Think you will be buying loads of beers as who wouldnt stay to the end given the collection of images you have shared today. A cracking set Thomas and you definitely made the most of the conditions In terms of the AI debate, I would imagine there will be an argument by some people against any changes to an image that dosent replicate what was seen on the day. I love fine art architecture photography and use Photoshop to achieve a look that in reality dosent exist, so is this different to AI software. You called it when you spoke about integrity and I think it is how you are trying to promote/present yourself if you are sharing your images that is the key here.

Hi Tom, I have traditionally used just Lightroom and a bit of Photoshop. I recently purchased Luminary's 4.........i was initially blown away, and spent hours re-editing a lot of old images, adding in new skys, sun rays you name it i did it and created some amazing looking images. But, later, weeks later the images leave me some what hollow......they don't feel like my images, I'm not proud of them in the same way as i am when i capture an amazing sunrise in camera. So i think you right, there is a natural temptation to use the AI software to get that instant gratification, but long term its not the answer......it will not make you a better photographer, in my opinion.

I'm a novice photographer and photo editor. I truly feel that once my photos are out of the camera and onto the computer, the software's job is to help me reproduce the conditions that I experienced while taking the photo. I like my pictures to represent the moment. I will admit that I sometimes push beyond, just to see something different, to have a bit of fun, or to even create something artistic. But why would anyone want to give up that control? Why would we relinquish our images to algorithms?

"photography is about those moments in time you capture and you remember forever". Totally agreed..!

I think sky replacement works really well for real estate photography or for making fantasy composites and stuff. But I personally think that sky replacements take all the fun out of landscape photography because it takes all the purpose out of chasing good skies or conditions.

My background is, firstly, a professional Rock musician since the late 60's and now, an enthusiastic amateur photographer who actually uses Luminar 4 as a plugin within Lightroom and Photoshop. I see many similarities with, for example, the introduction of samplers and drum machines to the music-making process. After a relatively short while, those with seasoned ears could easily detect commonly-used drum and other samples, as well as orchestral hits, loops and other artificial devices. For those who can remember, the 80's in particular were notorious for the over use of drum machines and the awful, sterile sounds of digital drums such as the infamous Simmons pad kits. This unimaginative use of samplers, drum machines and digital keyboards was a significant reason why so much of the music of that period, and beyond, was so stultifyingly simple and similar. The next big innovation - and this probably mirrors much more closely the likes of Luminar AI - was the introduction of music production software which essentially allowed any acne-ridden teenager with no talent whatsoever to produce an entire song with a keyboard and one finger! This software has now become so sophisticated that it has completely pervaded the entire Music Industry, especially in the genre of so-called 'dance music', Techno and Electronica, Hip-Hop and many others - which is why we have a veritable plague of 'Producers' and 'D.J's' outputting monotonous, repetitive dirges, all seemingly at the industry-standard 120 bpm! Already I am beginning to recognize multiple examples of the same Luminar skies, the same Luminar astro shots, the same Luminar lightning strikes, rainbows, sunsets. mists and Orton effects! Whilst I am personally ok with the occasional replacement of a bland, midday cloudless sky with something a bit more complimentary to the overall subject matter, I have a feeling that too much AI will ultimately remove the sheer serendipity of that one moment when all one's hard work and effort produces a shot one can be proud of. If perfection were to be available on tap, why bother with the long trudges on crappy days any more?

PiXimperfect is by far the best Photoshop channel out there. The amount you learn from Unmesh to use Photoshop to achieve amazing realistic results is just amazing. His recent AI videos are mainly looking into doing the same work, but faster. AI doesn't mean going all fake by default. AI just means getting help from the computer to get where you want to get faster. Just like what photoshop and lightroom are adding to their software to have faster results.

For me, the point of a photo is to get me to think "I wish I had been there to see that happen." When it turns out that it was something that never happened, it leaves me feeling empty, and it leaves me wondering how much lying I am supposed to accept because "AI is just another tool like a polarizer."

I watched this same video today, and even though I am a compositing artist I believe that this could potential change landscape forever, and not for the better. Part of the allure of Landscape for me is going out and finding the light, going back and putting in the time. Getting the shot and appreciating the story that went into getting it.

