Photographers & Editors vs AI: What’s Next?

Next week, I will talk about this in an online session for the company where I teach.

I don't feel that work is decreasing. I have been saying this to my students, and I will continue to say it. Only those who fall behind and fail to adapt will be left behind.

As a commercial photographer, I think these new tools have greatly helped my work. This is just as valid as when digital photography became, in a way, available to everyone.

Many people said it would be the end of photography and that many photographers would become unemployed. In reality, only those who fought against digital and insisted on sticking with analog ended up disappearing or realizing they had to adapt.

In addition to working as a professional photographer, I am certified by Adobe in Photoshop, a certified expert, and a certified instructor. If I ignored the AI options in Adobe programs, I would have already been replaced by someone else who could teach the classes.

AI does not replace us; we are replaced by those who have adapted and know how to work with these options.


If you feel that your work as an editor is diminishing, then invest in learning how to work with AI, because if it is diminishing, it is because someone else is doing it for you, and that someone is not AI, but rather those who know how to work with it.
AI does not create anything, it does not feel or execute without receiving orders from us. AI is the orchestra, but we are the composer and conductor.

 

(In my opinion - I am an AI engineer and a hobbyist photographer)

Yes I think slowly but surely, the demand for professional work is going to decrease and the competitiveness/supply will increase. Some fields more than others, for example stock, product, commercial photography will get hit the most. Low/mid end fashion photography will probably be replaced by midjourney (or similar, but currently it's by far the best). I would think high end stuff will remain. Weddings, animal/nature/landscape, portrait, street, fine art, documentary, photojournalism and anything with human sentimental value will probably survive as I doubt people would like to see an AI version of that (at least I don't).

HOWEVER, since alot of other areas are going to die (especially paid stuff), the photographers/editors/retouchers or anyone working in these fields are going to shift towards whatever survives hence increasing the supply even more (i.e. stock photographers might move to wedding photography...). People who are already in certain fields, can now complete their jobs in much faster turnaround time, which will allow them to take more work/jobs, boosting the supply/availability/competitiveness. Also, the job market is not doing very well right now, alot of people are getting redundant everywhere, some of those with alot of extra free time might start taking photography (or other creative endeavors) as hobbies/work, which will further boost the supply.

And I do respectfully disagree with anyone who says AI will not replace us. It is true that AI will not fully replace humans (at least not yet), but instead of needing 10 people to do a certain job, you can now do it with much fewer + AI. Some of the current hurdles are resolution and accuracy, these will drastically improve with time.

This (somewhat optimistic) view is based on the assumption that people will still prefer real photos over AI generated ones - like some people still prefer to see paintings over photography, analogue/film over digital... - if that turned out not to be the case, then I think AI will take over all genres. There is no point for me to spend a fortune in time, resources, and effort to shoot a landscape photo (gear, training, travel, editing...), if I can generate much better ones within seconds in the comfort of my own home.

People who are already established with enough connections, clients, and work, won't probably get affected.

 

I’m a full-time wedding photo editor as well. Two of my clients already send me pre-edited and color-graded work from Aftershoot and Imagen. They do a decent job, but there are still clients who are very particular about their branding, like the exact skin tones or the color of the greens. Sometimes AI makes the greens look warmer, while their brand prefers a minty look. Because of that, I usually work with AI-pre-edited galleries and then refine them. I’m also thinking of getting back into shooting weddings, and I’m now looking into real estate photography and videography since there aren’t too many competitors here in my country.

 

With all respect
You are confusing things here

"And I do respectfully disagree with anyone who says AI will not replace us."
Ok enterprises need less employees, same way Supermarkets are using automatic cash registers with bar code readers but, you always have a human there to see if something is wrong, the same way with AI.
AI doesn't create by herself, you as a human have to give a prompt to AI, without you, US, AI just waits for someone to give him something.

"This (somewhat optimistic) view is based on the assumption that people will still prefer real photos over AI generated ones...There is no point for me to spend a fortune in time, resources, and effort to shoot a landscape photo (gear, training, travel, editing...), if I can generate much better ones within seconds in the comfort of my own home."

As a matter of fact, there is. An AI image cam be 99% prefect, but it misses that 1% that usually clients want
I think AI is perfect for mook Ups and to help a client to share what he / She wants with the Designer or Photographer. The only way to get all perfect is to wright the perfect prompt and even so, human clients want changes that is Beter be performed by a human

For me as a Photographer and Photoshop trainer I prefere to learn the new tools (AI) and have an advantage over my colleagues who prefer to stay behind