OPINION
The other day I received an email in my inbox with the subject line, “You can now hire the world’s first AI photographer.” At first, I didn’t grasp the magnitude of this message, or the potential impact on photographers such as myself, but the more I thought about it, the more angry it made me.
My biggest concern when it comes to AI is that people will use it as a cheap, fast alternative to investing in well-shot images taken by a professional who has spent years perfecting their skills. It takes absolutely no time at all and is completely free to create a professional-looking logo on Midjourney [a generative AI service], but that doesn’t mean you should. Similarly, just because you can ‘Hire an AI photographer’ doesn’t mean it will do a better job than a human.
Photography is my livelihood, it’s my first and my second job, my passion – and someone boasting about how their company’s software can do what I do without the expense got me hot under the collar. There’s a reason why you pay someone to take your photo – they know about lighting, they have expensive equipment to invest in and maintain, and they bring the best out in people by learning ways of making them feel relaxed. There’s nothing to be proud of in developing an AI photographer – not least because a creative brand shouldn’t be putting fellow creatives out of business.
Pieter Levels, the founder of Photo AI, started the company with no team and zero funding but with the intention of offering people a cheaper, more timeefficient alternative to an organic photoshoot. He recently claimed that regular users of a photographer’s services could save thousands of dollars by using his product. A real photoshoot could cost you anywhere between $250-$1,000 for 75-100 photos, while a virtual photoshoot with a Pro plan would give you 1,000 photos every month, with a subscription starting at $29 per month.
For Photo AI to work, you first need to train the AI model by feeding it photos of yourself (ironically
