#lee-outstream-wrap {
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
max-width: 800px;
margin: 0 auto;
display: none;
position: relative;
}
#lee-outstream-wrap .ima-controls-div { z-index: 99; }
#lee-outstream-wrap .lee-outstream-video {
position: relative;
padding-bottom: 56.25%;
height: 0;
}
#lee-outstream-wrap .lee-outstream-video video {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
z-index:1;
}
#lee-outstream-close {
display: none;
position: absolute;
cursor: pointer;
top: -25px;
left: -25px;
padding: 10px;
overflow: hidden;
background-color: #000;
border-radius: 20px;
color: #fff;
z-index: 99;
line-height: 0;
box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4) 0px 0px 5px 0px;
}
#lee-outstream-close:hover { color: rgba(255,255,255,.8); }
#lee-outstream-wrap.sticky {
position: fixed;
bottom:0;
right:0;
width: 400px;
z-index: 1000;
height: auto;
box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4) 0px 0px 10px 0px;
}
#lee-outstream-wrap.sticky #lee-outstream-close{ display: block; }
@media (max-width: 767px){
#lee-outstream-wrap.sticky { width: 60%; }
}

If you’re lacking the motivation and inspiration to get out there and shoot, take comfort in the knowledge that artists of all persuasions find themselves in a creative funk now and then. A little reflection upon what you want from your photography might be the first step towards fixing the problem.

Have you ever had that experience where you head out with your camera all eager and ready to shoot some MoMA-worthy masterworks, only to find that every scene you frame in your viewfinder looks kind of “meh” and uninspiring? 

This is a rhetorical question, of course. Every photographer has had this experience — in fact, anyone who regularly engages in a creative pursuit has had this experience.

The reasons often proposed for being creatively blocked are myriad — lack of inspiration, distraction, overthinking it, fear of being judged etc. etc. etc. And along with all of the well-meaning advice about the causes of this paralysis comes a wealth of proposed “fixes” from which you can choose your own poison to suit your particular creative malaise.

In this thoughtful video from Tatiana Hopper, she describes having this very experience on a trip to Italy — a trip that she had imagined was going to be rich with amazing photographic opportunities and memorable images. Once she was there, however, and raising the camera to her eye, she was surprised to find herself quite unmotivated and uninspired by what she was seeing in her viewfinder.

Instead of just ignoring this sentiment and pushing through it to keep shooting – per the kind of “get back on the horse” advice that is often prescribed for creative block — Tatiana chose to reflect upon how she came to find herself in this state of mind. In the process of asking herself a set of honest questions about how she was choosing the subjects to shoot and what it was that she hoped to get out of her photography, she was able to forge a new perspective and draw fresh inspiration.

It’s clear that there is no “one size fits all” solution to this kind of creative block, despite the wealth of well-meaning advice on the subject. What Tatiana’s experience shows us however, is that when it comes to our photography, as much as we might be working to perfect our craft, we are also always working on ourselves.

As a photographer, you’re constantly seeking inspiration and exploring new ways to express your vision. Sometimes, the most impactful projects come from unexpected sources, challenging conventional ideas about what makes a compelling subject. This fantastic video explores two such projects that showcase the power of photography to elevate the ordinary and shed light on often-overlooked aspects of our world. 

Coming to you from Ted Forbes with The Art of Photography, this insightful video explores the work of two photographers. Forbes shares his thoughts on why these projects are so significant and offers valuable insights into the photographers’ approaches. He highlights the importance of subject matter, printing processes, and layout in creating a cohesive and impactful body of work. 

The first project, “Russian Soul” by Alain C.J. de Lotbinière, is a photographic essay documenting the spiritual side of the Russian people through their deep connection to Orthodox Christianity. Lotbinière’s black and white images capture the exquisite architecture of churches and monasteries, as well as the individuals who practice these traditions. Forbes praises Lotbinière’s ability to maintain a consistent aesthetic across diverse subjects, creating a unified and powerful narrative. He also emphasizes the importance of high-quality printing, particularly for black and white photography, and the effectiveness of Lotbinière’s minimalist layout that allows the images to speak for themselves. 

The second project features four zines by Bernd Mayer, focusing on often-ignored subjects like garbage collection and marginalized communities. Mayer’s work dignifies these subjects with a sense of respect and beauty, reminding us that compelling stories can be found in the most unexpected places. Forbes commends Mayer’s ability to elevate the mundane and give a voice to those who are often unseen. He reads excerpts from Mayer’s zines, which offer further context and insights into the lives of the people he photographs. 

