I’ve been shocked recently at the AI-edited photos I’ve seen. I’m not just talking about AI/ML-noise reduction either, even though I also detest that technology because it’s wasteful. At least when someone uses AI noise reduction, their photo looks roughly like the scene.
No, I’m talking about photos where large portions of the scene have been removed or added altogether. An example is removing an entire animal in a group of animals or tree from a wildlife scene to make the composition more attractive. Another example I’ve seen is adding the sun to a scene to make it look like a golden sunrise or sunset.
Whenever I see these sorts of edits, I am just bewildered because the final result is nothing like the original scene.
I’m thinking here, what’s the point of even producing such an image? I thought photography was about sharing experiences and the beauty of the natural world. Apparently, now it’s more about just making some visually-attractive fluff for likes and clicks.
I guess it’s not surprising. The consumerist nature of most modern societies is all about pure consumption, rather that communication. That was prevalent before AI, especially in places like the United States of America, which is a country especially responsible for promoting the product above all else. Lots of people seem to subscribe to the consumerist philosophy to the point where they act is if consumption were almost a moral duty.
AI just takes it to the next level. It amplifies the hedonistic whims already instilled in the crowds and enables them to seek the shallow diversions that have become the new high pursuits of our declining culture. Not only that, but the very existence of AI, which is itself a physical instantiation of the philosophy of waste, justifies shallow pursuits. People see it, and they think it just makes sense to use it because it’s there.
When people use AI to remove a huge portion of the scene, they affirm that communication and genuine human connection no longer matters. That’s because people expect a photograph to represent the scene in some interpretive way. That doesn’t mean photos are a faithful representation of reality. After all, black and white photography is great, and yet we perceive color.
But with edits like black and white or boosting or lowering contrast, it’s obvious what has been applied. Similarly with an increase in saturation or a crop. All of them are understandable filters of reality. By removing an entire object on the other hand, you change the nature of the scene outside the realm of filter-of-reality, and that makes it entirely different than typical edits.
No doubt there’s room for debate over what’s acceptable. But in any sane world, it’s ridiculous to use AI to remove huge parts of a scene in a photo. The only reason why so many people don’t object is because a lot of them benefit from AI, and it helps them get more attention. In a world where technology has already robbed us of community and a lot of genuine human connection, I suppose we will go to any length to get even a shallow glimmer of the spotlight.
All I can say is that I feel a huge pang of disappointment when I see wildlife photo where AI has been used to alter the scene. I think if you do that, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace if you don’t say that it’s graphic art, because it hurts the process of communicating by photography. And even if you do say it’s graphic art, I think it’s also a disgrace to use so much energy just so you could show off a scene that was nothing at all like the original.
Sadly, the only solution on an individual level is to just look at photos from people that don’t use AI. Unfortunately, that group of people is becoming smaller and smaller. Disappointing.