I was wondering when this topic would surface. Not surprised at Thomas's perspective. He puts his entire being: physically, intellectually and creatively into capturing the world in its naked form, and does it beautifully. He's truly inspiring. It would be hard to watch someone achieve the same or similar results from their office. However, no where does the manual on art have limitations on what tools you can use to create it. Nor is their constraints on how far you can go in the use of the tools you have. I could argue that I dont have a Hasselblad medium format camera so I have to make due. I may not know how to use Lightroom, so my images are uncorrected, unmanipulated and raw. As an old film photographer who shot 4x5 sheet film, with equipment that required a sherpa to carry, I was turned off by the digital world. Film was so pure and authentic. Ansel Adams taught me that my craft didnt stop at getting the image. It extended into the darkroom. He used to say the darkroom was to make the image into what he saw in his "minds eye." I originally believed he meant critically making it match what he saw when he was there. But a black sky with Halfdome is only accomplished with a deep red filter. Hmmm. Could the master have meant what he saw in his minds eye included the choices of light, film, exposure, filter AND darkroom processing? I understand the resistance. We all struggle within our craft. But, I have come to peace with photography as a creative process, using whatever means and talents you have to produce art. It is limited only by your genius, intent and passion, and how that, manifested in pixels and print, is received in the world. Tastes will change over time, both theirs and yours. Both flawless and fake will have a place. Its up to us to determine where our heart is and what the future holds with regards to the result of our efforts.

The labour of sitting 10 evenings straight to watch a goopy cloud cover and on the 11th you get that sunset. That's the joy of landscape photography, not getting some mediocre image and allowing AI to make it into something it's not in the first evenings shoot.

I would never use AI editing personally but if it makes shooting funner and will get people out to shoot then I’m all for it. My dad is in his 70s and is hooked on shooting and editing with luminar, I am proud of him and it makes me happy that he still gets out to take photos.

Hello from the Midwest USA! Landscape photography is a sort of therapy to me. I follow a lot of photographers on Instagram, but you and Joe McNally (yes, different cup of tea) are two of my favorite guys to look to for inspiration in your respective areas of photography. As far as AI??? There comes a point when photography ends and photo-manipulation begins and, at that level-being able to change your sky and lighting so easily-is sad to me and I think you covered it 100% in this video and I agree. Negativity aside, I think it’s awesome that we still have photographers, like yourself, that go out and give it a go-creating photographs by being at the right place and knowing how to use your camera at the time of capture. I’m sure most of us watching your videos are inspired by your passion for photography as it is. Thanks for keeping it real! Cheers.

The issue with arguing for some kind of 'authenticity' is that much of what has been done WITHOUT AI breaks that already. At first one needs to define some bounds of what is authentic. Is it a single exposure? Is it related to how one perceived the scene at the time? Would it be some scientific measurement of the light and color in the scene? Assuming that we go with how the scene was perceived, immediately long exposures, composites, color saturation, desaturation, vignettes and the like already break that. And photographers have been doing that for years - even back when one might choose one film over another for vibrancy or some color reproduction. Or maybe even just shooting B&W. So along this merry path of edits and style choices there are an infinite number of stopping points. It's not like one goes from saturating colors and the next stop is full-blown sky replacements. We have a very complex mix including bracketing, compositing, copying pixels from one part of an image to another... then for composites there how similar the photos making up the composite are in terms of location, time, shutter duration, exposure. I have to then ask myself: if someone takes two exposures - one for the sky and the other for the scenery, is that okay? I think so. If they edited the sky to remove a cloud which was distracting, is that okay? Maybe. What if they *added* cloud, but using data from the same image... is that okay? What if they did not add or remove cloud, but simply waited half an hour and THEN took the exposure for the sky when the cloud was in a different position. Is that okay? What if they did not wait - taking the two exposures close chronologically, but pointed the camera in a different direction because "the sky over there looks better". And then used that sky? What about the photographer who uses a polarizer and pushes the clarity slider so I can see rocks beneath the surface which otherwise may be hard to see? Or via good use of a wide angle, makes me think an object is larger that it is? Some of these things one learns to spot as a photographer. But most people do not spot there is a distortion of reality in effect and what gear might have been used to cause it. I can't always tell even. Could some rocks really have such vibrant layers and defined texture? Maybe! Or maybe it was accentuated in editing a fair bit past what I may observe were I to have been there at the time. The onus COULD be on the photographer to provide some description alongside the image. But thats probably not going to happen. Half the time people just dont care for the "how this was made", only that it is. Even for your group (the F4!) Thomas, I think there is an emphasis on making the prettiest pictures of landscapes. It starts with good composition and lighting, but many more tricks are employed. None of you guys are at the point of replacing skies, but you're all at different points along the path between authentic (whatver that means) and completely fabricated. I don't think any of you are at risk of ever making fabricated images. You all love the process of photography too much to do it all on a computer! And that is why I watch your channels. But the point I am making is that when one tries to draw a line dividing what is acceptable and what is not. It inevitably becomes a very curvy line which allows some things and disallows others seemingly with no consistency as one tries to include all the things one is already accepting of, but exclude anything new.

Thomas Please can you explain: How many hand and arms do you have to handle - two tripods - 2+ cameras - 1 umbrella - 1 backpack - fence gates, .... BTW: A great tree at the place the umbrella was blown away!

