Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Tag: photographic technology

How I Use AI
I’m generally very anti-AI, but it is a huge, fast-moving field splintered in lots of directions. Not all are bad. This is a snapshot of how I use AI today.
Traditional argument against AI
The traditional argument against AI is that it takes over our creativity and allows automated generation of scenes. Yes, this is possible and it is being done every day.
For many, it is no longer necessary to locate or create an interesting subject to photograph. Just let the AI agent do it. If you want a purple elephant in that scene, just describe it to your friendly chat bot and it will quickly create several variations to select from. To me, this is fantasy illustration, not photography.
But I’m a photographer. My work is based on reality. Even if I create a fantasy composite, it is built from pieces that actually exist somewhere. Pieces I have found and collected just for this purpose. All of it is my original photography and the combination is my own creative work.
I sincerely believe that AI cannot think or feel. It has no soul. It cannot appreciate what it generates. By my somewhat biased definition, this invalidates it from being art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
It’s just a technology
But let’s not forget that it is not a living entity and it is not magic. It is just technology. It is software running in a data center. The people who build it don’t understand how it works and why it does some of the things it does, but still, it is technology.
Almost any technology has the potential to help us in some positive way, if it is used appropriately. This is true from the printing press to nuclear energy to AI.
With AI, though, we are in a very immature early phase. Everybody is running around saying “Oh, look at this!”, without considering what it means or where it leads. AI is a large field. It is hard to make blanket statements about it.
The hype told you AI would change everything overnight. The reality is slower, messier, and far more expensive than anyone admitted.
The AI Coder, Medium
Photography technology history
Photography has progressed through several generations of technology changes without being destroyed.
The original hard-core photographers had to mix their chemicals, coat glass plates, expose them in their heavy 8×10 view cameras, then rush to their tent to develop them. You had to really want to do it.
But then coated film was developed. The field opened up to many more people. We could shoot all we wanted – all we could afford, anyway, drop them at the photo store, and get prints back in a few days. Small “walkabout” cameras like Leica exploited the new, smaller film and became hits. The. world was more convenient, film and lenses kept getting better, and things were generally pretty good. We no longer had to suffer to be a photographer.
But then someone (Kodak, as it turns out) came along and created digital cameras. No more film. No more waiting for prints. It started as a crude technology but quickly grew to dominate photography. It is all I use and I wouldn’t go back. I know for sure that I got the image and real-time histograms are something I would not give up. Even film purists would generally agree that digital has surpassed film in resolution. A side effect is that now everyone is a photographer, and photography tends to lose its identity as an art.
At every stage, the old-time purists declared that the new technology would ruin photography. Actually, it just kept getting better. I believe some parts of AI will be like this and some won’t.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In camera
Unless you are shooting a manual camera, there is a lot of “AI-like” technology embedded in your camera. I’m referring to things that can take over creative decisions from the artist. Remember, AI is a large field. There are a lot of small, focused applications of the technology.
Going way back before AI was named, Nikon developed a multi-segment metering system, and its exposure system was “trained” using thousands of properly exposed images taken with the matrix. That is basically the definition of AI. At this point, matrix metering may be based on actual AI technology. I don’t know. It works very well and keeps getting better. I have trusted the Nikon matrix metering system for many years. But I monitor it, and if I disagree, I override it. This is a key.
Or look at the focusing systems in our cameras. They have grown to hundreds of sensors that can work singly or cooperatively together to achieve near perfect focus. I very rarely focus manually. Some of the systems can “look at” the entire scene and decide what the focus point should be. And some recognize eyes and focus on them. And some track moving objects and predict where to focus at the moment the shutter is pressed. These relieve the photographer of some tedious manual control that requires a lot of practice to get right.
I’m not necessarily saying this is literally AI, but that is a matter of definition. It is an example of technology that can automate manual work for us, allowing us to make the creative decisions. This is good technology. But it is important for a photographer to be vigilant and always ready to override the technology when it goes against our creative idea.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
In post-processing
Probably the main area where we would recognize AI being used is in post processing. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop are the main tools I am familiar with so that is all I will discuss. This is not a tutorial on using AI tools, so I will only point out some of the features I use.
