I don't have a strong option on if AI is okay in the MR photography threads. But it does remind me of similar discussions on the use of photoshop many years ago. Some may remember the National Geographic cover were the pyramid was moved. I personally find AI in post processing of my own photos to be unacceptable. It's unacceptable because I do enjoy spending hours working on an image in photoshop. When I started my career in photography I worked in a darkroom printing photographs. What made a good photograph and a good photo printer was the ability to manipulate the light with dodging and burning. For me photoshop is just that next step. So for others AI will be the next step for them. But for me I find no joy in making an image with AI. One area when I am open to AI is computational photography where AI is helping the photographer create an image.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Use of AI in the MR photography forum
- Thread starter mollyc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it would literally be impossible for Apple to get great images out of iPhones without some sort of AI capabilities given sensor size, optics (which are honestly much better these days), and the physics of those things.Least we forget the elephant in the room, Apple AI usage in their iPhone photos workflow
Honestly, we throw around "AI" a lot without really taking the time to define what it really means. I take it as a machine making some decisions for me based on "recognition training" - for example <fill-in-the-blank> auto-focus (eyes, people, cats (cats!)) and I'd wager that we all rely on this every time we pick up a camera. There's also generative artificial intelligence where it "fills in or removes" content. You can do that by hand or you can have your assistant (machine) do it for you.
A completely machine generated image based on a prompt - "create an image of a dock in a lake in Switzerland" - isn't photography. Literally.
Or is it
? I don't think it is, personally.I define photography (historical precedent and literal definition notwithstanding) as capturing photons through optics on recording media such as film or a digital sensor. A generative AI image is made up of content that happens to have been captured as photons through optics on media, for the most part by lots of other people. I'm not even getting into the concept of ethics. For me, the image needs to be sourced by one human with a photon recording device, with a photon recording piece of media and where that human has had to make decisions - including composition, media (film, digital), lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (and digital equivalent) and so forth. That one human should be the one posting the image in these forums
. Post processing is cool. It's the game of photography. The human may decide to swap a sky - it's been done forever - or dodge, burn, compose multiple images, and so forth, but the key is "human" and who's making the decisions.
I think this is an excellent discussion to have. I feel like a photo should at least start with something captured by a camera; otherwise, it leans more into digital art than photography. That said, I don’t see an issue with using editing tools (whether traditional or AI-based) as long as the photographer took the original image. Perhaps it comes down to transparency: if something is heavily AI-generated, it should probably be disclosed so everyone’s on the same page.
So from what I can see in this thread no one seems to advocate that 100% AI images with no camera involved is photography. That is my view as well. Have a separate sub forum for digital art (or whatever you want to call it), but it’s not photography.
Editing is more subjective. I don’t think you can really find a happy level where we will all agree (or how you would police it!).
For me the more I can get right in the camera the better. Less time in front of a screen is after all one of the reasons I took up photography!
Editing is more subjective. I don’t think you can really find a happy level where we will all agree (or how you would police it!).
For me the more I can get right in the camera the better. Less time in front of a screen is after all one of the reasons I took up photography!
Quoted for emphasis.I define photography (historical precedent and literal definition notwithstanding) as capturing photons through optics on recording media such as film or a digital sensor. A generative AI image is made up of content that happens to have been captured as photons through optics on media, for the most part by lots of other people. I'm not even getting into the concept of ethics. For me, the image needs to be sourced by one human with a photon recording device, with a photon recording piece of media and where that human has had to make decisions - including composition, media (film, digital), lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (and digital equivalent) and so forth. That one human should be the one posting the image in these forums
100% Agree.
Kinda ironic
“Hey Siri, are AI images considered photography?”
Reply with 3 different messages
1 There’s this:
“No, AI-Generated Images Aren’t Photographs
But they’re still art. Here’s why”
2 Then here’s a different take:
“AI is, Quite Seriously, no Different from Photography in Practice
As we know, a lot of the anti argument is the following:
AI has no soul
AI steals
AI is bad for the environment
AI is lazy
AI is slop
AI is taking jobs
However, let's compare AI to photography.
Both involve quite a lot of setting changing, parameter-tweaking, and post-processing (such as photoshop).
Both involve some level of skill or work to get a good image.
Both are the result of a machine.