Hey Thomas, firstly love your videos! You know this is just progress which you cannot stop. The AI just makes what people do in photoshoot accessible to more people. I agree, making things fake and airbrushed is here. You know our parents would say digital is cheating too as we can take lots of pics and focus stack and HDR pics. I think people will eventually want to see real pics. We need a mark you can add to pics which lets people know no parts of the pics have been replaced. Love your videos! Thanks mate! Nick

Thomas, you’re a genuine photographer. It shows in your personality, insights, and work. And that’s why we watch. I’ll pass on the autotune 👍

I'm fine with digital art (when honestly represented). I'm certainly okay with manipulating time, heck I actually think this is a huge part of digital photography. I'm even okay with masking for focus or exposure blends.... I'm not personally okay with AI editing. I feel it robs from the whole experience that makes landscape photography special for both the photographer and viewer.

What drew me back into photography after a twenty year hiatus was some of the HDR images of Trey Ratcliffe - striking colours and subject matter but rather unnatural. I tried my hand at it for a while but soon grew tired of the overdone, unsubtle images I was encountering in various online communities. I subsequently gave up (no more Photomatics for me!) and concentrated on macros instead. The auto-enhanced images of which you speak tend to leave me cold now as well. Give me subtle every time.

I am an amateur enthusiast photographer and I own, use and love Luminar 4. I balk at using their silly options but have dropped in a sky once or twice to save a photo. It's cheaper than Adobe Photoshop Lightroom with a far easier learning curve. I understand and agree with your AI reservations but have seen far more significant manipulation of photographs with the Adobe products than I could possibly achieve with Luminar. Luminar has been a great product for someone like me who doesn't have the time in the field and the time in front of a computer to create the masterful and stunning products that you true experts produce. Luminar gives us amateurs an affordable and accessible tool to up our game a bit and keep us loving the challenges of photography. Thanks for your thoughts on this. As always they were appropriately spot-on. I love the photos you produce but what keeps me coming back to your KZfaq offerings is your most engaging personality. It elevates you from all the rest. Keep it coming.

As the great Ansel Adams said : "The most important part of the camera is the twelve inches behind it", and of course creative editing is an integral part of the process. We constantly read of "saving time"........"speeding workflow" , of editing being a chore, as if one is making sausages, for that is what AI produces. There will always be more grains of sand than diamonds. And so the creative photographer will continue to use human artistic skill to create diamonds. For most want quick and easy, with no effort or skill required, and so it is that what is produced on their behalf, a shiny, soon to be forgotten drop in a sea of the mundane.....it can never be claimed as their own creation, because it isn’t. The satisfaction of finding the location, the lighting, the mood, and completing the work with creative editing is a true joy and will remain so. I was introduced to photography when I was twelve years old, some seventy two years ago, from bellows cameras and glass plates to this digital world. To sum it up the artistic photographer will continue to be just that.

It’s for the Instagrammers. We live in a time where there are millions of images added daily, to have a chance of standing out using these presets are detrimental to your long term. There will be a handful that will be able to utilise it and produce something unique, but for the masses it will just make their work disappear into the sameness pool.

You made a video not long ago where you discussed WHY you take photos and how there are two different types of photographers 1) photographers chasing likes on social media 2) photographers that take photos because they love doing it. AI software feels like it falls very much in line with the 1st type of photographer. Always appreciate that you’re the 2nd type of photographer 👊🏻

Hi Thomas, I totally agree with you, get it as right as possible in camera rather than relying on software.

If I wanted my photos to look like a clown got run over by a steamroller, I would just try to find some old HDR software....

Interesting comments on AI Tom. When Luminar first came out I got hooked on it and used it a lot. After awhile though, I thought that the images I was producing were not "real", not what I saw through the lens of my camera. Now, I no longer use it. I go for realism and try to replicate the scene as I saw it when I snapped the picture. You're right, you cannot always have those wonderful sunsets etc. Best be true to yourself.

I own Luminar 3 and 4. I caught myself using the last version I'd purchased less and less. The reason is that I am a photographer and I was there when I took the photo, and what that AI filter does is simply converting the image into something I did not take. I get that they are trying to sell it as a one click solution but the end result is just way off usually which makes me go back, tune down the result and waste time reducing the AI filter effects to make it more believable. This sort of computational, AI, machine learning or whatever you want to call it is just a sales pitch for the untrained and people who are always trying to find a short cut. There are no short cuts in art.

Thomas - first, this is the definitely best video you've done is a while. I really like that you've gone back to the "live" down to earth style rather than the "definitely not you" documentary style. There's no need to change the winning formula you've had for such a long time that makes your videos such a pleasure to watch. In this one, the images just kept getting better and the last one was just beautiful. I agree with you about the AI software. I think the purpose of photography is to attempt to make a record of what's in front of the camera. Over use of processing software, whether Photoshop or Luminar destroys the purpose of the taking the original image. To me, it turns the image into a different form of art that's more akin to digital art than photography. By the way - mine's a pint of Theakston Old Peculier. Cheers mate!

Absolutely great photos. Glad to see you getting out in the rain and enjoying yourself. Agree that the last photo may have been your best of the group.

I've no problems with your long videos Tom ... never struggled to stay to the end ... keep them coming :-) On the AI front, i guess it's all a matter of avoiding extreme and the user's integrity; similar to photoshopping an image. Your camera is full of AI already (e.g.: matrix metering, auto focus) but most of us have accepted these, even though in the 'good old days' we would use a hand held meter and focus every shot manually. i appreciate manual focus is still crucial to get pin sharp results, but we don't dismiss a camera as gimmicky because it has autofocus. So for me, I'm with you, i didn't like the examples of Luminar that you showed ... most of which looked like another planet. However each to their own ... I'd rather spend 2hrs outside with my Olympus OM1n from 1980, than 2hrs behind a screen creating a virtual AI enhanced world !

So I started watching this video last night, and I admit I turned it off after a few minutes, this mostly due to it being late and I'd been fighting a migraine all day. Glad I came back to it this morning as its probably now one of my favourite videos of yours. You took quite a few photos that we got to see, you added little snippets of advice and I guess training for people who are just starting out. IT was nice to hear the thoughts you have about AI. As a massive rookie in photography and more so in editing.... I have no opinion of worth on the AI.... However I am also not a massive fan of these 'Fake' images... Yes a tweak here and there... But complete recreation of a photo, it's something that I'm not a fan of. But then if the photographer states its a, I guess 'composite' then it's art rather than a photo. Oh god this comment is about as long as the video haha, tbh as I was watching I was thinking this is quite a long video and usually Thomas apologises for them (it was about 23 mins before you did that) haha being one of the longer videos I've seen that you've posted I really enjoyed watching it. One or two of the images you took I may have edited/shot slightly different than you did, but then that would be my style.. Although I agree with yourself I don't have a style, at least not yet... Refer back to being a massive rookie. In short... Great video and great images.

Totally agree! Specially landscape photography, which is to be there, facing whatever conditions are present and try to make the most out of it, while enjoying the journey.

I have used Luminar for a while, but not for this kind of sky replacement manipulation. It is a pretty good and easy editing software if you don’t want to use Adobe products. I use it for colour adjustment, cropping, sharpening etc, works well for that. Also supports the whole LUTs thing if that is your bag. Anyway, for me the main issue is that all online photography ends up looking the same, the Insta look, I guess it is what gets clicks but everything ends up being so samey regardless of what software they use.

“Oh it’s so wet” Thomas Heaton - 2020

Another twist to the existence of this software is when you’re accused of using it when you haven’t. I was fortunate in being able to grab a shot of sun rays through mist in a woodland a few weeks ago. Not a great shot, but a quickly grabbed one and nice enough. A few people who’ve seen the image have said, ‘I see you’ve used an app that adds sun beams to your photos. Looks realistic doesn’t it.’ I think I’ll start carrying copies of my raw files around.

I love these rainy autumn videos. This is great for my soul. I can relax and calm down with these. Thank you!

I love your photographs Thomas and i like the idea of not having a style. I have your book and your photographs create a body of work that anyone would be proud of. I am a beginner so thinking about a body of work you are proud of rather than a style is far more helpful to me. Thank you. I started photography to record our holidays so I too want my body of work that reflects the reality of the world around me. Thank you for the offer of a beer, I will enjoy one this afternoon and maybe get your book out again. Haven’t thumbed through it with a beer, only with coffee so far! BTW we are having an amazing spring! Lots of rain!!!!! 👏🙏💕

I think the real shame is that a generation will grow up not appreciating real art when they see it.

It's the human take on these wonderful scenes that makes photography as an art interesting. AI editing seems to take the life out of the art. Great video of a beautiful location: I especially love the last 2 pics - the brown heather takes on such a rich colour in the rain.

I guess i really love KZfaq for the options it create... But who ever put the thumbs down option there, is a big NO NO for me... We have enough negativity everywhere. If someone wants to say something, they should take their time, and explain in a positive constructing way, what they whould have seen different. Great content!

I am obsessed with photography, it's complexities, the knowledge I have taken years to gather and the pride I feel looking at a final image. I don't see how anyone could develop a passion for this art form we call photography by clicking a button, with no idea of what's taking place in front of them, to produce something that is not their creation. I would not use this software nor would be interested in viewing work created by it. Grumpy old man and proud of it ☺

I think AI could be an interesting tool, artistically, but there's absolutely the danger of people relying on it too much.