Forbes concludes the video by discussing his own exploration of Japanese photography, highlighting the work of Jun Miki and his book “Samba Samba.” This personal project showcases Miki’s diverse talents, from architectural studies and portraits to vibrant depictions of Brazilian culture and Carnival celebrations. Forbes encourages viewers to explore photography from different cultures and historical periods, expanding their understanding of the medium and discovering new sources of inspiration. Check out the video above for the full rundown.

What’s all the fuss about? Photographers and artists have been fudging, faking, manipulating, and tinkering with photographs since the invention of photography.

Take Camille Silvy (1834-1910), for example. His image titled The Streets of London was made in 1859, only a few decades after the invention of photography and 132 years before Adobe Photoshop 1.0 was released, and was made by combining four separate negatives. 

While it was a lot more hassle, and required more skill than writing a prompt for a generative AI engine, the final image is as fudged and fake as anything that might have been altered in DALL•E 3.0. However, Camille Silvy wasn’t entering his photo (montage) into a ‘Photographer of the Year’ competition; if he had, he might have gotten into a spot of bother.

A little over a century after Silvy’s meddling, AI and AI imagery are the hot topic du jour, and nowhere more so than in the world of photo competitions. There are plenty of stories of AI-generated images fooling judges and winning awards, and it’s easy to see how, as some of the results can be utterly convincing.

Perhaps the most notorious story emerged when German artist Boris Eldagsen went public with the fact that he won a Sony World Photography award with an AI-generated image (see below). He pulled the wool over various eyes – and made a bit of a scene about it at the awards night. 

It became a hot topic for a while, and gave Eldagsen some notoriety. However, the incident raised some interesting discussion points. Many photo competitions have since updated their terms and conditions, and reevaluated their stance on where AI sits in the context of their agenda and, more importantly, where to draw the line.

Photo competitions react to AI

For most competitions, the line sits somewhere around the acceptable use of some AI tools in image editing software such as Adobe Photoshop. It’s generally acceptable to modify and edit your own photographs using AI tools, typically with some caveat that you should stipulate this is the application process. 

Many competitions will ask to see raw files before making a final decision. I’m a former creative director of Landscape Photographer of the Year, and we would do this to ensure that images hadn’t been manipulated too much. 

This sentiment was echoed by Dan Calder of Close Up Photographer of the Year, who said, “Close-up Photographer of the Year is first and foremost a photography competition, so we won’t be accepting any images made with generative AI. During the latter rounds of judging, we will ask for raw files. And each entrant will confirm a declaration that no generative AI has been used”. 

On the subject of image editing using AI tools, Calder adds, “Post-processing becomes a little trickier to adjudicate with the introduction of AI tools to Photoshop, etc. We are now open to creative post-processing techniques as long as we are informed about what has been done and that natural behavior is not misrepresented. We will continue to draw the line at AI-generated objects, animals, flora, landscape motifs that are added to the original picture”.

On a final note, Calder concludes that “over time, if photographers wish to start incorporating AI-generated elements to their pictures, then we will follow their lead and look to create a new category for them”.

Hugo Donnithorne-Tait, Awards Director of the British Photography Awards, has some interesting thoughts, too and says,” Like any new technology, getting angry at any disruption it causes is like shouting at the rainclouds. I’m convinced AI will be a watershed moment for so many industries and the great mega-trend of our generation – that said, there are important things to protect from it. Image integrity is one of those things, especially if you run a purist photography award as we do.”

“We built a secondary upload function so those who are considered for shortlisting can upload an original file or raw format file side by side with their image. While this used only to be requested when we suspected doctoring of imagery, we are going to implement it for all imagery due to AI. This will help us police the imagery and maintain the integrity of our shortlist. In the future, hopefully, a marriage of camera advances and blockchain technology can help us verify individual instances, creating an immutable catalogue of when moments were captured. Samsung has led the way with this to some extent. Their new smartphone (the Samsung Galaxy 24 Ultra) does have AI image editing built in, but it also has a function that ‘tags’ doctored images in the metadata. This is the kind of considered advancement we need, simple systems that let us see what is what”.

Where truth and integrity are paramount

For the World Press Association (WPA), and photojournalism in general, integrity and authenticity hold a higher stake. I asked Andrew Davies from the WPA about its stance on AI, and he told me, “As a starting point, we do not view AI-generated images as photographs. They can simulate the look of a photograph, but by definition, it’s not the same. A photograph captures light on a sensor or film; it is a record of a physical moment. So, by definition, this is different from an image made with generative AI. Therefore, as a photography competition, we do not allow AI-generated images”.

Davies goes on to explain how the WPA approach the prevalence of AI. “We use a multilayered approach to spot fake or manipulated images: We verify the professionality of all entrants and the facts behind each story. The images are judged by industry professionals, and the original files are examined by two independent digital analysts.”