Both niches are filled with the causal and the professional.
Now, the differences:
AI models require what is known as training, whereas cameras don't.
A camera takes a picture of a typically physically present item, while AI generates an entirely new one.
AI needs large amounts of energy to train, and cameras require nowhere near as much.
Cameras are and were intended to "capture reality"; AI is intended to make something new from human imagination.
Now, in practice, AI and photography are essentially one and the same, as we can see.
However, AI requires much more energy for training, much less for generating (about the same energy used in 1 google search now), and work similarly to the human brain.”
3 Finally there’s this:
aestheticsofphotography.com
“The topic of whether AI-generated photography should be recognized as authentic photography has sparked heated discussions among scholars and practitioners in recent years^[1]. There are contrasting viewpoints on this matter. On one side, proponents assert that AI-generated images differ fundamentally from traditional photographs, thus disqualifying them from being considered genuine photography. Conversely, others contend that AI-generated images embody a novel form of photography that expands upon and complements traditional techniques^[2]. In this discourse, we will delve into these divergent perspectives and examine their implications for the essence of photography.”
“Hey Siri, are AI images considered photography?”
Reply with 3 different messages
1 There’s this:
“No, AI-Generated Images Aren’t Photographs
But they’re still art. Here’s why”
2 Then here’s a different take:
“AI is, Quite Seriously, no Different from Photography in Practice
As we know, a lot of the anti argument is the following:
AI has no soul
AI steals
AI is bad for the environment
AI is lazy
AI is slop
AI is taking jobs
However, let's compare AI to photography.
Both involve quite a lot of setting changing, parameter-tweaking, and post-processing (such as photoshop).
Both involve some level of skill or work to get a good image.
Both are the result of a machine.
Both niches are filled with the causal and the professional.
Now, the differences:
AI models require what is known as training, whereas cameras don't.
A camera takes a picture of a typically physically present item, while AI generates an entirely new one.
AI needs large amounts of energy to train, and cameras require nowhere near as much.
Cameras are and were intended to "capture reality"; AI is intended to make something new from human imagination.
Now, in practice, AI and photography are essentially one and the same, as we can see.
However, AI requires much more energy for training, much less for generating (about the same energy used in 1 google search now), and work similarly to the human brain.”
3 Finally there’s this:
Can AI-Generated Photography still be considered Photography?
Decoding the Artistic Clash: AI-Generated Photography vs. Tradition! Unravel the debate on authenticity in the digital era.
aestheticsofphotography.com
“The topic of whether AI-generated photography should be recognized as authentic photography has sparked heated discussions among scholars and practitioners in recent years^[1]. There are contrasting viewpoints on this matter. On one side, proponents assert that AI-generated images differ fundamentally from traditional photographs, thus disqualifying them from being considered genuine photography. Conversely, others contend that AI-generated images embody a novel form of photography that expands upon and complements traditional techniques^[2]. In this discourse, we will delve into these divergent perspectives and examine their implications for the essence of photography.”
Threads should include levels of adjustments allowed in the titles (at best) or in the body of the OG post (as well or at worst). If everybody knows the rules going in, they can participate freely and without deception whether wanton or accidental.
For example, “Night Sky pics! Filters allowed: physical, balance correction in post only, please” or “No Man’s Land nature shots; add a whimsical element (of any kind, including AI) but with otherwise minimal processing” etc
For example, “Night Sky pics! Filters allowed: physical, balance correction in post only, please” or “No Man’s Land nature shots; add a whimsical element (of any kind, including AI) but with otherwise minimal processing” etc
I really hope we don't get to the point of having to disclose the type of editing we do.
Editing is not a dirty word. ALL images are edited - if you aren't doing it in post, the camera is doing it for you. My film photos don't convert themselves and they require more editing than digital photos in some ways.
And AI isn't really a dirty word either, but is different than holding a camera in one's hand.
Very interesting discussion, to which there are not going to be clear answers. AI is here, and it's not going away. How we integrate it into society going forward is the vexed question.
Somewhat of a ramble, but nevertheless:
One tricky part of this discussion is defining what we mean by AI. The CAPA guidelines @arkitect linked attack this issue within the context of a photography competition. Not all AI is created equal, and it is now present in standard photo editing software - and its increasingly difficult to even know when it has been involved in your workflow depending on what you're doing. So defining which specific kinds of AI one is referring to is critical.
