There are no divine rights to earn a living as a photographer

The recent controversy between a group of photographers and the creator of an AI-powered editing software that promises effortless, professional-quality headshots has once again brought to the fore the concerns of content creators regarding the impact of AI on their jobs.  In particular, the most voiced complaint is that, by releasing such a tool, this software company is destroying the livelihoods of its customers.

This is not the first time we have heard these kinds of laments from various sectors of the content creation industry. Nevertheless, I find it very difficult to understand what is motivating them.

Of course, in the short term, it is perfectly understandable that they are concerned about their ability to continue earning a wage. However, this concern does not justify calls to stop improving and ‘democratising’ products and services. However, a harsh truth of every job is that there is no divine right to keep it safe from decline or disappearance for whatever reason. And this is valid also for a relevant part of the photography business.

For many customers, it doesn’t matter who or what created the image to accompany a content; all that matters is whether it is fit for purpose. For instance, when I had to provide a featured image for a column I wrote for the Italian edition of MIT Technology Review I handed out a few shots I did myself and one image generated with Chatgpt. The magazine rightly chose the Chatgpt ‘artifact’ (the one featuring this post) that best matched the content, regardless of whether it was generated by humans or made almost entirely with machines. Sure, the image itself is nothing special. Yes, there were more creative ways to illustrate the concept of analogue processing. And, again, yes, I came up with different (and better, IMO) options. However, it was good enough, so there was no reason to keep fussing around. And the editor was absolutely right. Full stop.

This lengthy reflection introduces the central argument of this post: in the world of photography, only the creative element will survive the AI storm. In other words, ‘professional’ yet emotionless images —wheter in sports, news, portraits or advertising— are likely to lose value. By contrast, sincere and intellectually honest photos taken by ‘amateurs’ will endure. These photos are taken by people who want to express themselves, so they have no interest in software taking their place, no matter how perfect it may be. Can they make a living from this approach? Perhaps, perhaps not — but that doesn’t actually matter. History is full of ‘amateurs’ who produced outstanding creations and artistes maudits who spent their lives in misery cultivating their art.

By contrast, ‘professional’ work is only needed until it is no longer necessary. So, unless the client values craftsmanship over cold, artificial works, it is unlikely that he would choose a photography indistinguishable from an image which is artificial, but it is also cheaper and (almost) free of copyright issues.

Share this post: