AI imaging is continuing to advance in power and sophistication. The relationship between traditional photography and generative AI is evolving. In documentary photography and in journalism, the consensus is clear and settled: The use of generative AI is completely prohibited. In Fine Art, the relationship is less clear.

Naturally, the advent of AI will create conflicts, It is equally to be expected that a resolution should evolve. After all, when photography was first invented, artists who had been painting all their lives decried photography as “cheating.” When color film was introduced, black-and-white film purists argued that color was “weakening” and distorting the art of photography. The widespread adoption of digital photography led widely to replacing the medium of film. Digital photo editing and printing led to the (mostly) demise of the traditional darkroom. Yet all of the supposed conflicts introduced by these transitions were eventually resolved.

In “Red Roses Against Brick Wall,” I used generative AI to replace the original background. The overall image was edited somewhat, mainly to improve sharpness and color. I thought a background such as this brick wall rather than the original blurred background would improve the appearance of the roses.

All images in this post started life as traditional photographs (i.e., produced with camera and lens) All images thus belong to the category of synthetic photography.

One thing that is clear is that a work of fine art should be seen as the creative work of a. single artist who may combine different media and methods in a synthesis that expresses the artist’s distinct vision. In fine art image photography, the evolving consensus appears to be that combining traditional and AI methods is appropriate, provided that all such methods are under the direct control of the artist. New terms are emerging: Promptography, when an image originates with prompted generative AI, then modified or edited with various methods; and Synthetic Photography, when an image originates in camera and lens, then modified or edited or combined with other elements which may include substantial generative AI.

In either approach to creating fine art images, the developing view is that the artist should be able to specify by percentage how much of a work is produced by camera and lens (i.e. light), how much is produced by Generative AI, and how much by AI-assisted editing.

I will endeavor to follow this approach in offering creations in this New Images series.

“Lady Banks Roses.” . The AI-assist was mainly to sharpen the petals using an AI procedure from Topaz, now a part of Photoshop. Lady Banks Roses (Rosa Banksiae) are native to central and northern China. They are among the earliest flowering roses. They are highly fragrant and grow rather robustly.

“Flowers” is a double exposure obtained by combining the original image with a rotated version of the original, Editing included the double exposure and the addition of an overlay for texture. No AI. I may once have had a record of the flower used but have lost it. My botanical identification program could not help.

By the way, none of the writing in this post was produced or edited with AI. It’s all mine.

That’s it for this week. What are your thoughts about my remarks on AI and photography. Watch for another New Images post, next week, Wednesday/Thursday.