He adds, “I think the bigger issue is around trust in general. Scenes can be staged, the framing of images can be deceptive, photo manipulation is almost as old as photography itself, and digital editing software has been around for decades. Our contest is outside the 24/7 media cycle, and we do not have to work at the speed of social media. We can take time to check each finalist image carefully”.

For Davies, the bigger question is how people can continue to trust press and documentary photography in general, outside the realm of photo competitions. Davies explains that there are some technological solutions for tracking the origin of images, but these can’t tell you about the trustworthiness of the source. The WPA helped co-create a set of principles, compatible with those followed by many news organizations, that individuals and organizations can also adopt or adapt.

It’s clear from my conversations that there’s currently a lot of fuss, debate and anxiety around the evolving nature of photography competitions in the new (ish) era of AI. After speaking with a number of competition organizers the consensus among them seems to be that while AI tools present new creative possibilities, safeguarding the integrity and authenticity of images remains crucial.

From established competitions like the British Photography Awards to revered institutions like the World Press Association, measures are being implemented to ensure transparency and uphold the essence of photography. As AI continues to shape the future of image making and photography, truth and integrity will remain the guiding principle for both creators and organizers alike, but, really, this has always been the case.  

At the end of the day, a purely AI-generated image is not a photograph and therefore has no place in a photography competition; a photograph that’s been enhanced using AI tools might, but exactly what is acceptable depends on the competition and its core values, just as it’s always been.

You might also like

Women had to disguise themselves in 1800s photographs of their babies due to early cameras’ long exposure times.
Photo: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.

It was the mid-1800s, and New Zealand mothers faced a dilemma.

Photography was sweeping the nation, and they wanted a likeness of their babies – but could not leave them sitting alone while the image was captured, which could take up to 45 seconds.

Enter a phenomenon that book editor Shaun Higgins calls the ‘hidden mother’: women preserved in early photos crouching behind chairs, or hidden under a shroud of fabric, propping up their young children.

In some photos, their disembodied hands could be seen emerging from a cloth, holding their babies tight “lest they topple over”.

An example of the ‘hidden mother’ is displayed on the front cover of Higgins’ latest book, A Different Light: First Photographs of Aotearoa.

Along with fellow editor Catherine Hammond, he pulled from the extensive photo collections of three major research libraries: Auckland Museum, Hocken Collections, and the Alexander Turnbull Library.

The resulting tome includes an array of portraits and landscapes, providing an insight to New Zealand’s colonial era.

Higgins told Saturday Morning that photography was introduced in Aotearoa in 1848, about a century after its invention in France.

The book’s co-editor Shaun Higgins.
Photo: Supplied

The earliest surviving photo taken in Aotearoa was a portrait of a “rather bewildered man” named Edward Catchpool, who sat for a portrait in Wellington in April 1852.

“He actually looks like a confused first-time Tinder user. It’s quite a funny portrait, but you have to put yourself in his shoes and remember that he’s never seen a camera before,” Higgins said.

Many people looked at early photographs and thought “gosh, it must have been pretty miserable back then”, he said – but their serious expressions were usually because they had to sit still for a long time.

“Dentistry was [also] not very good back then, so they don’t tend to want to do a big grin and show their mouth.”

The earliest surviving photograph taken in Aotearoa was this portrait of Edward Catchpool, taken in 1852.
Photo: Alexander Turnbull Library, Margaret Dunne collection.

Early photographers had to cart a cumbersome kit around New Zealand, Higgins said.

As well as their cameras and tripods, they had portable darkrooms – usually a small tent or a covered cart – because negatives had to be processed straight away.

One image included in the book, of the Pink and White Terraces, had been captured on a 50cm plate, he said.

“You think about a piece of glass that size being taken to the Pink and White Terraces, that’s when your imagination starts to go wild.”

An image of the Pink and White Terraces before they were lost in the 1886 Mt Tarawera eruption.
Photo: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Museum

The camera’s body would have been at least as big as the plate, then there were the bellows and lens on top.

Higgins referred to it as the “giant megapixel camera of the time”.

The image would have been processed in a small tent nearby, “then they would have washed the plates in the waters of the terraces”.

Portraits of Māori were popular in those days, but many photographers exploited them for profit, Higgins said.

Kīngi Tāwhiao used photography to “spread his image around Aotearoa and the world”.
Photo: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.

The idea was that “Māori were a collectible”, and photographs the size of business cards, called carte de visite, were taken of anonymous sitters and mass produced.

Higgins said the sitters did not receive any payment for posing for the images, which became sought-after and frequently swapped, like trading cards.