When you said "I feel like I don't have a photography style..." Trust me-- you do. But Nick's way of looking at it is really interesting. Much like how you cannot achieve enlightenment if you desire to achieve enlightenment. Are you a grumpy old man regarding ai? Yes and no. This AI stuff is like autotune for photography-- and yea, it's probably going to ruin some bad photography the way autotune has ruined some bad music. Those who have integrity in the art wont use it, and thus the art will still hold integrity. I have said more then once that "reality is overrated." In my opinion, photography is an art which is open to some license by the creator. I don't see myself as a journalist-- though I don't do sky replacements or significantly alter the colors / mood of the scene... my goal is to enhance the photons that my camera turned into pixels and rebuild and what I feel like I remember seeing when I was there-- not create a new image from nothing. The colors and details I bring out were always there-- just maybe not always visible to the eye. This is especially true when I do astrophotography, or landscapes in false color infrared. I think it is important to capture some things you *can't* see for a lot of the same reasons you would capture things that you can. Though I also completely understand what you mean about integrity for landscape photography. Landscape photographers were critical in the process of getting some amazing areas of land permanently protected in the US National Parks system. These places still exist for people like me to go photograph because a few individuals wanted to share their awe at the natural world-- and made the immense effort to do so because they KNEW how important it was. So I get that there is a degree of journalistic integrity needed there, and I feel that need to uphold it because when people know about places, they are more likely to advocate for their continued existence. Anyway-- lovely images as always, and thank you for sharing.

Your comment about style rings true. I used to think about this alot, but realize there is no reason not to be totally eclectic in one's approach. Thanks good vid.

I don't care about the AI discussion. I enjoyed your video about shooting in the rain. It made me smile. Getting good video and audio in rainy and windy condition is a fantastic experience. Your shots were totally worth the hours spent in the rain.

Playing with colors and shadows is one thing. You’re trying to show people what you’re seeing with your own eye and highlight the parts that brings the scene to life. But when you use software to completely change sky’s and whole landscapes, then, in my opinion, perverts the art of Landscape Photography. There is something in the grit, planning, hiking, and searching for the perfect shot rather than just taking a picture and blasting what you want on it and calling it natural or what you see all the time on the field. As you’ve said multiple times, you’re not always going to get a shot but that adds the value of when you finally do. AI editing has its place but I believe it’s not in landscape photography. At least not for me and how I View landscape photography to be.

Shot film for 30+ years, so most effects were added in camera. I’ve been shooting digital for about 15, I still feel the dynamic range of film is better than digital. So for me the editing process, is more about restoring detail to things I saw when I took the image. Sometimes I’ll tame some highlights, lift some shadows, otherwise I like to keep editing to a minimum.

I am a little jealous of your umbrella. It looks so stable in the wind. The ones I use always invert with the lightest breath of wind.

I don't have an issue with AI editing, so long as the person making those images ia 100% clear about it. I look at it the same way as I look at heavily editing- it's all in the pursuit of making art.

Best promo for Luminar ever.

My take on it is when you start changing an image to meet something in your head. That goes from photography to artistry. There’s no hard rule. Sometimes I take a great photograph sometimes I see something more that is not there. I am a photographer and artist.

I agree with you completely, While I do clean up my photography with photoshop, I never add to it.

We have been heading down this road for some time. In fact it is just round the corner from Ansel Adams darkroom work. Nevertheless, at this time, I agree that it is not for me. Manipulation of image elements is, in my mind, significantly different than replacement or introduction of new elements moves more in the direction of graphic art rather than photographic art

I sort of agree but also disagree, I think the point of Luminar is to get people to be creative and I honestly don’t see any issue with that, the more we can get people interested in photography the better as this will then encourage them to get out on soaking wet days like this one was. Sky replacement may just be a starting point for someone and as they grow in confidence and their skills improve they may well grow out of it, I look back at some of my own photos on Instagram and early ones look awful now but at the time I loved the high contrast hdr look. All photos are manipulated in some way so you need to draw your own line at the end of the day as long as you like the image you create, then who cares what others think. I myself use Luminar and have used the sky replacement tool but have only really replaced it with the sky from the same photo, just exposed correctly as I don’t have grad filters and don’t have any other editing software. The sky that I have used is the same sky that I saw on the day so do you feel this is wrong or okay? No idea if you read these comments especially as this one is rambling on for almost as long as the video (which I did watch and yes you can buy me a beer 😉), great video and love the book cheers and look forward to future content and photos! 👍

You're right. A few years ago when our village seemed blessed with more and more spectcaclar sunsets, one day there was a sunset so colourful it was unbelievable even while stading in it - above, in front of and behind you. Turning off the sunset feature on my cheapo little Fuji and Samsung phone didn't help much nor did using the video functions. But at least they were closer. Fnally only by aiming away from it, to the north, did I manage to get some shot that accurately reflected the colours in the sky - and I almost cried when I looked at them later. But, btw, our fall colours here are way wilder than the ones you're showing us, but I can appreciate their beauty and your enthusiasm.

