AI and Photography: Defining the Boundaries

Can AI-Generated Images Truly Qualify as Photography? A Barthesian Perspective

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Photography: if there is one area of controversy in the photographic world today, it is this one.

Are AI-generated images photography? Should they be allowed to be submitted for photography contests? Can they be sold as photography?

Introduction

Mike Johnston recently published a strong opinion on The Online Photographer website titled "AI Imaging is a Pox, a Fraud and a Thief.”

In the article, he states that:

“Photography in its most exalted form and practice is a means of investigating and appreciating the visual world, of commemorating what we are privileged to see; and as such it should have some sort of connection to the real, like a bear print in the woods is connected to the bear, or like a fossil had to be formed by an actual ancient trilobite. It has to have a trace of the real, left by the actual [bold by M|P]. The ligatures that bind it to truth (whether closely or loosely) are an essential and indivisible part of its nature, in the complete absence of which it is not itself. To be "photography," an imaging system, whether analog or digital, either by its nature or by virtue of the way it is deployed by a sentient human being, must respect the lens image, and, through the lens image, report to the viewer of the photograph, in some manner and to some degree, what actually might have existed in the world of appearances.

AI has nothing to do with photography, except as a means of flooding the culture with counterfeits—a flood that is dispiritingly likely to drown once and for all the benefits and the benevolences of the art and the craft we have learned over the years to love.”

The main reason why I agree with him and also think that AI-generated images should not be considered photography is his observation that "To be "photography," an imaging system, ..., must respect the lens image, and, through the lens image, report to the viewer of the photograph, ..., what actually might have existed in the world of appearances." [bold by M|P].

I already mentioned something similar in my blog post, Fine Art Defined, where I observed that:

“The interesting notion here is that, different from other art forms, photography to be creative needs an already existing creation; be this a man made object, a natural object or a living being. Whereas a painter by using the capturing medium (canvas, paint and whatever else the artists decides to use) can create a picture of a vase without an actual vase in existence, and the potter can create a formerly not existent vase by applying his creative medium, without light bouncing off an actually existing vase a photographic image of a vase is not possible.”

I posted that in 2015, long before generative AI was even a thing, and unbeknown to me at the moment, I actually was - in a far simpler way and in blissful ignorance of what this great philosopher wrote about the subject - paraphrasing what Roland Barthes said in 1980!

In his seminal work, "Camera Lucida," (which I only read recently - better late than never, I daresay), Barthes delves deep into the essence of photography, asserting that the uniqueness of the medium lies in its ability to capture the "that-has-been," or the intractable.

He emphasizes that a photograph's referent is the "necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens," [bold by M|P], and this quality sets photography apart from other forms of representation.

Now, however, in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), we are confronted with a profound question: Can AI-generated images be considered true photography?

Spoiler Alert!

In this essay, I will explore the argument that AI-generated images (I deliberately do not call them photos) do not fully encapsulate the essence of traditional photography defined by Barthes and, therefore, in my opinion, never can or should be called photography.

The Nature of Photography's Referent

Barthes distinguishes the "photographic referent" from other systems of representation, asserting that in photography, one can never deny the existence of the captured subject. He argues that while painting can feign reality without actually having seen it and discourse can combine signs with "chimeras" as referents, photography uniquely captures an undeniable reality. It is this constraint that Barthes defines as the very essence of photography, what he names the "noeme" of the medium.

This noeme is the "That-has-been," signifying the subject's presence before the lens.

AI-Generated Images: An Examination

AI-generated images are products of computer algorithms and neural networks that create visuals without the direct presence of a physical subject. These algorithms analyze patterns and data to generate images that mimic the style and content of photographs.

While they, therefore, can create hyper-realistic scenes and subjects that, at a glance, are indistinguishable from traditionally captured photos, the fundamental question, however, arises if AI-generated images truly can be considered photography in the Barthesian sense.

The Absence of the "That-has-been"

One of the primary reasons AI-generated images cannot fully embody the essence of traditional photography is the absence of the "That-has-been." In photography, as we have seen above, the referent is the physical object or scene that existed in the real world and was captured by the camera. In contrast, AI-generated images lack this referent. They are not tied to a physical presence or a moment that has passed. Instead, they are a creation of algorithms and data, making their referent more abstract, virtual, and devoid of the immediate, undeniable reality that Barthes associates with traditional photography.

The Missing Interplay of Reality and the Past

Furthermore, the interplay of reality and the past, another crucial aspect of Barthes's definition of photography, is absent in AI-generated images.

Traditional photographs capture a specific moment in time, preserving it as an irrefutable "artifact of the past." AI-generated images, on the other hand, do not have a moment of origin in the same way. They are not the result of a subject's presence before a lens, and they do not carry the weight of the past in the same manner. Therefore, they lack the tension between presence and separation that defines photography's essence.

