As photographers wait nervously for artificially intelligent (AI) robots to replace them, an inherent quirk of the technology may actually be what saves them.

For programs like Midjourney and other AI image generators to produce good results they need quality source photos to begin with.

Recently I’ve been playing around with Photo AI, a program that claims to be the “world’s first AI photographer”. To build a model of someone, you have to feed the program photos of that person and I quickly realized the better the photos are; the better the results you get from Photo AI.

In a recent interview with PetaPixel, photographer Sophie Gammand talked about how she gave rescue dogs their ears back with the help of AI and she made clear that the pictures worked so much better when she used her own high-quality photographs.

“The photo needed to be clear and the angle easy to work with,” she explains. “When I used people’s own photos, I struggled a bit more than when I used my studio portraits.”

That’s because photos taken by lay people tend to be of far lower quality when compared to an accomplished photographer such as Gammand — something that people working on AI image generators must be aware of.

How Will AI Learn New Objects and New People Without Photographers?

Say someone wants to create AI images of their new product. Well, you need source photos. But what if that person doesn’t understand how to get a decent photo of their product in the first place? We all know someone who can’t take a photo to save their life.

Google recently launched a new product photography tool aimed at helping businesses to create their own high-quality images without the need for an “expensive” photographer. In the promotional material, it shows really clear photos for the AI to work with — perhaps ones, ironically, that were taken by a pro photographer. But will it work with terrible source photos taken by people who have no understanding of how to manipulate light, frame a photo, or even hold a camera still? I doubt it.

AI photos are dependent on real photos. The stunning images coming out of Midjourney that look like real photos exist only because there are already billions of amazing photos that look like that which the company used without the photographers’ permissions.

If people or clients or whoever want bespoke high-quality AI images that are unique, well first you need high-quality, unique photos.

Ultimately, there are things in the future that the AI will have no reference for. It will need a source and that source has to be a set of high-quality photographs taken by a trained photographer who knows what they are doing.

Personally, I see the AI and photography spaces overlapping with AI technicians relying on the work of photographers who can take high-quality images which can be used to train a model.

Better yet, photographers could become AI technicians (surely it’s not that different from photo editing work) creating more markets and economic opportunities for the talented men and women who have honed their camera skills. I certainly hope so.

It was only a few days ago that we wrote about Nikon’s latest viral campaign, giving voice to our very legitimate concerns about it and the images it showcased. After all, while the Nikon Anti-AI Campaign had an astounding concept behind it, it also seemed to show an astounding lack of respect for the creators whose images form the basis for the ad. The word seemed, is used specifically in the past tense, because we uncovered quite a fascinating side of this story.

Finding the Photographers

We managed to get in touch with the photographers showcased in this Nikon AI campaign, and we asked them the following questions. Did they get any notice from either Nikon or Grey Peru? Did they get any compensation? Did they notice any effect on downloads, sales, or following?

The answers we managed to get, while not surprising in the least, were more than a bit disappointing.

What they said

None of the photographers who wrote back to us had the smallest inkling beforehand that their photos were used in such a viral campaign, and the ones who found out about it found out through social media. One of the authors, John Fowler, didn’t even know about it until we messaged him.

Of course, the fact that they had no notice at all should give you an idea of whether they received compensation or not. I don’t need to elaborate, do I?

While some photographers say that exposure helps, none of the photographers interviewed reported an uptick in their statistics, their followers, or their downloads, which makes for another interesting observation; does anybody care about the person behind the photo? Or do they think the camera does it all by itself? Further, campaigns like this have been known to not have credible statistical payoffs — which is a major contrast to the interviews that we’ve done here on the site with photographers. Several have told us over the years all the different ways that being featured on our site has helped them.

And the photographers spoke for themselves

Here are quotes from the photographers to The Phoblographer.

John Fowler

John seemed to be okay with his photos being used.

Thanks for writing. I haven’t heard from anybody recently about my photos being used. And I haven’t noticed any increase in my download stats, but I hardly ever check. In addition to Flickr, I have photos at Unsplash. All my stuff is free, with attribution, and I am happy to let Nikon or anybody else use them. I encourage it.

Andrew Svk

Andrew was a bit sad about it but accepting of it.

Hello, sure, I will gladly answer your questions. Nope, and this was a bit sad that Nikon didn’t send me any notice, I randomly found out about it on Twitter. No compensation either, but it is fine, I do not make money from photography, and images on Unsplash are free with a commercial license. I don’t see much change in engagement, despite a few journalists, including you, have contacted me with some questions.

Marco Nürnberg

Marco was also surprised by it, but didn’t mind.

Hello, thank you so much for your message!

In fact, Nikon did not contact me in any way before using my image. So there is also no compensation. But that‘s ok, I published the image under Creative Commons license. I did not notice any effects on likes etc.