Hi Thomas. I've been following your channel for several years now, and I absolutely love it. I really apreciate your talks and your honesty in your dialogues. Great video as always. All the pictures in it are beautiful, stunning colours and very nice mood. I specially love the last one. Like you say, it doesn't look real, absolutely stunning colors and the light is beautiful. About the AI software, I agree with you Thomas. It may be a good tool for digital artists and digital compositions, but not for lansdcape photography. The magic of landscape photography is to explore, to be patient and waiting for the right conditions for your subject, understanding the light and so on. Grabbing just any shoot and later in post add a dramatic sky and change the image drastically in any way true to the real conditions doesn't have any sense to me (unless you are clearly making a digital art composition and you are clearly letting people know that) Of course, this is just my opinion. Best Regards Thomas! And keep up this beautiful work. Thanks for sharing it. Pd: I love film photography, so you can imagine how happy I am seeing you with that hasselblad film camera out in the field.

It totally depends on what photography means to you and what you want to achieve. If you want to create great images (or even art), AI is a great tool and is no different from darkroom manipulation or digital manipulation in lightroom or photoshop. If you want the experience of getting to the location, finding a composition, waiting for the light and finally taking or not taking the shot, that's what AI cannot give to you at this moment (but it might not be the case in the near future, which I am sure of as a researcher in AI.)

One of the most important things I've learned from 20 years as a musician is don't blame the tools, blame the workflow. Some of the most incredible music ever made, with the most wonderfully intimate moments, amazing sparks of spontaneous creativity, or incredible, jaw-dropping virtuosity, were recorded digitally in the last 15 years using all the same software and plugins as all the generic shite that everyone else makes and that everyone complains about. The difference is that the great music was recorded and edited with a *completely* different workflow and process that used the technology to emphasise the creativity rather than replace it. I think the same thing will be true of AI in photography. As a tool to intelligently tweak an image, it's no more dishonest than any other editing techniques. It's the really blatant stuff like replacing the entire sky with one that was never there but is probably the same template one everyone else uses that'll lead to bland, mediocre art. It's going to happen, and it's going to suck, but it's not going to kill the artform any more than Pro Tools has "killed" music.

I thought it sad and funny at the same time that google/youtube's ad algorithm "chose" to show me a Luminar ad while on your channel. 😆

My first ever comment on your video because I believe this one is maybe on my point of view , the most important you ever made on the subject of the photography . The world is always moving on , and whatsoever we believe or wish ,photography will evaluate with the technology , and most important those changes will certainly be embraced by the new generation in the quest of a renewal in the style . But as any art , the old way of learning and editing has it still be done now , will always be a reference to understand and to appreciate , what was the initial purpose of being a photographer . I truly think now in those day we must accept and understand the evolution of the way people want to create new form of digital art . Surely the same conversation used to happened on the subject of film and digital photography , and actually your are a good example of what the old way become after almost disappearing .... it just reborn after few years because people finally always miss the original essence of an art . Two world can still be living together side by side , but the truth is that there is always one at the origin of the creation

The Polish poet & Nobel Laureate Czeslaw Milosz once wrote: "To believe you are magnificent. And gradually to discover that you are not magnificent. Enough labor for one human." AI photo editing software seems to be tailor made for someone early in that journey. As for me, getting back into (now digital) photography almost thirty years after first experimenting with a 4x5 at university, the examples of AI I've seen look to be for someone who strives for the spectacular - I've spent the last decade learning to embrace contentment with the commonplace.

I definitely prefer to capture the images myself even if they are bad. Actually when i see photos that look too good to be true i simply don't like them. Sometimes maybe they are even real.

When you said this is when people will click off, this is when I pressed the like button... Digital art is no doubt a skill but when you pony up with the truth 😊

You are spot on. The AI stuff is fun to play with sometimes as well as LUTS, filters apps, etc but you need to make your images YOUR own. Learn from your mentors but then take it to the next step and make it yours. Great food for thought. I grew up in the days of slides and negatives and 16mm processing ad nauseum and you did a lot of making an image yours with filters on your lenses and lots of darkroom time. Now it is a different world but there is still a lot of room to establish your own style and then perfect it.

I used Luminar and its "AI" tools and I can say it's nothing magical, nothing a proficient in creative digital editing can't do. And yes, all "AI" enhanced photos have a similar style but the fact is that it is very easy and quick to manipulate photos with these tools. I think LR presets offer a much wider selection of recipes for photo manipulation. I understand that the AI moniker scares a lot of people particularly when it is associated with your profession, knowledge & capabilities. To take it a bit further, your sponsor Squarespace offers just a limited number of creative options for building a site. People should instead use individual web creatives like me to build their sites :)

Instagram "influencers" are going to love that software.

