I confessed to a friend this morning that I don’t understand photography anymore. Truly. Seriously, I don’t get it. Photography has never totally made sense to me (how is pushing a button art?), but in the age of the proliferation of AI images, it’s making even less sense.
Since picking up a camera 20 years ago, I have been attracted to hyperreal images and have, consequently, worked to continually improve my way of seeing, capturing and rendering final images. By hyperreal, I mean this:
Using optics (namely ultra-wide lenses) and composition to exaggerate scale and create depth;
Using strategic masking - contrasty, detailed foregrounds, lower contrast, softer backgrounds - to accentuate depth;
Pushing colors a few clicks shy of over saturation based on true colors presented in the scene; and
Processing image tones/colors to present as backlit on respective printing mediums.
These type of images elicit the most feeling for me. My goal has been - and continues to be - to create images that I can get lost in, feel like I can walk into and make me feel something! I want to feel the spaciousness and the mood of the scene. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don’t. Ultimately, it is a process of applying the lessons learned from each outing to the next.
In the world of the hyperreal, I do maintain several rules for image-making. I created these rules for myself for no other reason than to create guardrails for the pursuit of light in the landscape. Too much freedom is not good for me. What’s more, I want to retain as much truth to the essence of a place as possible. Here are my rules:
No compositing (i.e. no sky swaps, time blends). I do focus stack and exposure blend from time-to-time, but only to the extent that it is necessary to retain focus, perspective and tones (not to alter the presentation of the scene).
Removal of objects is okay (in rare circumstances), adding is not. I only remove objects if they are manmade or impossible to remove via composition tweaks.
Color enhancement is okay, color addition is not. I aim to retain the essence of the colors present, while increasing or decreasing the saturation and luminance (not the hue) to compliment the mood of the scene within the parameters of the light present.
So here’s the rub… AI images seem to tend towards these same criteria, especially hyperreal colors and tones. The public, rightfully so, is becoming dubious of this presentation. I am now routinely asked if my images are AI. Bah! If a computer can generate objectively more compelling imagery, what’s left for us humans to create? Superficially, I know the answer to this. The landscape photographer is provided the grounding and enriching experience of having spent time in nature and the audience is provided with the connection - a relationship - to a real person, creating within some set of standards (like the ones I named above). But, is that enough? Is the ubiquity of AI landscape images on social media numbing our visual systems? I have to believe that it is. It certainly has me questioning my photographic style.
I’ve committed myself to this vocation. There’s no turning back now, but I am in a state of discernment of how to make sense of the ever-evolving world of how and what we see. What does photography mean to you in the golden age of AI? Please help me understand!
Comments