Interesting!

[Jack Dahlgren]

"Better tools can help the photographer to make better images"

That is what all equipment makers, photo stores, and magazines all want us to believe is the truth. the truth is that only the photographer can make a photo great.  Technical perfection has no direct bearing on the quality of the outcome. Sad ? not really. Actually showing there is still hope.

You are certainly correct that only the photographer can make a photo great, but what makes the photographer great?

Practice certainly helps. The rapid feedback made possible by digital cameras has improved my photography considerably in comparison to the slower progress of shooting and developing.

Ability to achieve one's vision helps. Cameras which can shoot in the dark, go under water, fly etc. all expand the possibilities of capturing images one is thinking of.

One can not dismiss technical advancements as unimportant, but as technical capabilities of the tools increase, the clearer it is that the human is the weakest link. The situation is not black and white.

[David H. Hartman]

Jack,

Did you mean to type the human is the "missing" link? I'm confused.

Dave

[Les Olson]

Better tools can help the photographer to make better images.

Really?  Autofocus, eg, does not help us make better photographs, even allowing for the sake of argument that in-focus is better, because in-focus is in-focus and people took in-focus photographs before AF.  AF just allows us to take a higher proportion of in-focus photographs.  That certainly makes the process quicker, but ... are we in a hurry?   Maybe it allows us to forget about focus and concentrate on composition ... or maybe it allows us to switch off and not look carefully at all. 

There have always been photographs taken in low light and underwater: modern cameras certainly make those photographs easier to take, but why is easier "better"? 

Algorithms and AI are useful because humans have an unfortunate tendency to vastly over-rate the value of intuition and gut instinct, which are, in fact, just another way of saying "I am bored with thinking, I want to do something": algorithms and AI, like protocols and check-lists, over-ride that tendency.  But that is an improvement if - and only if - the algorithms are soundly based, and if they are just an expression of the designer's personal preferences I would rather use mine.  This algorithm sets out to reproduce the characteristics of a bunch of "great" photographs, and even if it works as intended - a big if - it is no better than the choice of the "great" photographs.  We do not know what the algorithm designers think a good photograph is - they could like HDR photographs, for all we know - and before anyone uses the algorithm they need to know what style the designers are trying to mimic.

[Anthony]

Of course AF can help us to make better photographs.  People did all sorts of things manually which are now done automatically, but so what.  The fact is that I, and many other people, get more good photos today with the aid of AF.    Being able to concentrate more on composition is another positive.  And I get far fewer "Hurry up and take the photo" comments than I used to in the days of MF.  So moments are captured which would have been lost to a bored subject, or the missing of a brief moment.  When it comes to action photography, I can capture moments which only a highly skilled pro could have caught in the days of MF.  If that is not being helped to make better photos, then I do not know what is.

Modern cameras can make photos in low light which would have been impossible in the olden days.  A good photo is better than no photo at all.

Easier is not necessarily better, but it can make better possible.  And it can make better possible for people who lack the technical skill of the top professionals.  Which is most of us.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"Better quality" is not synonymous with "better images".

If anything, we are inundated with high quality boring and unimaginative perfect pictures these days. Perhaps less emphasis on technicalities and more interest for the process of making and conveying visual statements would be in order?

[John Geerts]

Yes.

I don't think AF is really an aid. It will make the photographer lazy, and you will never get to know the focus-distances of the lens by routine.  Distance planning is part of the creative process especially were you want to have the unsharpness, when using lenses wide open.

A small example. Sports is not my usual topic, but I went to a cycle race where I wanted to have the speed and action of the cyclists.  I used the 200/2 Ai and planned carefully the distances and the in - and - out of focus elements.  These things are not easily automated...  (or should I say, all automated would not be a creative process any more?)

[Les Olson]

The fact is that I, and many other people, get more good photos today with the aid of AF.   