One reason Lightroom Classic has almost completely replaced Photoshop for me is the ever more sophisticated masking tools. These allow me to manipulate images more precisely and the AI features save significant time in applying them.
Sky and subject masking have been around quite a while, but their algorithms are getting much better (AI training?). Have you used the new Landscape masking tool? It is a fast way to create several masks isolating various parts of a scene, like foliage or mountains or architecture.
Automatic people masking can be a real aide. It gives specific control to create individual masks for a wide set of features, down to selecting only the whites of the eyes.
Something I fought for a long time but am starting to warm up to is the distraction removal features. It occasionally does a fast and decent job of removing people. The reflection removal is occasionally awesome. And I have been known to take an image into Photoshop just to use its wire and cable removal tool.
I confess to very often using the Auto exposure correction button in Lightroom Classic. It gives a quick starting point. I always change the settings, maybe undo it completely, but I like to see what it thinks should be done. Often it will push the image in the direction I want to go.
Another one I have a love/hate relationship with is Healing. I don’t find that it works well in general, but occasionally it saves a lot of time.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Who is in charge?
Who is in the role of artist? That is the point of all of this. I only use targeted tools that I allow to operate on parts of my image under my supervision. When they work, they are significant time savers. For instance, using the sky selection tool saves me a lot of time consuming, non-creative work. I do not consider that it replaces any of my creative judgment. None of these do anything I could not do myself. They just do it faster, freeing me to spend more time making creative decisions.
Well, the reflection removal is something I probably could not do myself. Maybe that makes it too much AI incursion.
These are examples of the power of AI in post processing. The tool set seems to be getting better all the time, and I appreciate many of them. It is a welcome productivity boost.
But in all cases, I only use AI as a labor-saving device and a multiplier for my creative effort. It does grunt work faster than I can. I do not give it a prompt to create a purple elephant in my image. I will not allow it to create significant imagery itself. If I did not photograph it or create it, I will not use it.
Technology can be good, but it can run out of control. My position now is that AI is good if it can help me get my creative work done easier. But I keep a tight control on who is the creative artist and what is the tool.
The future?
This is a point in time report. The world of AI is large and fast moving. I can’t predict what will happen in a year or 2. Will I break down and start using generative AI, or will I stand my ground, or will photography as we know it disappear?
My guess is I will keep my current arms-length position but will enjoy lots of new AI-powered tools. It will be an interesting ride.
July 1, 2026
The Weakness of Photography
I love photography. It is my chosen art form. But photography has a weakness that weakens and cheapens it, in some people’s eye. Can it really be art?
Literal
We point our camera at a scene, press the shutter release, and it is recorded. Everything in the field of view is captured. We didn’t have to arrange it or decide what should be there. It is all scooped up.
Therefore, most photographs are straight views of literal scenes. Little thought and consideration went into it. There is trash and power lines we are expected to overlook. And that telephone pole growing out of the subject’s head: yeah, ignore that.
If we want to document a place or time, that can work. But we wouldn’t call that art.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Too easy
Along with that is just the fact that taking a photograph is too easy. Anyone with a phone can take a pretty good picture with no thought or effort. An amazing amount of computational science is applied in your phone to make it look good. And just like everyone else’s.
This is clearly seen in the trillions of photographs uploaded to social media and photo sites each year. And by the billions of hours of video uploaded to YouTube and TikTok. Everyone can do it, and they do.
If everyone can do it, it must not be special.
Too mechanical
And photography is criticized for being too mechanical. It seems more technology than art. People don’t need training to do it. Just Point and Shoot.
We capture a photograph in an instant. It can be sent anywhere in the world in milliseconds. We can paste it on social media for the world to see and comment on.
How many people shooting pictures on their phone are spending much time considering the artistic elements of the work? No, there is little to consider. Click the button. If you don’t like it, use the AI editing controls to make it good, or just shoot it again.
It’s just an automatically produced thing. It is no longer a picture; it is a commodity.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography worthless?
To me, who likes photography as art, that sounds very bleak. So, has photography become worthless?
