Is this a real photograph or a fake?

It’s a fake. Good, isn’t it? The reason I know it’s a fake is because I made it myself using Adobe Firefly Generative AI. In fact the only creative input involved was how I worded my text prompt. The trouble is, when AI generated images get this good, how can we tell what’s real any more?

The other question many people might be asking themselves is what’s the point of going out to take photographs when you can simply type a few words into a text field?

It does seem as if we’ve reached a crossroads in photography and photographic imagery and we have to try to figure out where we go from here. There are some short term implications straight away, but in the long term it will perhaps lead us to think more deeply about why we take photographs – and why other people take them.

An image can only be defined by its purpose…. that is as true now as it ever was. There is no good or bad image, there is no right or wrong image. It’s not the image that is to be questioned but the artist/creator/author. 

Peter Juerges, via comments

Can photographs no longer be trusted?

Well, that’s one worry. The fact is, though, that photographers have always been highly selective about ‘reality’. The moment you choose where to stand and how to frame the shot, you’re controlling what your viewers will see. You’re hiding what’s unimportant, or irrelevant or ugly or unwanted so that people only see what you want them to see.

And then there’s the moment you take the photograph. We choose that pretty carefully too, don’t we, so that everything is in place at the right moment, when a crowd of tourists has stepped out of view, when a delivery van has pulled away or our subject takes up the perfect pose. Timing is another kind of ‘selective’ reality.

Long before Photoshop, photographers were doing things in the darkroom that twisted and distorted reality still further, but then of course Photoshop made everything possible. We shouldn’t worry that Generative AI has brought in a brave new world of fake imagery when we’ve had that for years.

Perhaps what we’re worried about is that now everyone can do it. This kind of reality distortion and fakery is no longer confined to skilled experts but is available to anyone who can string a few words together.

Perhaps the real issue is that a new creator economy and a new generation of social influencers has arrived at the same time, so that a mixture of unscrupulousness and ignorance has flooded our social feeds with idealised, perfected and often fake representations of these people’s ‘perfect’ lives.

So no, photographs can’t really be trusted. But it’s always been like this. This isn’t new, it’s just a bit more obvious.

Is this the end of royalty free stock photography and photo agencies?

Yes, and no, I think, and in that order. I often need to use stock photo sites for my publishing work so it has definitely become a dilemma. Do I use a royalty free stock image that many other sites may also use, or do I use generative AI with my own carefully chosen text prompt to generate an image that’s probably unique?

I do think that generative AI will indeed eat into the current royalty free stock photo industry for that very reason. However, ‘real’ photographs still have a different look that you can sense, even if you can’t put it into words.

I don’t think picture agencies face the same problem. Here, there already very strong verification and content authenticity initiatives in place to make sure photographs are real. In the future, it’s likely that verifiable imagery will become a lot more valuable.

So why should we keep on taking photographs?

This depends on what you feel photography means to you. If you are solely an artist or an image-maker and your camera is just a content-generating tool, then perhaps AI can create your images much more effectively than going out with a camera.

But there’s another reason we take photographs. It’s because they are a record of something real that happened. In an increasingly virtual, digital world, our connection with physical reality is also becoming more important. I think need to protect it, even if we’re only just beginning to understand that. We live a physical existence, and the meta reality offered by social channels and AI and non-stop streaming TV is not part of it.

So I think we should keep taking photographs to keep reminding ourselves of the real, physical world that we inhabit.

And to get back to the image I created at the top of this article… yes, it is a striking image, and it does look real. Except that it isn’t. It’s not a real church, it’s not a real location, that weather didn’t happen and I wasn’t there. As an image, it’s quite effective, but for me the fact that it’s AI-generated strips it of any personal meaning. I like Vera Gorbunova’s strange, ugly and imperfect ruin much more because it actually exists in the real world. It has a meaning that an AI construct does not.

What I made was an image that resembled a photograph, but it was not a photograph.

Comments are moderated and may not appear straight away.