A friend of mine found a article about this campaign on a german tech website by chance and called me yesterday. I was really surprised! I really can not imagine how Nikon chose my pic out of millions of others.

I did not upload any images on Flickr for a long time. My 5 year old son brought me away from landscape photography 😉

The image itself was taken in summer of 2016. Definitely not during winter season like the underline suggests 😉

Best regards, Marco.

The Problems with The Nikon Anti-AI Campaign

Nikon is a company that works to support professional photographers, and by not paying or compensating photographers for the work provided, they’ve undercut the people they’ve worked to support the most. More importantly, the company has released the new Nikon z8 to aid these photographers. It’s a camera that should’ve come out a long time ago.

This isn’t the only time that Nikon has made questionable decisions. Back in 2017, they took center stage for sexism when they didn’t choose a single woman to promote their products. Before then, they made a questionable decision about a photo choice being manipulated by Photoshop. On top of all this, consider problems around their products like the D600 and the class action lawsuits over the cameras.

This is all just the beginning, though. The Nikon Anti-AI Campaign apparently came from Nikon Peru. Immediately, anyone that didn’t know any better would paint a blanket across all of Nikon. This is important to note, as the actions of one division can affect an entire company, and it did with Canon’s sexism issues previously. As a journalist, I know that the actions of Nikon Peru wouldn’t necessarily come from America. However, they’d be approved by Japan.

After giving them a week to fully answer, Nikon USA wouldn’t provide answers to our questions on the record. The only thing that we were able to get was “…there is no Nikon Peru, there is only individual retailers and distributors in the Latin America market.” We did some research to verify this.

Nikon Peru’s website is indeed real. And if you search Nikon’s website, it states that Nikon Peru is part of their larger global network. They are not listed as a Group Company on either Nikon’s website or in PDF files.

The way that Japanese camera companies work often requires them to have their subsidiaries report back to them, ask for permission on things, etc. It makes it a very difficult process to get things done — especially when talking to the press. In a situation like this, Nikon Peru is a distributor and should’ve reported to Nikon in some way or another.

So why does Nikon not have an official presence in South America? Well, it’s often very difficult to import products there. It’s exactly why B&H Photo has a specific department dedicated to Brazil.

For the record, Nikon’s lack of answering tough questions isn’t uncommon. As the years have gone on, Japanese manufacturers have been doing this more and more. With fewer publications around, not many of us are really trained to keep the industry in check or verify statements. So instead, YouTubers tend to amplify exactly what they’re told.

The weapon of the enemy

We’ve written in-depth —and we will continue to do so— about the problems posed by Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models such as Midjourney and others, the main ones being its dependency on stolen images and the fact that it could mean a lack of work and income for human photographers.

We know that, by uploading pictures to Unsplash, you’re giving away the rights to your work. Maybe you knew about it, the way John Fowler did. Maybe you didn’t, because you were roped in a contest and couldn’t be bothered to go through the legalese. In that case, maybe it got you into legal trouble.

We also know that a small business owner using one of your free pictures as a hero image for their very local store is not at all comparable to a company such as Nikon using your picture in a campaign designed to go viral, which would undoubtedly give them not only a sizable rise in sales but also the goodwill of amateur and professional photographers needing support on their fight against generative AIs.

The photographers should’ve been, if not compensated, at least noticed before the Nikon Anti-AI Campaign was released. It’s only ethical.

There’s a comic doing the rounds on the Internet, a comic you might have seen. It shows Batman breaking a shotgun over his knee, yelling, “This is the weapon of the enemy. We don’t use it. We don’t need it.”

You don’t fight unethically sourced images by sourcing images unethically, Nikon. You just don’t.

Editor in Chief Chris Gampat provided extra reporting on this.

Photographers and creators have raised concerns over Adobe’s Firefly accusing the software giant of setting up competition against them without being paid for it.

In an interview with Venture Beat, photographer and Adobe Stock contributor Rob Dobi from Connecticut, who regularly documents abandoned buildings, say that his photos haven’t been selling as well recently and points the finger at Adobe’s new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool Firefly.

“Someone can just type in a prompt now and recreate the images based off your hard work,” he says.

Dobi, who recently had his photos published in The New York Times, says that he saw a set of abandoned AI photos online that were generated with Firefly and was shocked to see how much they resembled his own work.

“I saw some AI artist saying, ‘Show me your urban exploration photos built through AI, I built these through Adobe Firefly’ and I looked at these photos and they could pass as my photos, I wouldn’t question whether they were real photos unless you looked really closely,” he tells Venture Beat.

