Lately I've had a lot of deep thoughts on the future of Photography and the competition it will need to overcome to stay relevant and felt I needed to share my opinions, observations and otherwise just vent.
Photography is something I am passionate about and as such there is always going to be a part of me that is very defensive of the concept of it "going away" or being made "obsolete" and this is going to be the subject of a number of posts on this Blog.
As technology "improves" and our Society moves more and more into a Dystopian future we will see these changes more and more. AI imagery taking over leading this change and evolution (which I already did another post about last year in This Post on AI Art.)
Let's start at the very basics of Art. Photography is Art. A Watercolor Painting is also Art. But Photography and Watercolor Painting are NOT the same thing- I think we can all agree on this right?
The Britannica Dictionary defines Photography as "the art, process, or job of taking pictures with a camera".
There are several different variations on the definition of Photography Including the most common, widely accepted and lazy definition: "The process of capturing a Photograph". As such I feel Britannica's definition is the most concise, simple and straight to the point answer without referencing part of the base word in the definition.
Let's take a step further and examine What is a Camera? This is another Definition that changes depending on what Dictionary you pull from and some are just "A device that takes a Photograph" which again, not helpful.
The best definition I can find that is not just referencing the output is from the Free Dictionary "A usually portable device containing a photosensitive surface that records images through a lens."
Exploring this definition we have two devices pictured above: an Entry Level Canon DSLR (a European Rebel series model) and an X Box One X. By the definition I posted above which of these devices has a "Lens and a Photosensitive surface that records images through it"? I'll give you a hint it is NOT Both.
"Video Game Photography" is NOT Photography no more then playing Sim City or Cities Skylines is the same as building an Actual City.
As an example of Real vs Simulation another hobby and previous passion before I got involved in Photography is Fishing. I played a lot of Fishing simulator games as a kid and they are still a guilty pleasure for me.
Even as a 10 year old kid however I was able to tell the difference between using a controller to "reel in" a virtual four pound bass on my Nintendo and pulling in the fish in real life.
There are more "advanced" fishing simulators out there which pair a real rod and reel with line that is attached to a mechanically driven spool which pulls out line and creates tension just like a fish would in real life. This is still not the same thing as the Real Thing.
When you "caught" the fish you got a pre-recorded video of someone else who caught a fish. It was not something physical wet and slimy that you could reach into the water and pick up.
Photography simulation through "Photo Mode" is quicky becoming a common mechanic of modern games, and turns part of the game into a Photography Simulation Game. Simulation in Video games is NOTHING new even though so called "Video Game Photographers" are treating it like it is.
There are also full on Photography Simulation games. I happen to own one for the Nintendo Switch called Pokemon Snap. This one is a great example of why a Photography Simulator is NOT Photography.
I've already defined the difference between "Real and Simulation" with my other example so lets dive into the subject matter: Pokemon Snap is in a Fantasy world that is 100% different from the one we live in.
The day you can go outside with your camera or phone and take a Non- Augmented Reality Photo (which is a likely going to be another long post describing our Dystopian world) of a live wild Pikachu then I will redact this statement.
But until that happens my stance on this is pretty firm: There is a difference between something in the Real World and the Virtual World even if it is VR or Augmented Reality (IE photo mode in Pokemon Go).
Same goes with games that are based on Real life locations. Lets say you go into photo mode on the PS5 version of Spiderman: a game that is based in New York City.
You take some screenshots with the game's virtual camera that don't include any fantasy elements IE no Super Heroes in them. Is this then the same as packing your luggage and going on a trip to New York City yourself to pull out your camera or even Smartphone to take photos? Absolutely Not the same thing.
Yet some people are trying to make a point that it is the same and that really "Grinds my Gears" to coin a phrase from a TV show that was very hit or miss.
Earlier today in a non-photography related chat I got into a pretty heated argument about what Photography is and what it Is Not.
The Defense of "Virtual Photography" as "Real Photography" by the other person I had a debate with earlier today was three fold, so I will pick apart all three arguments from this defense.
First they stated that "Not having 200 pounds of thousands of dollars worth of photography equipment doesn't make the person taking Photos in Forza any less of a Photographer" the second defense was "What about people who use Photoshop to remove objects from a photo" and last was "It's unfair to discredit a Virtual Photographer because their subject matter is perfect".
