I was asked to take some pictures of the Bristol Yacht Club for use in the update to the book about the Club’s history. I took the pictures in late afternoon, definitely not the optimal time for this viewpoint.. The sun was setting behind the house and the sky was bereft of clouds. I’ll try again at sunrise. That said, here is a compare of the original image (cropped as best I could to match the edited image). I did a You Tube search on inserting a new sky using Lightroom. With a one click edit using the Photoshop plugin, voila, an interesting sky. It pained me to make the change, I would much prefer to get it right on my own.
Notice also the steps on the right side of the image. The paint was chipping in the original. Using Lightroom’s AI replacement tool, I brushed around the areas and a seamless change was made. This I find useful and less objectionable.
In a pinch though, when one has the need to create lemonade from lemons, I suppose the concession is a useful one. I feel in my heart though that AI cheapens what it means to be a photographer. Is a photographer’s work the capture of a moment in time or is it a mirage?
Photography has always been about altering the recorded image in line with a vision. That said, generative AI offers grifters the chance to make money with little input. Where is the line?
Hi Moodywarlock. You hit the nail on the head. I saw an image the other day on PetaPixel with a double rainbow. Was it real? Who the heck knows. Editing images has been going on since the beginning of the craft. Until now, even using the editing tools for color, shadows, etc. in Lightroom, the photographer made the editing choices to personal preference. In a sense, that too alongside the ease of creating a digital image, is a horse long out of the barn. The line being crossed is changes are being made by the generator of the software, not limited to color, highlights, blacks, whites and such, but as to the image’s subject. Add a bird, add a unicorn, add a person. Count me out of that. I don’t snuff my nose at any photographer’s choices, even to such extremes. I don’t want my work to have such a basis though as a personal choice. Thank you for your comment! Louis.
I know it’s going to be different for everyone as to where that creative line is. There are so many things in the creative process where we don’t have choice, and where we just accept the role of luck or serendipity, so I see the argument to be made. But, at the point where the major part of an image is generated, I set a line for myself.
And yes, I botched the white balance on this gaudy image. I used the Super Resolution function in OM system camera for a hoot. I am not a fan of intense sharpness either, a characteristic of most out of camera digital images. Less sharpness often makes an image better. Modern lens technology is moving the needle very far on the sharpness end.
How are you finding the OM? I have the older EM5 Mark 2 and do love using it. Even my Nikon Z5 with the right lens makes amazingly, almost eye wateringly, sharp images. Sometimes I look for that, especially if it’s a photo where I want to preserve textures, but other times it’s too much. Lately, I’ve been using some old Fuji cameras with low megapixel counts and blogging about my experience with them, so I understand your thought pattern here.
I am still finding my way with the OM1. The best lens for my use is the 40-150 F 2.8 – very versatile and sharp. I am still not there with dialing in settings to get good images from the camera – it is so packed with features I am overwhelmed. I got into the M43 system for bird photography because of the long reach and good tracking features and I have gotten some decent images of birds in flight. Today I used a Panasonic 12 mm with polarizer and square ND and the seascape images were not good. I owned the Olympus MK III and to be honest, I don’t see a big leap in image quality for the later model. The newer camera has more bells and whistles that for the most part are surplus. The internal grad nd is a nice feature. I see the beautiful imagery others have made with Olympus and OM System cameras, and hope to achieve better results with time.
Why is it that when we find ways to make something easier, people are quick to call it “cheating”? Take dodging and burning—Ansel Adams used those techniques in the darkroom all the time, and no one batted an eye. But now that digital tools can do it in a few clicks, suddenly it’s less “authentic”? I get that the process used to be more labour-intensive, but just because it’s easier doesn’t mean it’s any less valid.
Maybe it’s because photography has always been seen as a kind of truth-telling medium. Especially in journalism, where people expect photos to reflect reality. So when manipulation becomes more accessible, people start to question what’s real and what’s not. But honestly, even in the film days, photographers were always interpreting reality—through framing, lighting, and yes, a bit of darkroom magic.
At the end of the day, photography has always been about artistic interpretation, not just capturing facts. The medium was never about just “point-and-shoot.” So, is it really about skill or just the tools we use to get there? What matters is the artist’s intention—whether I’m showing a literal scene or trying to create something that tells a bigger story. It’s not about “cheating.” It’s about how I choose to tell the story.
Hi Khurt, I think your point on the truth telling side of things is important. Mankind is being overtaken by an alternate reality. Finding truth, whether in a photograph, a news article, a Facebook post, etc. is harder than ever. There is a good use for AI in photography. In fact, I just used sky replacement to enhance an image to be used for the cover of a book – but I did not use my sky, I used someone else’s sky. So in my view, this is not truly my work and I will ask that the image not be attributed to me. When I started with photography, I bastardized images using HDR and thought the images were great. I look at them now and turn my eyes away. The edits I make in Lightroom are my choices, and the end product is mine, with a little less help from my friends!