“Someone using Firefly could easily put in a prompt with words like ‘mental asylum, symmetrical, natural light, peeling paint, textured walls, dirty floor,’ stuff like that’.”

Creators Believe That AI is Using Their Own Work Against Them

A U.K.-based digital artist by the name of Dean Samed tells Venture Beat that Adobe is “using our IP to create content that will compete with us in the marketplace.”

Samed doesn’t think that Adobe’s practices are “ethical or fair” despite the company legally being able to do so because “we all signed the terms of service.” He also says he received no notice that his work would be used to train an AI model

“I don’t recall receiving an email or notification that said things are changing, and that they would be updating the terms of service,” he says.

A legal expert in generative AI tells Venture Beat that he believes photographers and artists have very little wiggle room.

“You give Adobe a license for perpetuity, for whatever medium shall be invented,” says legal scholar Andres Guadamuz. “People don’t read those terms and conditions.”

Is the Rise of AI Coming at the Expense of Photographers?

For Dobi, he feels as if Adobe has turned its back on real creators.

“Adobe, which is supposed to be, I mean, I guess they thought they were looking out for creators, apparently aren’t because they’re stabbing all their creators that helped create their stock library in the back,” he says.

Earlier this month, PetaPixel reported on data showing that AI images on Adobe Stock, currently the only major stock website accepting AI image submissions from contributors, are performing better than real photos.

“[It’s] not a feasible platform for us to operate in anymore,” says Samed. Adding that the marketplace is “completely flooded and inundated with AI content.”

Adobe’s Response

Adobe insists that its goal is to build generative AI in a way that “enables creators to monetize their talents” and emphasizes that Firefly is still in beta.

“During this phase, we are actively engaging the community at large through direct conversations, online platforms like Discord and other channels, to ensure what we are building is informed and driven by the community,” an Adobe spokesperson tells Venture Beat. The company asserts that is “committed” to compensating creators.

Image credits: Header photo partly licensed via Depositphotos.

COOPH, maker of photography-oriented merchandise, accessories, and the COOPH Magazine, has launched a new backpack on Kickstarter.

COOPH says the HelioFlex is the “only backpack you will ever need.” The bag’s name is derived from the ancient Greek god Helios, the personification of the Sun, and it sheds light on one of the backpack’s essential features, a built-in solar panel.

The “Solar Front Bag,” which COOPH developed alongside Sunnybag, allows photographers to charge their cameras and other electronics. The 8.5-watt solar panel is modular, meaning it can be detached entirely from the rest of the backpack.

Modular backpacks are hot these days. Earlier this month, PetaPixel covered the Zipble, another modular backpack on Kickstarter.

Returning to HelioFlex, the solar panel can charge a tablet over USB-C with about eight hours of sunlight. A typical dedicated camera can fully charge in five hours, while a smartphone takes about four hours. As a result, it could be the perfect companion for adventure photographers who go off the grid for days at a time.

“HelioFlex adapts to you,” writes COOPH. Everything begins with the “backpack base,” a somewhat traditional backpack with a top flap opening, a handle, adjustable shoulder straps, and side pockets.

Users can attach one of the three add-on bags using counter-arranged hooks and Fidlock buckles. Aside from the Solar Front Bag, there are also Tablet Front Bag and Camera Cube Bag options.

The Camera Cube Bag fits inside the backpack’s main compartment and includes adjustable internal dividers. The camera cube is accessible from inside the HelioFlex Base Backpack and includes a separate shoulder strap.

The Camera Cube Bag’s adjustable dividers “fit any device” and should work well for mirrorless cameras, DSLRs, drones, and action cameras. While it does not look like a larger telephoto lens would fit into the Camera Cube Bag, it seems capable of holding a camera body and a few smaller lenses.

COOPH says the HelioFlex is water resistant and delivers “maximum comfort.” The backpack has a ventilated back, two main compartments, and 16 gear pockets. The two internal compartments are five and 10 liters in capacity and one of the gear pockets is designed to hold a water bottle or a camera tripod and includes a strap to keep longer tripods safely attached.

Pricing and Availability

The COOPH HelioFlex backpack is available in three colorways: charcoal black, granite gray, and moss green. The base backpack starts at €149, which is just over $160. This is a €100 savings compared to the eventual retail price.

An “Ultimate Bundle” option that includes the HelioFlex Backpack Base and the Solar Front Bag and Camera Cube Bag add-ons is €299, or about $330. Individual add-ons start at just over €50.

COOPH expects the HelioFlex to begin shipping in March 2024. Full backer options and details are available on Kickstarter.

Disclaimer: Make sure you do your own research into any crowdfunding project you’re considering backing. While we aim to only share legitimate and trustworthy campaigns, there’s always a real chance that you can lose your money when backing any crowdfunded project.

Image credits: COOPH