I like to think not.
Photography is an extremely challenging art form that requires intense effort and years of practice. At least for me. And at that, I’m just getting somewhat competent at it. I don’t think I will ever consider that I have mastered it.
That sounds contradictory. Thoughtless image capture that anyone can do or difficult and thoughtful art. Obviously 2 different things. That’s where we go off track in the argument. It is not photography that is art or not, it is our intended purpose and expectation. Are we capturing an image for a utilitarian purpose or creating a piece of art?
The same tools and processes are used for both. That confuses things.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The difference
On the surface, it is hard to tell the difference between photography being done for art vs for utilitarian reasons. The subjects could be the same, the equipment could be the same, the locations could be the same.
If you watched the photographers work you would probably spot some differences, but not always. That is not a reliable indicator.
It may be overly simplistic, but I think the difference is what is going on in the photographer’s head. Their intent and purpose, the feeling and insight they bring to the scene, and their experience. It becomes art because there was an artist present, involved, responding, feeling, creating. This can transform a simple scene into art.
The subject
If we are creating for art, the depth of our involvement must become far more intense than a simple snapshot. One of the traps many people fall into is the consideration of the subject itself. Did you just capture the obvious shallow view of the subject, or does the image say something about our feeling or perception of the subject? Did we delve deeper and try to bring our something that is not obvious on the surface?
A representation of the subject is just that. What you see is what you get. But if we can bring our something different or new or insightful to challenge the viewer, the image could have staying power.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Composition
Most people walk up to a scene and snap it. An artist thinks about composition. About how the parts relate and are perceived. And about what to include and what to leave out.
Often the artist has no ability to re-arrange the scene, but they have freedom to change their position or to zoom in to parts of the whole. Small changes of location or framing can make huge changes in the visual effect.
If we are serious about photography, we know the basic principles of composition: placement on thirds, leading lines, visual weight, etc. How we use them while making an image depends on our personality and experience. I don’t have a checklist of composition rules with me. For me, it is more subconscious recognition of them. As in “there’s a potential leading line; can I exploit it; will it make the composition stronger?”
A well composed image will be seen as designed, intentional, crafted, and more whole.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Form
An artist will look at the same scene as anyone else and see interesting shapes and patterns. They are aware of textures and reflections and how the light is playing across the subject.
Sometimes form is the whole purpose of an image. This is especially common in black & white. One of the reasons for producing an image in black & white is to remove extraneous elements like color and immediate subject recognition, leaving the forms and tones as the focus.
Subtleties like this are not usually obvious to the snapshot shooter.
Gesture
This is a favorite of mine. Gesture is not just a certain movement. It is what shows the innate character of something. The great Jay Maisel is a huge proponent of the concept. He goes so far as to say:
It’s light, gesture, and color. It really doesn’t matter what you photograph.
Jay Maisel
That is, the subject is less important than capturing that thing or moment that shows its essence. Discovering the gesture can be hard, but it is worthwhile. We could take a picture of a thing, or we can look for something that shows what the thing does or feels or how it behaves. That gives it life.
Finding and capturing the gesture usually requires intense concentration and attention. You must approach it with the will to find it. But it is a process of the artist looking deeper and with more intent than the snapshot shooter.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Are photography’s problems solvable?
Yes, because it doesn’t actually have a problem. Photography is a wonderful practice and every bit as artistic as any of the other established art forms.
The fact that the vast majority of pictures are taken as snapshots/throwaway/selfies/travel memories does not invalidate that the medium can be used for artistic purposes. That would be like saying most people can’t write well, so writing is not valuable.
I use my phone to grab quick shots all the time: a sign with a name or telephone number I need, a part I need to find at the hardware store, something that amuses me, or my grandson. These serve exactly the purpose I want. Either a throwaway or a memory. Every day I also take my “real” camera with me and occasionally see something to shoot from an artistic viewpoint.
These are 2 different activities with completely different purposes. Neither invalidates the other. Both exist together and do not compete. The same technology is being used for different goals. It’s not the subject or the equipment or the location that separates them. It is the intent and skill of the photographer. And it is the desire of the artist to create.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is photography as an art going away?