The first point is the easiest one to debunk. I'm not a fan of Smartphone Photography, I've mentioned this before but in this case they really save me the need to make a complex argument here. Everyone owns a Smartphone.
A Smartphone has a lens, an electronic shutter to "stop" the image and an imaging sensor on it that can take photos of actual real life things. As much as I struggle to admit it at times, Smartphone Photography IS still Photography and it becomes my Ace in the hole for this argument.
So no you don't need to pack 200 lbs worth of Photography equipment on your trip to New York to make you different then the person using "Photo Mode" in Spiderman to take "pictures" of a place they have never been to. All you need to do is take out your phone.
The second argument is probably the strongest point in their favor. It is therefore the one that takes a bit more work to pull apart. That is what is the difference between a Photographer who uses an AI assisted program to alter and remove elements in a Digital Photograph? We can also ask what is the difference between "game photography" and a Smartphone camera which makes these corrections automatically.
This is a complicated issue and it is one I partially discussed in my rant about AI earlier. The line between "pure" photography and AI is beginning to become really really fuzzy.
However if we come back at this from the "Definition" of Photography from the definition I posted earlier we still have a really solid case on how AI assisted photography is different from a screenshot in a video game.
With a Photo-manipulated image such as taking a photo of a crowded street in New York City and in Post processing removing every person except the one person you decide to make the subject; you still went to New York City, you were still standing at a spot at a very specific time and pulled out a device with a Lens and a Photo sensor whether it was a $5000 Full Frame Camera or your Smartphone and took a photo.
That right there is what still makes it photography. The canvas for your work of Digital Art was still based on an image you captured with a Physical Camera in a Physical Location.
If you break it down the second counter-point actually answers all three points as a rock solid defense. Photography is all about capturing a moment of time in the Real World and transfering that to an image using a camera, End of Story.
That said I can still offer a different counter-point to the third argument on "It is unfair to discredit a Virtual Photographer because their subject is perfect" and that is with a simple concept of Intellectual Rights and Copyright to drive this last nail into the coffin.
For this example I will take the game they mentioned which is one of the most popular games to do "Virtual Photography" in which is Forza Motorsports.
If you go to an actual car race and take photos as a Volunteer/Staff Photographer for the event each and every photo you take you automatically has a limited copyright attached to it as it is a tangible unique asset that you created by a unique moment with your very specific equipment.
Even if the other photographer standing right next to you at the track got an almost identical photo on a different camera their photo would have its own unique copyright.
A simple breakdown of understanding Copywright law in the US when it comes to Photography can be found at this source: https://www.copyrightlaws.com/how-to-protect-photos-you-post-online/ this article even goes on to explain how you can file for a higher level of Copywright for commercial photography through the US Copywright Office.
Now let's go back to the Forza "Virtual Photographer". For those who don't know Forza is a popular racing game developed by Microsoft Game Studios. It remains to this day one of Microsoft's most popular game IPs.
The lynchpin is that all the 3D models used in Forza which you are taking screenshots of already have a Copyright attached to them, you guessed it by Microsoft. This also applies to my earlier example of Pokemon Snap.
When you take a screenshot in Forza you have NO copyright to that image whatsoever. Microsoft still retains all Intellectual Property rights to it however they will freely allow and encourage fans of their games to upload and share their favorite moments they experienced in the game through screenshots.
This is 100% at Microsoft's discretion because it helps them promote their product. The best advertisement is Free Advertisement afterall.
To wrap my final point up go ahead and take a screenshot in Pokemon Snap or Forza Motorsports and try and register it to the US Copywright office as a Commercial image that you can freely sell to others for a profit.
You probably won't get far, and even if you do manage to take a realistic looking game screenshot from Forza that is realistic enough to fool a Copyright lawyer it may at some point get audited, found out as being a screenshot from Forza and you will receive a really nasty letter from Microsoft asking you to show up in court or pay a settled fine for doing so.
To wrap things up: I will concede that "Video Game/Virtual Photography" can be and is Art. Especially in cases where you have for example a custom VR model that you created or had commissioned for you. I can 100 percent respect that.
But it is NOT Photography. Just like Apples and Oranges it is a totally different form of Art then Real Life Photography, and this is what this whole post was about.
No comments:
Post a Comment