Their portrayal could be contrasted with that of Kīngi Tāwhiao, who sought out portrait photographers and “embraced this technology as a way to spread his image around Aotearoa and the world”, he said.

“Instead of being for the benefit of Māori, this is actually the complete opposite – this is predominantly for a Pākehā collector audience.”

John Nicol Crombie, Commercial Bay from Point Britomart, 1859, albumen silver prints mounted on album page. (PHOTO: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.)

William Meluish, Dunedin, 1861, albumen silver prints, two-part panorama. (PHOTO: Hocken Collections Uare Taoka o Hākena, University of Otago)

Lawson Insley, Edward Catchpool, April 1852. (PHOTO: Alexander Turnbull Library, Margaret Dunne collection.)

Richard P. Leitch and unknown colourist, ‘Part of the town and harbour of Dunedin, the capital of Otago — from a photograph recently taken’, 1862, wood engraving, Illustrated London News, 30 August 1862. (PHOTO: Hocken Collections Uare Taoka o Hākena, University of Otago.)

Elizabeth Pulman, King Tāwhiao, Tūkāroto Matutaera Pōtatau Te Wherowhero, Ngāti Mahuta, 1882. (PHOTO: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.)

Charles Spencer, Trickling Buttresses, White Terrace, c. 1880s, mammoth-plate collodion silver glass negative, positive and negative views. (PHOTO: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.)

William Temple, The bush at Razorback. Gt South Road New Zealand, 1862–63. (PHOTO: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.)

Photographer unknown, Unknown sitter, c. 1890, crystoleum. (PHOTO: Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland War Memorial Museum.)

After school, many of the children local to the Sunda Kelapa harbour, in North Jakarta, Indonesia, go down to the water to swim and play. Jelly Febrian enjoys shooting the daily activities there whenever the weather is good. Always prepared for the right moment, he carries his phone with him to capture crews loading their boats, people fishing, and boys and girls jumping from the boats, as pictured.

“In the maritime villages near here there aren’t many fields, so the children mostly play around the pier. Every boat that docks here has a different owner and purpose, they load and unload basic necessities, and every week they sail to other Indonesian islands, such as Papua, Sumatra and Sulawesi.

“The owner of the boat in the picture is Daeng from Makassar. His boat travels between Sunda Kelapa and Sulawesi. The children had asked his permission before playing on it, as they always do.”

After asking the children if he could photograph them, Febrian used burst mode on his Xiaomi; later, he selected the best shot and applied minor edits to the brightness, contrast and warmth.

Once the children emerged from the river, he gave them a copy of the photograph to keep. “I shared the file with them, which made them happy.”

The Antigua City Council collaborates with the Cabildo of Fuerteventura, in the FotoSub 2024 Island Underwater Photography Championship organized by the Federations, schools and diving clubs of the island and the Municipality.

• The Island Underwater Photography Championship will be held in Caleta de Fuste from May 1 to 5.
• Fotosub 2024 is a qualifier for the Canary Islands Championship.
• Deportes de Antigua collaborates in this important underwater event organized by different federations, clubs and diving schools on the island and the Municipality.

The City Council of Antigua is pleased that the seabed of the municipal coast of Antigua and the facilities offered by Caleta de Fuste have been chosen to celebrate this Island Photography Championship, which is also a qualifier for the Canary Islands Championship, says the Councilor for Sports, Samuel. Towers.

And the mayor, Matías Peña, adds that Caleta de Fuste being the venue for this Championship is also a result of the professionalism and quality of the diving schools present in El Castillo dock, as well as the accommodation comfort of the town.

The coast of the Municipality offers a seabed with crystal-clear waters with a warm temperature, with known permanent marine currents, as well as chasms, caves and corners to be discovered and photographed by diving enthusiasts.

A profile of athletes who are very respectful of the marine environment, regular collaborators in cleaning campaigns, and who on this occasion will offer us the most spectacular images of these seabeds and the species that coexist in them, and concludes the councilor, Samuel Torres, welcoming This Island Championship is part of the promotion of this modality, which we have been carrying out in coordination with the Department of Tourism.

In 1965, New York’s Museum of Modern Art held a summer exhibition titled “Glamour Portraits.” Images in the show presented “mythical women as created by photographers since the 1850s.” It was a first—fashion photography had gained entrée to a museum.

Many big names were in the show: the Victorian giants Adolphe Braun and Julia Margaret Cameron, midcentury phenoms Man Ray and Cecil Beaton, postwar stars Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. And then there was George Hoyningen-Huene, who loomed large among them. When he died three years later, in 1968, he was preparing for his own solo show at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, scheduled for and realized in 1970.