As far as photography as art going away, I would claim the opposite. Since most pictures taken are mediocre, at best, when we come along with an image created with skill and an artistic style, it will get noticed. It will be obvious to most people that this is different and special.
The introduction of photography caused many painters to fear it would replace them. Instead, it freed them from a lot of routine and repetitive work, like basic portrait commissions, and allowed them to create. Impressionism and other artistic directions emerged. I believe we will see some of the same.
As photographers who are trying to lift our work above the base level, we should not be apologetic about photography or feel inferior. Our intent is to produce art. We should not price our work at giveaway prices because many people expect that. Look for a market that appreciates the difference.
You are an artist. You are creating things that are unique and special – aren’t you? If not, you will be swallowed up in the giant flood of ordinary and AI generated images.
June 11, 2026
Culling
I recently finished a major part of a large project to cull my “best” images. It was much harder than I thought. Culling is hard.
Why
More than once, I asked myself “why?”. I thought this would take me 2-3 weeks. It ended up taking 4 months.
Why in the world would I take on something like this voluntarily? I felt it was necessary to be honest with myself. This is a follow-up and expansion of a previous article on critiquing your own work.
I use a multi-layer “grading” system to promote my best work up the ladder. It has been in place for several years and it seemed time to do a reality check to see if I believed my system. It is too easy to rate a picture higher just because I like it without it being truly worthwhile.
And to be honest, there were a couple of concerns I wanted to check on. These are hard to express or admit, but I wanted to see if my recent work was as good as my earlier work and if my work, overall, was up to the standard I want for myself.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
How
My methodology was just to plow through it from beginning to end. I did not attempt to organize images by subject or style or anything. It is just a huge, roughly chronological list of my top-rated pictures.
My criterion is that any image in this top group meets my standards. I should be able to randomly select any one and I will be glad to hang it on my wall or enter it to a show. Of course, I don’t like each one equally. I have favorites. But any of this top group should be a very good representation of my work.
All the images are in a collection in my Lightroom Classic catalog. In general, the goal is to examine each image and keep or demote it. These are ones that have made it to the top of my list. In no case did I delete any pictures, except for a couple of cases of duplicates. Rejecting an image from my top category means demoting it a level, not removing it.
If things were actually that easy, it would have gone faster. The reality is that it is hard for me to keep from “improving” some of them. So, I occasionally take side trips into editing. I enjoy that, but it is a time sink.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What did I learn
I went back through nearly 20 years of images in my Lightroom catalog. I have used Lightroom since its beta release. It’s first production release was in 2007. That is quite a trip down memory lane.
I have not had time to do an intense analysis, buy here are some observations.
20 years ago, I was more active, willing to do more vigorous physical activity in any weather. I have slowed down (or gotten smarter). I still get out in a lot of weather, but fewer long back country treks.
Way back, I seem to have been a little more willing to shoot anything that was mildly interesting. Now I am older and more cynical and judgmental. I have lost some of the child-like wonder of the world. I am less likely to shoot if I don’t feel it will be a good picture. This is something I need to work on. Staying in a state of wonder is important to me.
Many of my oldest pictures are travel related. I still shoot a lot when traveling, and I like it, but I have improved my mindfulness and attention in everyday shooting near home. This is good.
My old pictures tend toward technical perfection and formal compositions. I have moved quite a way beyond that. For one thing, I’ve developed more taste for movement, both intentional camera movement and subject blurring. “Perfection” has a whole different meaning for me now. Abstraction is more common.
I’ve always had a “good eye” and the ability to isolate interesting events and creative compositions. It has gotten more refined with time. That is encouraging.
Many of the themes I used to shoot are still well represented in my newer work. I haven’t run off in wildly new directions. One thing I do note is that I seldom photograph people anymore. This is a shame, because I like a lot of what I did in the past. But times seem to have shifted, and I don’t want the potential hassles that can come with it anymore.