Conclusion

In light of Roland Barthes's exploration of photography's essence in "Camera Lucida," it becomes evident that AI-generated images do not align with the fundamental principles he outlined. The absence of the "That-has-been" and the missing interplay between reality and the past makes it impossible to categorize AI-generated images as traditional photography.

While AI-generated images may be technically impressive and visually compelling - and, in my opinion, absolutely deserve their place in the broad gamma of visual art - they lack the unique quality of capturing the "necessarily real thing." They are not bound to an undeniable reality that has been present before the lens.

Therefore, it is essential to recognize the distinction between photography, which embodies the essence of the "That-has-been," and AI-generated images, which depart from the core principles that have defined the medium since its inception.

Do you agree that AI-generated images are not photography and should not be passed off as such?

Finding Focus

THE NEXT STAGE IN MY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVOLUTION, OR: HOW TRYING PURE STREET PHOTOGRAPHY HELPED ME TO FIND MY ROAD AHEAD

Have you ever looked at a vintage photograph and wondered who the people in that image were, how they lived, and how the cities seemed so different then?

As you can read on my About page, I grew up in a small village in the Netherlands, and when I got my first point-and-shoot camera in the early 1970s, I could not foresee that it would ignite a lifelong passion for photography.

While I explored different photographic genres over the years, since moving to the US and being driven by my passion for people, I have come home to my true passion: documentary-style street photography and essays.

When I talk about documentary-style photography, I don't mean documenting the 'big' things: famine, the US border crisis, global warming, deforestation.

Of course, if I get the chance, I will take images at a Women's March or similar events I might be able to attend (or stumble upon), but in general, I am more interested in the mundane of daily life.

Creating stories about regular people who make up the diverse population of my adopted country, showing how a small town looks today and the people in it; documenting small events like car shows that show the enthusiasts who come together there and create a unique culture; people at a horse race track, dancing, eating, gambling, having fun; telling the story of a master craftsman, who creates beautiful objects with his tools.

While maybe mundane, these all are unique pockets of the world we live in and the people who inhabit it. And when I do take pictures at events, I am more interested in the individuals attending (the proponents, the opponents, and the spectators) than in the event itself because I firmly believe that the individual stories provide the human connection to those events.

For some time, I thought creating and focusing on pure street photography images would satisfy my urge to tell these stories. So I started making what I thought were nice street photos and joined street photography groups on Facebook and Instagram.

The critique I received from experts in the field was an eye-opener and made me more critical about my and other photog's street images. And the more I learned about street photography, the more I (tried to) create street photography, and the more I looked at other photogs street photography, I found it unsatisfactory, boring, disappointing, and repetitive. So many images tagged as street photography are not, and I often saw a lot of copy-cats (how many iterations of pictures of people walking through a patch of light in an area otherwise in darkest shadow can one create?).

Understand me well: pure street photography is excellent, and I love looking at those images! But it also is rare and challenging to create.

Pure street photography is very much dependent on a decisive moment, and I realized there is so much more than the decisive moment: I want to capture a current moment, documenting in 1/125th of a second the sociohistorical situation of a particular place at a specific time. Wow, those are big words! But you probably understand what I ideally want to achieve.

Capturing a 'decisive moment' for me is a bonus, not a goal. There is so much more to show, achieve, share, and create awareness of that might not be captured when focusing on the decisive moment. Instead, I want to tell that broader story, which can be about people, a place, or an event and which, for obvious reasons, in most cases, is a combination of these.

While I like to work on projects to create photo essays, you can ask if a single 'snapshot' also can tell this broader story.' I think so. But I also want to explore how that single image relates to other pictures looking for patterns in human behavior.

Reading photo books helps me understand what I want to create.

On my journey to finding my focus, I have 'met' several current and past photographers whose work has influenced my thoughts about what I want to achieve and how to achieve it: Eugène Atget, W. Eugene Smith, Jill Friedman, Bob Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank, Inge Morath, Sally Mann, O.N. Pruitt, Berenice Abbott, Jacob Riss, Dorothea Lange, Lewis Hine, the photographers who took the images in Lost London, Elliott Erwitt, and many others.

As mentioned above: making a good street photo is challenging. Is this next stage in my photographic evolution possibly a flight because it is too complicated?

To answer my question: No, composition, situation, image quality, light, and all other ingredients that make a pure street photo are also crucial to making the documentary-style photos and essays I (want to) create.

As I mention in my artist’s statement, inspired by a quote from Anais Nin, I want to share not the obvious but what we usually are unable to see: when I document, what can I show that others might not see?

Are you familiar with the phrase "write down to remember"? I want to "photograph to remember" and to help others remember. Now and, hopefully, in the future. While I create images and stories for me and my current audience, it would be great if I could make the 'vintage images of the future.' If even only one.

Looking back at the images I created over the years, especially since I live in the USA, it is not surprising that my journey is taking me in this direction. But with the help of the critique I received, seeing what current and past photographers create(d), and looking at street photography on social media, I have found the focus I was missing.