That wide aperture on a rainy day tip is going to change my life!! I'd never thought of that!! Cheers

Couldn't agree with you more on Luminar. To me it's "digital art" not "digital photography." I try to do as little as possible in post-production on my photography. Does that limit a lot of my photos on how I want them to look? Absolutely. But for me it's about the chase. Being at the right place, at the right time, and knowing how to take the photo. I feel so great when I get "the shot" because I feel like I earned it. That's why I enjoy your artistry and creative direction. Keep it up.

First, digital photo editing has a steep learning curve for most people (see all the KZfaq on the subject and cottage industry it’s created). But with that said it creates a mob mentality (meaning less tolerance toward difference in styles) that removes the nuance and creativity forced by thinking through an edit. For myself I enjoy the editing process. I try to accentuate colors, correct the color balance and reproduce what I saw in my head. I’m an amateur working in film and digital. For professionals I understand the need for speed. Finally I’m very (respectfully) honest when asked my opinion of others work. If it looks like AI (if obvious), I’ll say so. It certainly doesn’t hurt wedding photos or portraits, especially if on a deadline). For me I don’t use it (mostly NIK) and limit my edits to my dodge, burn, and crop). My ethos; not another persons idea. Vive le difference!

The real truth imho is that the only thing AI editing will hurt is the ego of photographers that can create the same without it. Most care more about what others think of their work or if people will judge them because they didn't follow pointless rules about what editing you can or can't do and still be a "photographer". Software only does what you tell it to do. If your upset that tools like this will exist and will dilute the market with to many great photos you'll have to compete with than I'd recommend focusing more on the experience of YOUR photography and what you create instead of all the other bs I described above. You'll be much happier.

Started out in B&W film, been hearing this argument ever since. I have always tried to create what I saw when I looked through the lens. That includes how I display it. When I first started it was gallery=8x10 L&P black frame. My first showing was triangles and squares and polygons, and yes 8x10. I started out cutting and pasting, dodging and burning, sepia, whatever I needed to create my image, the way I saw it. As long as I am controlling whatever the process is and not being controlled by it, I'm being true to the image I originally saw. I start out composing and exposing to get as close to what I am seeing in my mind. Most of the work, but not always all is done before the image leaves the camera. I shoot raw for the same reason, I decide the image parameters, not the camera. Everything that has come along has changed photography as we know it. Film, Color, Slides, Digital, Software. Are we Photographers, Artists, Technicians, Recorders, All, None?

Great video. Really enjoy seeing people shoot in all weathers, not just spectacular sunsets and sunrises

Sky replacement is where I draw the line, at that point you're just making cgi

Those superstunning landscapephotographs of those famous locations have become uninteresting anyways. I think ai processing only makes even more place for fine art photography/composition and individual colourgrading. Some shots would even suffer from having insane burning skies. However, ai will make grabbing instagramfame even more dofficult. As an enthusiastic hobbyphotographer fortunately this changes nothing about photography for me.

Well worth the 30 min watch. The last image was stunning. Your expression of worry over AI said what I was thinking about it. Editing tools are great but how far is enough. I love seeing a creative development of a picture and consider people to be an artist when done well but it is clear that the picture is manipulated and that is great but this AI feels for me to lack some truth and you said it integrity.

I was going to stop the video half way through... but I'm glad I continued ! Those last 2 photos are super!! Coming over for a beer :)

Thomas you really need to see how outstanding unmesh’s tutorials are .

Snap a smartphone shot first as a composition test first. Quick, efficient, and let’s you know if it’s worth pulling out the camera

I like the long form video. Got to see some of what it's like to go on a photography adventure through your eyes.

I'm completely with you concerning AI software. There's enough deceit in media, social media, etc. Give me something real. That's what I enjoy about your videos and images. Thanks for keeping it real.

When Digital cameras came out this sort of concerns were voiced, the truth is, no amount of AI or camera's that can take thousands of shots, which are instantly reviewable will replace the ability of a good photographer.

“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.” - Ansel Adams

Tommy me boy, your videos are just soothing. You are so damned honest, humble and pale... and your passion for the image is just palpable. Love the simple music, the editing, the content. I appreciate you.

I agree on all points. One of the better videos I've watched of late; thank you. Lovely shots!

I've never understood why people spend so much money on expensive lens's then use similar software to enhance the images, complete waste of money.