Sure, but there is a difference between how many good photographs you get, and how good the best ones are.  As you say, today any moderately skilled photographer can get a proportion of in-focus and correctly exposed images that 50 years ago only professionals could manage - but are the very best photographs of today, at any given level of skill, better than those of the past?  Of course not. 

[Jack Dahlgren]

Algorithms and AI are useful because humans have an unfortunate tendency to vastly over-rate the value of intuition and gut instinct, which are, in fact, just another way of saying "I am bored with thinking, I want to do something": algorithms and AI, like protocols and check-lists, over-ride that tendency.  But that is an improvement if - and only if - the algorithms are soundly based, and if they are just an expression of the designer's personal preferences I would rather use mine.  This algorithm sets out to reproduce the characteristics of a bunch of "great" photographs, and even if it works as intended - a big if - it is no better than the choice of the "great" photographs.  We do not know what the algorithm designers think a good photograph is - they could like HDR photographs, for all we know - and before anyone uses the algorithm they need to know what style the designers are trying to mimic.

For the most part AI is not strictly an algorithm, it is just math which is informed by training a system with a large amount of labeled input. As you point out, the labeling is the key part of this.

It appears in this case that the system uses a set of popular photographs and their settings and attempts to apply those settings to create more popular photographs.

Unfortunately, the settings are only technical and don't really relate to the content or the message of the photograph. Is f/8 @ 125th of a second melancholy or festive? Does it capture a fleeting expression which we recognize as beauty?

Many of the photos I see in this forum make a mockery of focus and sharpness. Some swap the real colors for those of a crazy Hawaiian shirt. Some people can't even hold their camera still. Yet you can find beauty and expression in all of them.

AI is like magic when it works. It can recognize patterns and features which escape our paltry human attention. It never sleeps. But it is still just a monkey at a typewriter when it comes to creating beauty.

[simsurace]

Whatever human creativity is, my hunch is we will soon build machines that show behavior that would fool many into thinking it was guided by a human brain. Perhaps not next year, but maybe within this century.

Does anyone truly believe there is something supernatural about creativity? It seems to me that we label something creative because it was not easily expected from what preceded it. Do you know anyone who produces only creative pictures, or is it simply about weeding out the less creative work?
The other thought I have is that something is only creative until it has been conceived for the first time.

I suppose humans will soon face an existential crisis here.

[CS]

From a thread posted earlier today:

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6095.msg98389/topicseen.html#msg98389

One cannot deny that technology has helped the photographer.

[Anthony]

Sure, but there is a difference between how many good photographs you get, and how good the best ones are.  As you say, today any moderately skilled photographer can get a proportion of in-focus and correctly exposed images that 50 years ago only professionals could manage - but are the very best photographs of today, at any given level of skill, better than those of the past?  Of course not.

I am saying more than that.  It is not just about focus and exposure - it is about achieving a capture which would simply not have been caught at all.

With AF I can get photos which are much better than those I got in MF days.  Of course, in some circumstances it makes no difference.  But there are many when it does. 

Are the best photos of today better at any level of skill than in the past?  In some areas of activity, yes, absolutely.  There are sports, action and wildlife photographs today which eclipse almost everything done in the past.  That is not to denigrate past photographers; it is just that they lived in a different world.   And there are some photographs in the past which stand comparison with anything done today; modern technology does not make everything better, but it does make a lot of things better.

[Anthony]

Yes.

I don't think AF is really an aid. It will make the photographer lazy, and you will never get to know the focus-distances of the lens by routine.  Distance planning is part of the creative process especially were you want to have the unsharpness, when using lenses wide open.

A small example. Sports is not my usual topic, but I went to a cycle race where I wanted to have the speed and action of the cyclists.  I used the 200/2 Ai and planned carefully the distances and the in - and - out of focus elements.  These things are not easily automated...  (or should I say, all automated would not be a creative process any more?)

Good photo, thanks for posting.

It is not a criticism to say that the techniques you used for this would have been far less effective in a sport with less predictable action.  I know of no professional sport photographer who uses MF to capture unpredictable action, and that should tell us a lot.