It is probably fair to say my older work showed more youthful enthusiasm while my newer work is more mature and investigative. I’m sure there are deeper insights that will come with more thought.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What’s next
If I was really going to do this rigorously, I guess I would create sub-collections of these surviving top images by topic: all landscapes, all architecture, all travel, etc. That way I could more closely compare the changes that have happened in the treatment of similar subjects over time. I probably won’t.
E.B. White said that “analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.” I think it would be like that for me if I did such a detailed analysis.
I’m not really that interested in the fine points of how I have changed. I will just note that it happened. The reality is that I wanted to sneak up on that question I was afraid to consider too openly: is my current work as good as my old work? With some reservations, I will say that the new is good.
What I do observe and mentioned before is that I have lost some of the child-like wonder and innocence that used to be there. I need to do more stupid, crazy, improbably things just to see what happens. Even if I’m pretty sure it won’t be a keeper. Just to see it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Was it worth it
It is harder to definitively say it was worth it. This took a lot of time. But yes, critically reviewing what I considered my best work over the last 20 years was worth it. Just renewing the memories was worth it.
I tried to be brutal in my screening, but I am surprised that I only “demoted” about 20% of my collection. The changes in the quality of my sensors and lenses over time is obvious. A surprise is that did not necessarily affect my perception of the quality of the images. When a jpg image taken with an old 6 MPix sensor and only a fair lens can hold its own next to one taken with a great lens on a 47 MPix sensor shooting RAW, that says it is something other than just technical perfection.
Expressing this indefinable quality still eludes me. I got some insight on the effect, but I cannot clearly put it in words. But I guess some insight is more than I had before.
I called this exercise culling. It turned out to be much more. I encourage you to do something like this as a self-check.
A parting observation
I just went through my entire collection of “good” images. I had to edit quite a few of them while I was at it. They just needed it. I couldn’t pass over them without it.
While going back through the collection to review them for this article, I had to edit some of them again. Even though I had just been through them.
This brings up something I have learned about myself over the years: an image is an opinion that changes with time. Even over the course of a few weeks, I can change my opinion. This is one reason prints are important. They freeze an opinion at a point in time.
May 20, 2026
And Be There
If you have done photography for a while, you probably have heard the expression “f/8 and be there.” Have you ever thought about it?
Origin
The quote is most often associated with the photographer Arthur Fellig (more commonly known as Weegee). It is not known for certain if he originated it or even said it. But it has stuck and become a cliché.
Keep in mind that this originated in the first half of the 20th Century. As a photojournalist Weegee used a bulky SpeedGraphic 5×7 film camera with film holders. These are slow and heavy and difficult to use at the best of times. These were manual focus, manual exposure with no metering, and single shot film holders.
Weegee shot mostly at night in New York City in fast moving situations. He was usually competing with the police to be first on scene so he could get a good picture. Often, he developed his film in a makeshift studio in the trunk of his car.
He became one of the masters of this craft of gritty photojournalism. When asked the secret of his photographic technique he is supposed to have replied “f/8 and be there”.
Was that just a clever throw-away phrase or did it have meaning?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
f/8
We know that f/8 refers to the aperture of the lens. It is a truth of lens design that the “sweet spot” or maximum sharpness of a lens is generally around f/8 or f/11. That was very true in Weegee’s day and is still true today. So, presetting your aperture to f/8 is a pretty good initial guess for a balance between exposure, depth of field, and sharpness.
Weegee is reported to usually leave his camera focused at 10 ft and aperture f/11 or f/16 (contrary to the reported quote). Then it was already set to a good guess for a fast-breaking situation. His big flash bulb would light up the exposure at night. Remember those?
Weegee was a master of his craft. His Speed Graphic was slow and heavy compared to modern cameras, so he believed in presetting his camera to a good starting guess for the situations he expected. He was comfortable using his tools and tried hard to keep time consuming technical decisions out of the way.
This sounds like good advice for us, too. Being so familiar with our cameras that we can adjust them quickly, even instinctively, for the creative situation we encounter will usually help us come away with good pictures. Anticipating settings for what we will encounter is even faster.
So, my takeaway here is that f/8 is not a magic setting, but we should practice using our tools until we can adjust them to the settings we want quickly and even in the dark. The technical process should fade into the background. It is sad to miss great pictures because we are fiddling with camera settings.