But another problem is photographs are created and used for many different purposes. A photo taken and then radically altered with AI to sell diapers probably won't rile a lot of people. But what about a 'photo' submitted to a photography competition, or 'photos' of actual people, places, and things sold by someone calling themselves a 'photographer'? How much and/or what kind of AI enhancement is OK?
At the moment I tend to agree with the idea that AI is OK for use in postprocessing where its purpose is to enhance existing information in a photograph. My gut instinct for drawing the line is when using AI to introduce data that wasn't there to begin with that is being drawn from training datasets. But this is still a very difficult and fuzzy line and I'm not of any settled opinion.
There are just so many issues to discuss it's really overwhelming. One thing I will say - anyone who claims to have a clear and simple stance on it (i.e. 'AI is, Quite Seriously, No Different from Photography in Practice') is oversimplifying things. Because we are still early in the AI revolution/apocalypse, regardless of how you feel about it.
Finally, I do feel like there should be a somewhat clearer line on the use of AI with photography than with 'art' in general, because 'photography' is a medium with definable characteristics. For me, taking a photograph and then using AI to add substantial elements to it is mixed media AI-enhanced art, no longer just a photograph.
Somewhat of a ramble, but nevertheless:
One tricky part of this discussion is defining what we mean by AI. The CAPA guidelines @arkitect linked attack this issue within the context of a photography competition. Not all AI is created equal, and it is now present in standard photo editing software - and its increasingly difficult to even know when it has been involved in your workflow depending on what you're doing. So defining which specific kinds of AI one is referring to is critical.
But another problem is photographs are created and used for many different purposes. A photo taken and then radically altered with AI to sell diapers probably won't rile a lot of people. But what about a 'photo' submitted to a photography competition, or 'photos' of actual people, places, and things sold by someone calling themselves a 'photographer'? How much and/or what kind of AI enhancement is OK?
At the moment I tend to agree with the idea that AI is OK for use in postprocessing where its purpose is to enhance existing information in a photograph. My gut instinct for drawing the line is when using AI to introduce data that wasn't there to begin with that is being drawn from training datasets. But this is still a very difficult and fuzzy line and I'm not of any settled opinion.
There are just so many issues to discuss it's really overwhelming. One thing I will say - anyone who claims to have a clear and simple stance on it (i.e. 'AI is, Quite Seriously, No Different from Photography in Practice') is oversimplifying things. Because we are still early in the AI revolution/apocalypse, regardless of how you feel about it.
Finally, I do feel like there should be a somewhat clearer line on the use of AI with photography than with 'art' in general, because 'photography' is a medium with definable characteristics. For me, taking a photograph and then using AI to add substantial elements to it is mixed media AI-enhanced art, no longer just a photograph.
This is a tricky subject. I appreciate all your knowledgable insights. Here are my half-formed thoughts...
As an amateur shooter I don't (yet) use a serious editing/cataloguing software. I do basic color/light/cropping in Photos. I've altered two images I recently posted in POTD, both times removing items that cluttered the scene (a power line in one, a Toyota Camry in the other) using the Clean Up tool. But the original vision of what I was trying to capture remained.
Using AI for things like adding my dog (if I had one) to a scene I think it would look good in, changing skies, etc. are fine as artistic experiments, but that sort of thing just doesn't appeal to me. Well, with one glaring and notable exception: I loaded a photo into ChatGPT and asked it to create an avatar, which I'm now using on this site.
As far as AI's use in forums, I think disclosure for anything beyond what the majority would think are normal editing processes would be fair. But in all honesty, unless we're competing for a prize or you're making money from photos where the expectation is to keep the image as close to original as possible, I'm willing to err on the side of acceptance.
As an amateur shooter I don't (yet) use a serious editing/cataloguing software. I do basic color/light/cropping in Photos. I've altered two images I recently posted in POTD, both times removing items that cluttered the scene (a power line in one, a Toyota Camry in the other) using the Clean Up tool. But the original vision of what I was trying to capture remained.