A photograph never tells the truth. Never. Part of the act of making an image is deciding which part of the scene to include, which part to focus on, how to expose the image, all of those things. These things are directly under the control of the photographer, and will vary according to how he feels on that day, his style, his abilities, all of it. Some here have referenced Adams - a study of his work will show that many of his most famous photographs evolved over time, as he learned more of his craft and as his tastes and his ability to describe the changes that he wanted to his printer increased. He was probably one of the earliest proponents of serious, in-depth image manipulation. Digital manipulation just makes it easier for more people to do it, with less effort. Photographs NEVER tell the truth.

Looking forward to the beer:) As for the AI tool i see it could be an enrichment for people only into making digital art, BUT as a photographer i love the feeling of capturing the moments, and when all comes together, the world plays along and you get that Epic shot... Nothing beats that.

I am also a painter and completely agree with you. As far as style is concerned I know many artists on whom it weighs heavily as it actually inhibits freedom, however you should be able to stand behind and be responsible for every image you decide to share.

In my experience, I'm not convinced Luminar does anything that people haven't been doing for years with photoshop already. Perhaps the real issue is the idea of using simple sliders (sky replacement or not) to do simultaneous color, contrast, light adjustments - makes some people feel salty, especially those who have developed this skill over years of experience, which i agree with to some degree. On the other hand I think Luminar is fine as an editor, it does allow room for freedom of post-procesing, and its not as though you have to do a sky replacement lol. I sometimes use Luminar as a plugin, and it has value to some of my workflow - I completely agree that understanding what you want to do with your images and understanding the fundamentals is most important, and maybe it feels like Luminar creates a way to bypass that Like anything, be it your camera, lens, software - they are tools..the more important question to me is what are you making with these tools and why? Integrity, aesthetic, vision, purpose - I think these all are characteristics and qualities that dictate how and what tools you use, that is the starting point for me :) Thanks for the vid!

I think it stops being photography at that point, and starts being more like graphic design but not even your own design. Not a fan.

I love that last image. I'm so glad you talked about style to let it by your own and not another's. I've heard another professional photographer say when asked how to find my style, to let my style find me. He basically was saying the same thing as you. Words of wisdom. Thank you!

One of my favorite parts of photography is going out without my camera and seeing images. Once I have an idea for an image I can turn my focus to what I want it to look like - shooting position, focal length, time of day, depth of field... There is an excitement to creating an image, from the first concept to getting down to pushing the button. It's the process of sharing your view of the world with others - that's what photography is about. None of that process has anything to do with AI editing.

First off, Umesh is great, and his tutorials are really amazing. On the AI issue, I can see it both ways. On the one hand, I think that overediting is a major problem in certain contexts, but art is art. I think there is a place for AI created images - advertising and commercial, where truth isn't the primary purpose, for example. On the other hand, I think that integrity is crucial. When something isn't real, it needs to not be shopped as such, and it's important to disclaim.

That software would completely rob me of any creative satisfaction I derive from the process. Ansel Adams would probably have adored PS & Lightroom, he would never have endorsed this.

Great video Thomas and some very interesting comments on the whole AI debate. As someone whose been a freelance photographer for more years than I care to mention I came into the whole genre, in the late 80's back in the days of 35mm when "A & I" were merely 2 letters in the alphabet and nothing more ! Back then a Luminosity Mask was something that I made out of thin bits of cardboard, cut to shape in order to Dodge & Burn an image in my darkroom and it was all about carefully planning the "When and Where" and having good technique in order to maximise your chances of being in the right place at the right time to capture the best shot that you could ! Roll the clock on and nothing has changed notwithstanding that I made the leap from Canon Pro Film to DSLR bodies and lenses some time ago because, to my mind the art of true creativity in photography is the image that you have taken and anything that you do in post should be there merely to enhance a good picture and not to change it out of all recognition. "AI" sometimes has a place, in my own workflow, as does a whole battery of None-AI soft-tools but I tend to use it sparingly, to shortcut and speedup certain processes so that it does not add or detract from what I have done and certainly, under no circumstances would I use it to fundamentally change an image to something that I wasn't intending to shoot in the first place or something that, in the real World simply couldn't exist !

I agree about Luminar, I have tried Luminar 4's sky replacement for very mild replacements but the times were so few that it is not worth upgrading or using at all. Photoshop will soon have a sky replacement feature so I am afraid that we cannot escape from this kind of thing, but at least it is a piece of software that is not relying so heavily on AI. Good video!

Regarding AI or not, I feel very strongly about it, both ways.

The whole AI software thing is a problem in my eye...it takes out the effort and patience needed to actually capture good light or good photographs.

Great photos Paul and great to see you out and about and at it 👍🏼

I think it will make real photos more expensive, more sought after. I am almost thinking that as the camera was invented artists of great paintings may have had the same fears. Keep making videos and show all that goes into photography, vans builds, traveling, overnights.etc.