I don't think AF makes us lazy.  There is no moral degeneracy in using AF.  What it does is to automate a mechanical process, which we can then use creatively to achieve a result.  It is the creativity which counts, not the process.

[David H. Hartman]

I don't think AF is really an aid. It will make the photographer lazy, and you will never get to know the focus-distances of the lens by routine.  Distance planning is part of the creative process especially were you want to have the unsharpness, when using lenses wide open.

Choosing one's point of view, point of focus, perspective, background, relationship of subject to other element in the photograph, background blurring and more can all be done before the camera is lifted to the eye. If there is time one might refine an image some in camera but it's possible to raise the camera to the eye and shoot what one pervisualized. The photograph may be made or broken before raising the camera to the eye. Technical aspects can break the photo in the fleeting seconds between lifting the camera and before the shutter is pressed or one may tripod mount their camera and the subject may not change rapidly so there could be more time.

previsualization can be a slow process or it can happen at the speed of reflex. One sets the distance and perspective with their feet. One may carry a short painter's ladder if eye level isn't high enough. One might even build a platform on the top of their car or truck as one did years ago. There is no creativity built into a flip out LCD but one can certainly make shooting at a low angle much easier. 

AF is not an aid to previsualization. It is an aid to nailing the focus where one's primary subject is located. One might even get a few in focus shots with AF of a subject that's being tossed in the wind. AF can greatly increase the number of in focus shots one obtains.

Distance and therefore perspective is set with the feet. You don't zoom with your feet at least I can't. If possible I take a position and zoom with my lens. If there is no time or physical restraints I'll just zoom with my lens.

I see nothing wrong with "Arsenal" if one wants one. I'd rather have a lens that provides an optical solution than something to hang on the camera.
 
The ad copy is the same as load of BS that I've read since the '70s. This stuff just seems to get worse as time goes by. Has anyone commented directly on the ad copy? Probably. I don't want Arsenal encumbering my camera. I read the ad copy on a new Nikon camera body and let that encumbering my mind.

Dave

Please send FREE time™ I have so little lately. 

[Jack Dahlgren]

Whatever human creativity is, my hunch is we will soon build machines that show behavior that would fool many into thinking it was guided by a human brain. Perhaps not next year, but maybe within this century.

Does anyone truly believe there is something supernatural about creativity? It seems to me that we label something creative because it was not easily expected from what preceded it. Do you know anyone who produces only creative pictures, or is it simply about weeding out the less creative work?
The other thought I have is that something is only creative until it has been conceived for the first time.

I suppose humans will soon face an existential crisis here.

Creativity is a tricky subject. I think your criteria of "conceived for the first time" is perhaps a bit too limiting. There are many things which have been created before which continue to be created with complete ignorance of that prior creation. So often there are many "first times".

On the other hand, novelty alone is not sufficient for something to be creative. I may be the first to serve ice cream covered in blue latex paint, but most would call that stupid instead of creative. 

I think, and I haven't thought that hard about it, that for something to be judged creative we need to look at the effect of the creation. With that as a definition, there are machines or systems right now which could be judged as creative. There are already generative design tools capable of creating things humans wished they would have thought of. In fact, the feeling of wishing that I had thought of that is probably the best measure of creativity there is.

That machines can do this is here today, and everyday I see more examples of it. I work at a company which is at the heart of the Artificial Intelligence industry so it is not something I can avoid.

[CS]

I think creative is best described as serving a need. Exactly what that need might be is open to more definitions than I'm able to convey.

Naturally, others will have their own definition of creative. When it comes to photography, perhaps pleasing is a more appropriate definition. And that opens a can of worms because not everyone likes the same thing, meaning that what pleases one might not please another.

If I said that anything by Salvador Dali is junk, many would be up in arms over that remark. To some he was creative. Not that I have a need for a Dali at my place, unless it was awaiting an on the way cash buyer. After all, I could use the cash that a Dali sale would "create"  for me.