents 3 good points why.

1. AI is just a buzzword. It's nothing more than a buzzword to make folks think this is the future.

2. Absolutely nothing can replace handwork and experience. If one wants to be a true artist, one is going to want to spend the time making the best one can make. That instead of letting some artificial intelligence take over and do the work for you.

If one is jumping on the AI bandwagon, they are probably, at best, an average photographer. Any true artist-photographer is going to put in the hard work and personal experience to obtain the best photographs they can create. Artificial Intelligence just can't do that.

3. When one places their trust in AI what they are saying is they are letting some company determine the benchmark for their success.

Trying something and succeeding provides motivation to keep going. Trying something and failing leads to learning and betterment. Without the bedrock foundation of failure, one can't measure success.

Until AI can express the emotional experience of producing a beautiful photograph, it's not something on which to rely. It simply allows one to think they are a better photographer then reality will show.

This brings up the speed at which processing can be done. Sure the one-button approach to processing leads to more time of going out and clicking that shutter. I agree with Blake. Photography involves both making the exposure and making a photograph. If one is going to rely on AI to produce that photograph, one will never be any better than the software they use.

These are some of the points Blake made in his presentation. I agree with them. It might be the dividing line between being a photographer and being a button pusher.

If you're interested in Blake's presentation you can search for

Blake Rudis 3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
--Bob

I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis. For those of you unfamiliar with Blake, he owns f/64 Academy and presents techniques and practices that enhance processing photographs. This presentation focused on the use of AI.

His contention is that its use is up to the individual but there are consequences. Aren't there always?

AI is a new buzzword. There's always going to be the next best thing. There is always something to entice the average photographer to purchase new software. There will always be improvements otherwise there's no need to upgrade software. But, is AI the way of the future, Blake doesn't think so. He then presents 3 good points why.

1. AI is just a buzzword. It's nothing more than a buzzword to make folks think this is the future.

2. Absolutely nothing can replace handwork and experience. If one wants to be a true artist, one is going to want to spend the time making the best one can make. That instead of letting some artificial intelligence take over and do the work for you.

If one is jumping on the AI bandwagon, they are probably, at best, an average photographer. Any true artist-photographer is going to put in the hard work and personal experience to obtain the best photographs they can create. Artificial Intelligence just can't do that.

3. When one places their trust in AI what they are saying is they are letting some company determine the benchmark for their success.

Trying something and succeeding provides motivation to keep going. Trying something and failing leads to learning and betterment. Without the bedrock foundation of failure, one can't measure success.

Until AI can express the emotional experience of producing a beautiful photograph, it's not something on which to rely. It simply allows one to think they are a better photographer then reality will show.

This brings up the speed at which processing can be done. Sure the one-button approach to processing leads to more time of going out and clicking that shutter. I agree with Blake. Photography involves both making the exposure and making a photograph. If one is going to rely on AI to produce that photograph, one will never be any better than the software they use.

These are some of the points Blake made in his presentation. I agree with them. It might be the dividing line between being a photographer and being a button pusher.

If you're interested in Blake's presentation you can search for

Blake Rudis 3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
--Bob

I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis. For those of you unfamiliar with Blake, he owns f/64 Academy and presents techniques and practices that enhance processing photographs. This presentation focused on the use of AI.

His contention is that its use is up to the individual but there are consequences. Aren't there always?

AI is a new buzzword. There's always going to be the next best thing. There is always something to entice the average photographer to purchase new software. There will always be improvements otherwise there's no need to upgrade software. But, is AI the way of the future, Blake doesn't think so. He then presents 3 good points why.

1. AI is just a buzzword. It's nothing more than a buzzword to make folks think this is the future.

2. Absolutely nothing can replace handwork and experience. If one wants to be a true artist, one is going to want to spend the time making the best one can make. That instead of letting some artificial intelligence take over and do the work for you.

If one is jumping on the AI bandwagon, they are probably, at best, an average photographer. Any true artist-photographer is going to put in the hard work and personal experience to obtain the best photographs they can create. Artificial Intelligence just can't do that.

3. When one places their trust in AI what they are saying is they are letting some company determine the benchmark for their success.

Trying something and succeeding provides motivation to keep going. Trying something and failing leads to learning and betterment. Without the bedrock foundation of failure, one can't measure success.

Until AI can express the emotional experience of producing a beautiful photograph, it's not something on which to rely. It simply allows one to think they are a better photographer then reality will show.

This brings up the speed at which processing can be done. Sure the one-button approach to processing leads to more time of going out and clicking that shutter. I agree with Blake. Photography involves both making the exposure and making a photograph. If one is going to rely on AI to produce that photograph, one will never be any better than the software they use.

These are some of the points Blake made in his presentation. I agree with them. It might be the dividing line between being a photographer and being a button pusher.

If you're interested in Blake's presentation you can search for

Blake Rudis 3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
--Bob

I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis. For those of you unfamiliar with Blake, he owns f/64 Academy and presents techniques and practices that enhance processing photographs. This presentation focused on the use of AI.

His contention is that its use is up to the individual but there are consequences. Aren't there always?

AI is a new buzzword. There's always going to be the next best thing. There is always something to entice the average photographer to purchase new software. There will always be improvements otherwise there's no need to upgrade software. But, is AI the way of the future, Blake doesn't think so. He then presents 3 good points why.

1. AI is just a buzzword. It's nothing more than a buzzword to make folks think this is the future.

2. Absolutely nothing can replace handwork and experience. If one wants to be a true artist, one is going to want to spend the time making the best one can make. That instead of letting some artificial intelligence take over and do the work for you.

If one is jumping on the AI bandwagon, they are probably, at best, an average photographer. Any true artist-photographer is going to put in the hard work and personal experience to obtain the best photographs they can create. Artificial Intelligence just can't do that.

3. When one places their trust in AI what they are saying is they are letting some company determine the benchmark for their success.

Trying something and succeeding provides motivation to keep going. Trying something and failing leads to learning and betterment. Without the bedrock foundation of failure, one can't measure success.

Until AI can express the emotional experience of producing a beautiful photograph, it's not something on which to rely. It simply allows one to think they are a better photographer then reality will show.

This brings up the speed at which processing can be done. Sure the one-button approach to processing leads to more time of going out and clicking that shutter. I agree with Blake. Photography involves both making the exposure and making a photograph. If one is going to rely on AI to produce that photograph, one will never be any better than the software they use.

These are some of the points Blake made in his presentation. I agree with them. It might be the dividing line between being a photographer and being a button pusher.

If you're interested in Blake's presentation you can search for

Blake Rudis 3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
--Bob

All great arguments. But these types of arguments have been made for hundreds of years against the advance of technology. Arguments such as, steam will never replace sails for ships, cars or tractors will never replace horses, men will never fly, and the internet/online services will never replace brick and mortar stores.

An argument heard a lot in the 1980's and 1990's was that digital would never replace film in photography. Yes, I know film is not dead and is seeing a resurgence, but economically, it appears to be but a bit player in overall photography today and I see very few big camera companies pushing their film equipment ahead of digital. Also, I am sure that many older film photographers in pre-digital days would view the use of photo-editing software today to be unnatural and not professional in some way since issues can be fixed with software methods unavailable in film post-processing.

Most of the population have little comprehension or understanding of how much computers are involved in their daily lives now. In fact almost every aspect of our lives are touched or controlled by computers in some way. Our shopping, banking, driving, dining, flying, communications, entertainment, and many other aspects of our lives are under the subtle influence or control of a computer or microprocessor.

AI is just another way of programming computers. Yes, it is being over-hyped but it is here and here to stay. AI is already making decisions in your life whether you believe in it or not.