Generative landscape art – a (horror) vision of the future of photography?

[biglouis]

An interesting thread. I agree that it would be completely unsatisfying to be an AI armchair landscape photography creator.

Back in the real world, a lot of what I do is urban landscapes and architecture. The biggest bane of my life is to find cars, 'street furniture' or moveable objects, for example, wheelie bins or temporary road signs mucking up my shots. This means that I often have to plan photography for early day on weekends and/or move items out of my shots. Even then it is a lottery as I can turn up at a location at 7AM on a Sunday morning in somewhere like the City of London and find a night-owl has parked their car, coach, truck outside the property I want to photograph because parking restrictions cease overnight.

Not any more.

Today, the latest release of Lightroom (and I assume PS) includes an early release of 'generative AI' replace.

I give you the historic view of Wheathampstead high street which is claimed to be as original to the way it would have looked in Tudor times (without, of course the major road running through it and various bits of gentrification). But you get the idea.



And now, with the two cars (near and in the distance), three wheelie bins, aerials and satellite dishes, a cyclist and two pedestrians, who had the temerity to enter my shot on a busy Saturday morning, removed (some people, eh?).


No more hours admiring my work with a clone tool, just highlight the item to be replaced and press the button. I am assuming that rather than just pixel cloning the software tries to recognise the object and the objects around it for some kind of context sensitive removal. Either way - and I hope this doesn't make me a bad person - I think it is amazing.

It also introduces a quandary.

Which photograph would you include in, say, a guidebook about the village or for that matter in a stock library?

 

[Duff photographer]

No more hours admiring my work with a clone tool, just highlight the item to be replaced and press the button. I am assuming that rather than just pixel cloning the software tries to recognise the object and the objects around it for some kind of context sensitive removal. Either way - and I hope this doesn't make me a bad person - I think it is amazing.

Yet a critical eye will notice oddities such as the shadows of the 'departed' subjects; the bricked up doorway, the odd brick work that has no reason to be there, etc. I guess the more complicated the image and the more stuff that needs to be removed, the easier it is to spot these errors. Artificial "Intelligence" can never replicate what is hidden, it has no perception, it has no idea.

...but then who looks hard enough these days?!


Cheers,
Duff.

 

[SeanThekayaker]

An interesting thread. I agree that it would be completely unsatisfying to be an AI armchair landscape photography creator.

Back in the real world, a lot of what I do is urban landscapes and architecture. The biggest bane of my life is to find cars, 'street furniture' or moveable objects, for example, wheelie bins or temporary road signs mucking up my shots. This means that I often have to plan photography for early day on weekends and/or move items out of my shots. Even then it is a lottery as I can turn up at a location at 7AM on a Sunday morning in somewhere like the City of London and find a night-owl has parked their car, coach, truck outside the property I want to photograph because parking restrictions cease overnight.

Not any more.

Today, the latest release of Lightroom (and I assume PS) includes an early release of 'generative AI' replace.

I give you the historic view of Wheathampstead high street which is claimed to be as original to the way it would have looked in Tudor times (without, of course the major road running through it and various bits of gentrification). But you get the idea.

View attachment 213363

And now, with the two cars (near and in the distance), three wheelie bins, aerials and satellite dishes, a cyclist and two pedestrians, who had the temerity to enter my shot on a busy Saturday morning, removed (some people, eh?).
View attachment 213365

No more hours admiring my work with a clone tool, just highlight the item to be replaced and press the button. I am assuming that rather than just pixel cloning the software tries to recognise the object and the objects around it for some kind of context sensitive removal. Either way - and I hope this doesn't make me a bad person - I think it is amazing.

It also introduces a quandary.

Which photograph would you include in, say, a guidebook about the village or for that matter in a stock library?

I don’t think that it makes you a bad person for sharing your views on the technology and how it could help you and other people. All of us have been irritated for a long time about distracting elements in an image and the lengths we are forced to go, both before and after the shot, to remove them. It has been tedious, sometimes impossible work, until now.

I think for people who do urban photography it is a major issue for all the reasons you cite but also ones you can’t control such as unsightly power lines, telephone poles and so on. In wildlife photography we can now beautify the wounds of wild animals who often carry scars, particularly predators. We can create the perfect rose.

In the time of Ansel Adams, there was “dodge and burn”, and other aspects of the darkroom process. Later still, a technique called airbrushing in portraiture was used by some. Early iterations of Photoshop could go beyond the darkroom. Now computers may mimic our abilities and combine elements of illustration with photography to create hyper realism. Current attempts at computer-created art seem to have an air of unreality.

Many photographers strive to have an emotional impact of a fleeting moment with their images. Very modest use of computer assisted editing — taking the healing tool to the next level as you have done — will probably continue to help the photographer convey their feelings and satisfy clients.

However, what impact does the ease of use of “generative fill” have for the art of photography?

Technology is changing society and the ways we interact. People are become less connected and loneliness is increasing. I think that in the long run, people will yearn for a connection to reality and to the artist — and want to see and experience human-made art, with all the imperfections that give it authenticity and lasting emotional appeal.

 

[biglouis]

Technology is changing society and the ways we interact. People are become less connected and loneliness is increasing. I think that in the long run, people will yearn for a connection to reality and to the artist — and want to see and experience human-made art, with all the imperfections that give it authenticity and lasting emotional appeal.

I completely agree with this point and I'd add that I believe the reason film photography will still be going on years from now is because individuals who grow up on digital strive for something where the process of taking the photograph is as rewarding or even more rewarding than processing of the photograph.

For relaxation my passion is wildlife photography and I can see where this new facility might speed up the process of removing branches or distractions in the background which is a common post processing activity for most people shooting wildlife.

LouisB