Using AI for things like adding my dog (if I had one) to a scene I think it would look good in, changing skies, etc. are fine as artistic experiments, but that sort of thing just doesn't appeal to me. Well, with one glaring and notable exception: I loaded a photo into ChatGPT and asked it to create an avatar, which I'm now using on this site.
As far as AI's use in forums, I think disclosure for anything beyond what the majority would think are normal editing processes would be fair. But in all honesty, unless we're competing for a prize or you're making money from photos where the expectation is to keep the image as close to original as possible, I'm willing to err on the side of acceptance.
I should add that the advent of AI has made me appreciate film photography that much more. Because one can capture and reproduce an image with zero digital involvement. And if you never scan it and upload it to the internet, it can't be edited, scraped, or even copied. That feels pretty special, even if many might dismiss it as quaint, archaic, or irrelevant.
Film captured the image and we all chose different films to make captures of the exact same pic look different (and that is even before we get into the darkroom cropping/dodging/burning...). Every photo has always been a lie of sorts by the photog.
So shoot two pix of the same subject, one with Tri-X and one with Kodachrome. Note the huge differences despite "zero digital involvement."
Optics play a huge role too. How many hundreds or thousands of 50mm lenses are there, all which render differently, even on the same body? For this reason I’m hopeful for the longevity of real photography, but I know it’s only a matter of time before AI can replicate them all.
AI can never replicate my enjoyment of photography. Take your lovely butterfly shot from the POTD thread.
Do photos of that butterfly species exist already? Yes. Are many of them outstanding? Yes. So why bother to take the photo? Why not just go onto the web and find one? Save you the time of being out there shooting.
That’s what AI will do for you. Get you that image.
But (I’m guessing) like me you take your enjoyment from nailing the shot when the circumstances are right.
AI can never replace that. If I was making my money from product photography, I’d be worried though.
We really need to have a better definition of "AI" in the context of this thread. AI is way too generic, just look at what what was on the front page earlier this afternoon:
www.macrumors.com
The term "AI" will be used going forward for any and all modifications in an image (I specifically do not say photograph), whether that is "light editing" or adding/removing objects etc. All the editing terms that we are used to from the LR/PS etc tools will all become "AI".
So I think what most people who have posted here want is that no "AI generated photograph" be posted in the Photography sub-forum, but rather in a different (new) sub-forum. Do I get this right?
The question of how much "editing" or usage of AI to edit a photograph is a totally separate one imho.
Google Photos Gets Conversational Editing
With the launch of the Pixel 10 smartphones, Google announced new AI functionality that's coming to its Google Photos app and service. Users...
www.macrumors.com
So I think what most people who have posted here want is that no "AI generated photograph" be posted in the Photography sub-forum, but rather in a different (new) sub-forum. Do I get this right?
The question of how much "editing" or usage of AI to edit a photograph is a totally separate one imho.
What, do you have the only functioning Kodachrome processing line in your basement or something? 🤣 But I kid.
Indeed, and therein lies the magic. It's chemistry, not computers. I am not implying that we should all abandon digital photography. But a major issue with AI right now is that it is becoming increasingly undetectable. So there is no way of knowing whether, or how much, AI-generated data is in any digital image at present. At least not with absolute certainty.
Anyway, I don't want to drag things OT. I brought up film just as a counterexample - so-called 'analog' approaches to things have never gone away, and as our digital lives become higher-risk or more complex some of them might find new audiences.
I am an artist, visionary and ambassador for OM Digital Solutions (Olympus) and Ex-Nat Geo photographer, quality assurance manager and AI research validator at FDA.
I've got humanoid robots, Cyberdogs (Unitree, Huawei, Xiaomi), AI drones etc. since years meaning I belong to the pro-AI side and wish to see more and more of it.
Stopped to use Photoshop in 2024 already and now in Mid 2025 it's obsolete for me.
I still use 80% real photos for AI processing, 20% are fully AI generated.
Unlike the majority, I welcome innovation and I think there is nothing more powerful than a professional who meets AI and creates a new generation of art.
I accept the reality and the future, for me it's the same like the switch from traditional paintings to photography.
I'd like to see more AI content at MR.
I've got humanoid robots, Cyberdogs (Unitree, Huawei, Xiaomi), AI drones etc. since years meaning I belong to the pro-AI side and wish to see more and more of it.
Stopped to use Photoshop in 2024 already and now in Mid 2025 it's obsolete for me.
