Just a quick preface. I wrote this sometime in February of 2023 and for some reason never published it. I have a bad habit of writing things and letting them rot on a hard drive (I also do this with photos, I’m working on it). I’m working on getting stuff here even if I’m the only one who ever reads it simply because it’s silly to keep on said hard drive. And in the spirit of working on that, I’m publishing what I wrote in 2023 with grammatical adjustments. Cheers.
I am not the first person to write about photography and at this point, so many photos have been taken one could argue that a photograph means very little these days. Maybe at the dawn of digital photography this was an eventual fear, that the image in its purity would become tainted by the malleability and warping reality of digital photography, or simply get lost in a tidal wave of billions of digital images. This ended up being a new medium of digital art; and sure, it hasn't been without its flaws, but people have continued to take photographs. Hell, at the height of the digital photography boom, film of all things, the supposed dead medium that we were told would be replaced by digital photography and the eventual convenience of mobile photography (Thanks Steve) didn't just make a resurgence but roared back to life. Here we are in 2023 and a new challenger has approached one that echoes with the similar dystopian idea that photography is dead. Ai. Specifically generative Ai is here to once again kill the photograph and alter reality just as digital photography was supposed to. Now, look, I want to have my cake and eat it too (because, who doesn't, really) because I’m going to speak out of both sides of my cake-filled mouth here and say this: Ai may destroy many things, but photography, the act of it anyway, will stay. Just like it did when digital manipulation really hit its stride. There will always be purists, right now expensive film photography still exists. Some people only shoot film. And I know many people who take digital photographs and only edit for color and light. Now despite this, I understand the peril. The argument can be made that generative Ai is an existential crisis of sorts because it can generate the kind of images most photographers can take with a few words, no equipment or travel needed. Just a keyboard and internet connection and you too can be Ansil Adams. But I think that misses the point. We were flooded with digital images when we stopped printing and started posting, but that photo of your kid still likely got printed and framed. The same goes for the serious photographer, they still grabbed a bigger dedicated camera (sorry Steve) and went out and took the shot. When Ai really hits its stride, the same thing will happen. Yes, people will generate some incredible Ai “photographs” and it will mean that some things won’t make it going foward. But you're not going to replace your birthday photos with an Ai trained photograph of yourself blowing out a candle will you? …Will you? Will, we? Well ok. I’m going to be honest here, and this is going to sound strange but, we might. Or I should say, it might become common, like how mobile photography became ubiquitous and we all drowned in digital images stored on the cloud never to be physically held, we might all drown in Ai generated images. Not just of things like a replicated drone sunset, but by generating photos of ourselves. Why take the photo in the first place when an Ai trained on your face and body type can generate the perfect photo for you, guaranteed? No pesky sensor or film needed. Don’t like the lighting? Generate one with an eye light, there, perfect. But you know what? Your strange friend who still owns a digital camera or has decades old expired film might ask to take your photograph. And you know what? You kind of like how you look in it. So they print it out for you. And it’s yours.