And f/8 is a pretty good default choice.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Being there
Maybe the more important part of the phrase is “being there.” We can plan, we can spend all day on Google Earth or PhotoPils or studying people’s online posts, planning what we would do if we were there, but if we are not there, we can’t shoot it.
My virtual mentor Jay Maisel said:
If you are out there shooting, things will happen for you. If you’re not out there, you’ll only hear about it.
Jay Maisel
Weegee was out there, every day, in the worst conditions, racing the police to crime scenes. His persistence is one reason we still talk about him today. He got results.
Going out and making photographs where you are may be more useful than spending all year planning for that “big” photo trip. What good is it to get to that bucket list location but not know how to use your equipment well enough to capture what you planned? What do you do if you get there and conditions are completely different from what you planned for? Do you have the mental toughness and technical savvy to look around for something else interesting?
If you shoot fast and instinctively, constant practice develops the muscle memory that makes camera settings automatic. That frees more of our mind for considering composition, feeling, and interpretation. Part of it is education, but a lot of it is practice.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
For us
I think, for most of us, the situation is very different from Weegee’s day. We have fast acting and accurate automatic cameras with speedy auto focus lenses. So then, is the f8 and be there saying still relevant?
I think so. I read it as encouragement to learn our equipment well enough that it is not a barrier to getting the shot we want, and to put ourselves out in the action, because that is where things are happening.
The “action” does not have to be fast breaking photojournalism on the gritty streets of New York City. Go out exploring frequently in your local environment. Take a few day trips to surrounding places. Try to get a window seat on the airplane and be that guy who shoots out of the window during the flight.
Basically, be tuned in (mindful) wherever you go and wherever you are. Weegee may have meant the phrase as a quickly tossed off platitude. But I believe it contained some truth we can learn from. It may have been a platitude, but that does not make it incorrect.
F/8 and be there. Practice it.
April 8, 2026
Too Much Help
Is it possible to have too much help in our photography? Are there long-term downsides to some of the technology we employ? What does it do to us as creatives?
Photographic technology
One of the characteristic things about photography is that it is closely tied to technology. Since the invention of photography, it has been technology based. The specialized emulsions and chemicals and techniques required training and a certain level of technical savvy.
Today the technologies have changed drastically, but the tie between photography and technology has not changed. If anything, it is stronger than ever. Being a “serious” photographer just about requires a complex camera system, a capable computer system, and specialized training in the tools.
The companies that make our technology try to ease some of the cognitive load by getting more helpful all the time. Usually, we welcome that. Who would not want our tasks to be easier? But we need to ask ourselves if there are hidden costs in taking the easy path.
©Ed Schlotzhuaer
AI
The antagonist I want to single out is what we generally call “AI”, or Artificial Intelligence. It is creeping into many aspects of our art with the promise of making our life easier or getting things done faster.
I will be very open that I am against most uses of the things called AI, as embodied by large language models like ChatGPT. Not only in photography but most areas of life. I am not just a Luddite. I spent a long career in the tech industry, and I studied and practiced AI at some points of my career. So I have some familiarity with what it is and how it works, including a moderate knowledge of the technology within it and its limitations.
Study of coding
I am curious about lots of things. I enjoy looking at seemingly unrelated areas and trying to see parallels or applications.
Many studies are starting to be done on the human impact of AI. One that intrigued me was a study of software developers in Italy and what happened when their access to AI was cut off.
In 2023, the Italian Data Protection Authority suddenly banned ChatGPT based on privacy and security and non-compliance with European data protection laws. The effect on software developers was immediate and dramatic. Code check-in on GitHub – a proxy measure of output – dropped 50% in 2 days.
But on further analysis, 2 very interesting things emerged: the output of inexperienced coders went up slightly while the output of experienced coders went way down, accounting for most of the drop in output.