I still use 80% real photos for AI processing, 20% are fully AI generated.
Unlike the majority, I welcome innovation and I think there is nothing more powerful than a professional who meets AI and creates a new generation of art.
I accept the reality and the future, for me it's the same like the switch from traditional paintings to photography.
I'd like to see more AI content at MR.
Art is as art does, sure. Digital images created by someone's skill at prompting and producing photograph-like content can definitely be considered art. There will be people who like it or dislike it, like any art form. Just like photography didn't eliminate painting and digital didn't eliminate film, AI-prompting isn't going to eliminate photography as an art form either; that is, carrying a box with a lens and light-sensitive material inside it to capture what's in front of us.
I think the consensus here is that in a photography forum, the images should start out from the poster's own camera and not from text in an AI agent. If people want a thread for digital images that are photograph-like and the result of a person's skill at prompting and not using a camera, they can certainly start one.
Working with and on ML/AI is literally my day job. It's powerful, useful, and yes, it's part of our future (not to mention our "now"). It has also played a great role in allowing us to capture better images and also to process them. Awesome! That said, in my opinion, prompting an AI agent to produce a photograph-like digital image isn't photography in any sense of the word so doesn't belong in a photography forum. Stick them in a digital art forum or something.
Agreed it’s just not photography. It can be art but it’s not photography. If no camera was used it’s something else.
Like if I take a photo and apply a filter (or AI!) to make it look like a painting, it’s not a painting. If the technology improves to the point where no one can tell if it’s a painting or a photograph edited, it still doesn’t make it a painting!
I’m enjoying this thread a lot. I love philosophical discussions that have real world implications.
For me, it’s a question of who/what is doing the hard work. I have found it easier if I expand the vocabulary to AI as Assistive Intelligence vs AI as Artificial Intelligence.
If I’m cloning something, putting the pixels where I want, and the computer is just helping me place them – that is assistive. Assistive Intelligence is unavoidable because we cannot directly alter digital images the way we could film. I see Assistive Intelligence is a direct analogue to film manipulation.
If, on the other hand, I highlight an area and sit back to let the program do all the work – that is Artificial Intelligence. That’s more akin to having an assistant do the work and then claiming the image as your own.
I’m good with the first but not the second.
For me, it’s a question of who/what is doing the hard work. I have found it easier if I expand the vocabulary to AI as Assistive Intelligence vs AI as Artificial Intelligence.
If I’m cloning something, putting the pixels where I want, and the computer is just helping me place them – that is assistive. Assistive Intelligence is unavoidable because we cannot directly alter digital images the way we could film. I see Assistive Intelligence is a direct analogue to film manipulation.
If, on the other hand, I highlight an area and sit back to let the program do all the work – that is Artificial Intelligence. That’s more akin to having an assistant do the work and then claiming the image as your own.
I’m good with the first but not the second.
Or sit at a computer and tell it I want a picture of an iPhone underwater in the Seychelles. Then you can’t claim it as your own or even as photography!
It's also important to avoid framing the discussion as 'pro-AI' versus 'anti-AI.' Credit to @mollyc for setting this out as a more nuanced and productive discussion. Because most people fall between those two extremes.
It's more a question of defining an appropriate role/use for AI within a given space, to set out boundaries, and to recognize the need for transparency.
It's more a question of defining an appropriate role/use for AI within a given space, to set out boundaries, and to recognize the need for transparency.
TL;DR
Worth creating a thread for purely AI generated images?
Just as an aside — and not to derail the thread, but…
I myself have enjoyed creating AI images. Just AI images purely by describing them to ChatGPT or DALL-E and other text-to-image models and seeing how far I can push them.
As there is no thread for AI created images that I could find, would it be worth our while to create one — and if so, where?
It might be another creative outlet for folk like me who enjoy creativity in all its forms.
Worth creating a thread for purely AI generated images?
Just as an aside — and not to derail the thread, but…
I myself have enjoyed creating AI images. Just AI images purely by describing them to ChatGPT or DALL-E and other text-to-image models and seeing how far I can push them.
As there is no thread for AI created images that I could find, would it be worth our while to create one — and if so, where?
It might be another creative outlet for folk like me who enjoy creativity in all its forms.