Now that I know better what type of images I want to create, I also can better define the tools I want to use. So while my camera setup underwent some changes last year, my main tools will continue to be the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and the Leica M4. Both with 35mm (or equivalent) lenses.

Why these?

Both are (relatively) small and discreet cameras and very well suited for the work described above, most of which still will happen on the streets.

Digital has all the positive assets we have learned to appreciate over the last couple of decades and cannot miss from any photographer's toolkit.

But why film?

First, even after scanning, film still has that unique look that is very difficult to emulate in digital post-processing.

Secondly, because of its limitations, working with film makes me more aware of the 'why' and 'what' to photograph.

And thirdly. There is no third. I do not use film because it 'makes me slow down.'

Of course, it slows me down: hand-metering light, manual focusing, manual film transport, only 36 images before I have to rewind and change the roll manually. And I will remember every time before pressing the shutter release button that every picture on film is far more expensive than one taken with the X-Pro1.

Now here is a curve ball.

Talking about film, I ponder using medium format for my documentary-style work. But that is a story for another day.

My journey is not over yet, and I still have a long way to go, but I have found focus and a road ahead.

Why You Should Use Third-Party Lenses on Fujifilm X-Series Cameras

It Is Probably Not For The Reason You Expect

In last week's article, I mentioned that I purchased a TTArtisan 23mm f/1.4 lens for my Fujifilm X-Pro 1.

The initial motive for this purchase was to get a lens with a 35mm full-frame equivalent focal length. However, there is a second reason why I use this and other third-party lenses on the X-Pro 1.

And it is not about image quality.

Why I Use Third-Party Lenses on the Fujifilm X-Pro 1

While there are multiple third-party lenses with excellent image quality, I mainly use lenses other than Fujinon x-mount ones because these have distance and depth-of-field scales.

According to Fujifilm's overview of x-mount lenses, there are currently only three lenses with distance/depth-of-field scales: the 14mm f/2.8 R, the 16mm f/1.4 R WR, and the 23mm f/1.4 R.

While the 23mm would perfectly do the job and probably be easier since it would auto-focus, it also is about seven times the cost of the TTArtisan 23mm. So that would be an additional reason to go third-party.

As mentioned last week, I added the 23mm to my toolbox for focal length consistency because it matches the 35mm full-frame equivalent of the Summaron on my Leica M4.

Sometimes, however, I want to use a slightly longer focal length. For example, when I do not want to get too close to my subjects or when I can not get close enough to them because of the actual situation.

In those cases, I want to use a lens with a full-frame equivalent focal length of (about) 50mm or 75mm.

For these instances, I have several third-party lenses available that can either be directly used on the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 or by using an adapter:

• An AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D, which is a remains from my Nikon days

• An Industar 26M 50mm f/2.8, which usually lives on the FED-2

• A TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2, with x-mount

• And, of course, the Summaron 35mm f/2.8 from the M4

The x-mount TTArtisan goes directly on the X-Pro 1; I have specific adapters for the Nikkor, the Industar, and the Summaron.

Why Is A Depth-of-field Scale Important

As mentioned above, the depth-of-field scale is the main reason to use third-party lenses on a Fujifilm x-series camera.

This is important because it lets me use the zone and hyperfocal focusing techniques, allowing for extremely quick image-taking in the streets.

While all third-party lenses I have are either fully manual or only work as manual lenses on the X-Pro 1, zone-focusing with these lenses is quicker than autofocusing with Fujinon lenses!

If you don't know what zone-focusing is, you can read more about it in an article about zone-focusing with a Fujifilm x-series camera I published a while ago. In that article, you also can read how to zone-focus with x-series cameras when using lenses without depth-of-field scales (such as the fixed lens of the Fujifilm X100F).

How To Use Third-Party Lenses On A Fujifilm X-Series Camera

Since my third-party lenses only can be used as manual-focusing ones, I need to adjust several settings of the X-Pro 1.

First, set SHOOT WITHOUT LENS to 'ON' in Shooting Menu #3.

This allows for taking images without a Fujinon lens mounted.

Secondly, you can adjust the MOUNT ADAPTOR SETTING in Shooting Menu #3 to reflect the focal length of the lens you will be using. Note that this will not help or impact the actual use of the lens. This setting only registers the focal length of the lens you are using, which is then captured in the image's EXIF data.

Lastly, in Shooting Menu #5, I recommend setting MF ASSIST to PEAK. This will help get the correct focus using the Electronic View Finder (EVF). Focus peaking settings on the earlier x-series cameras, such as the X-Pro 1, are limited. The newer x-series cameras, however, have more extensive possibilities.

Notably, when zone-focusing with these manual lenses, I do not even have to use focus peaking and can actually use the Optical View Finder (OVF) of the X-Pro 1. However, especially with wider angle lenses, of course, I then need to be aware of possible parallax errors.

---