One of the suggested explanations is that novices were concentrating more on developing basic skills for themselves, therefore not relying on AI as much. Experienced developers, on the other hand, embraced AI to do a lot of the routine work. But the productivity booster had become a crutch. They lost a lot of the ability to do the work they used to do.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Productivity tools
I believe there are parallels for photography. At this point, I will ignore the novices just learning the craft, since I am not there and can’t think like them anymore. Let’s concentrate on experienced artists.
Our tools constantly offer to take over more of the photographic process. Some of this is good, but not all of it all the time. I have bought into a lot of it. I don’t think my handheld light meter even works any more. And I have long forgotten how to use the manual calculators to determine exposure or desired depth of field. Now, my camera’s metering is so good that I usually trust it. And DOF, well, I can immediately see my image after shooting, so I can check it easily.
I often use “AI” tools in limited ways. In Lightroom (Classic, the only “real” one ☺) I often use the Auto button to see it’s opinion of a good starting point. It does a pretty good job for the outdoor shots I usually take. I seldom leave its settings untouched, but it can be a time saver. Likewise, I use the manual Remove tool a lot for dust spots and distraction removal. I very occasionally use the generative remove, although it is about a 50/50 chance of it being better than doing it manually. Lightroom is getting much more capable of creating useful masks. I often use them as a starting point.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Creative rot
But who says art should be effortless. Our tools want to take over increasing portions of our work, to “help” us and make it easy They offer to automatically remove dust spots, they provide great aid in removing distractions, they offer to distort our images to align verticals and horizontals, they offer to cull our photographs and assign keywords, etc. All these things can be helpful time savers, but at what cost?
Like the experienced coders in the Italian study, at what point do we start losing the ability to do our own work?
Editing, for example, is something I consider a necessary skill for photographers. I have noticed in my own work that I am now sometimes uneasy in manually removing complex distractions. My initial instinct is “that’s hard and will take a lot of time; maybe it would be better to just let the software do it”. That is a warning flag to me. I feel that I need to be skilled at doing this and confident that I can. If I cede these decisions to my tools, I believe I have abrogated part of my role as an artist. I am responsible for every pixel of my image. Software should not take over important creative decision making.
Or take culling images as an example. I strongly believe culling is a critical part of the artistic process. Confronting our mistakes and selecting the best of a series is a necessary part of improving our work. I would rather not spend the time required to do it, but I feel I must. Without it, I am deluding myself about my actual work. I can’t afford to let the computer do it for me.
There are too many examples to list. AI technology is trying to embed itself in most phases of our process.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The other AI
Let me pause for a moment and note that I am not discussing fully AI generated images. There are times and places to use them. They are not inherently bad. It is kind of like hiring an illustrator to create some graphics for a presentation or a graphic designer to make pictures for a marketing brochure. Those are business products, not art.
I firmly believe that AI is incapable of coming up with creative new ideas or art. It cannot do more than it is trained on. Good art is a product of human creation. I admit that there is a lot of bad art that is no better than AI.
Caution
I am not going to abandon technology advances. Many of them make my life easier and more convenient. But I do intend to maintain a certain skepticism that will keep me from becoming dependent on convenience features.
If the great automatic metering and auto focus in my camera went away, I still know how shoot fully manual. If most of the automatic aids in Lightroom and Photoshop disappeared, I still remember how to do things the hard way.
I fear that younger photographers who have grown up with the tools do not have that fallback position. We could soon be in a position where photographers require AI tools to do their work, because they cannot do it themselves. If they have to rely on it to do their basic work, then why not allow it to do more and more. At some point, who (or what) is the artist?
I do not believe my smarter tools have negatively effected my images or my creativity so far. I keep a watch for that.
Or maybe I am wrong and completely out of touch. Maybe photographers are no longer required to be masters of our technology. It could be that the requirements for making an original and creative work are different from what I believe. In that case, I am just an old dinosaur holding on to a forgotten past. But I choose to believe my knowledge and experience is something AI cannot copy.
Maybe this disquiet about too much help is one of the reasons there is a resurgence of interest in “old school” technology, like film and manual cameras. Many long for simpler days when we were more in control and closer to our end result. I am somewhere in the middle. I don’t want to give up most technology, but I refuse to be controlled by it.
February 4, 2026