Mike_5D wrote:
Easily replaced by cell phone shots and AI if not today, very soon. 90% of people won't care it's fake if it's free.
>90% aren't paying $2k+ required to keep the wedding photographer off welfare lol, to get photos anyway (probably never did,) i guess people are pretty spastic with their phones but could miss some shots if no one happened to take them.
Its always been a lot of lawyers, doctors, etc buying expensive gear because pros couldn't afford it, to a large degree. A lot less pros today not sure if I believe camera market is going to collapse. Title click bait, video not so much though
michaeldwilson wrote:
AI cannot move a penny two inches to the left on your desk. All those things requiring human activity and creativity will remain outside the powers of AI. Good wedding photographers, for instance, will always be in demand.
Wedding photographers in general in my neck of the woods are in less demand as the younger generation have less money to go around and have less interest in wedding photos…especially posed photos. My two boys had zero interest inweddi g photos…but one did have a camera for each table to allow others to document their day.
Imagemaster wrote:
JFYI, don't shoot the messenger.
?si=XV-oNixn1Vum_Wl5
Thanks for posting, one of Tony's more interesting and creative videos to date. The thing with Tony is he is a bit glib on some photography topics and often gets the details wrong. But he's actually good when it comes to these deep-dive single topic videos.
Just watched the video and had to smile at the AI Time Documentary reference. I don't remember this angst over the special effects in Star Wars or Tron or Avatar. All of these used CGI to replace faces, etc.
chez wrote:
Wedding photographers in general in my neck of the woods are in less demand as the younger generation have less money to go around and have less interest in wedding photos…especially posed photos. My two boys had zero interest inweddi g photos…but one did have a camera for each table to allow others to document their day.
That's why I said "good" wedding photographers, people who know how to set up beautiful shots using the sun, background, clothing, etc.
michaeldwilson wrote:
That's why I said "good" wedding photographers, people who know how to set up beautiful shots using the sun, background, clothing, etc.
Bottom line: You get what you pay for.
Sure, and people with titles still pay for painted portraits. But how many are there compared to 200 years ago?
Feb 08, 2026 at 03:47 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Where did all the pixels come from to make the AI Time documentary
Given that the documentary was set 250 years ago, the faces obviously weren't based on photography from that time. I assume the faces are from paintings that have long since been out of copyright and are in the public domain. In this case I don't think it is theft.
Mike_5D wrote:
Easily replaced by cell phone shots and AI if not today, very soon. 90% of people won't care it's fake if it's free.
Many iPhone photos are selfies or images of friends clubbing or out walking. No way in hell will AI replace that captured experience. Many people capture memories…something AI knows nothing about.
michaeldwilson wrote:
That's why I said "good" wedding photographers, people who know how to set up beautiful shots using the sun, background, clothing, etc.
Bottom line: You get what you pay for.
You don’t get it. Many young people that are getting married don’t want GOOD photos…they want simple capture the moment images like they get from their iPhones. I’ve talked to a couple of “good’ wedding photographers and they say the majority of their business is not from the two getting married, but their parents. The couple getting married don’t want that phony dressed up, nice lighting great background shot, but instead want that sporadic ugly composition that captures the moment shot.
chez wrote:
You don’t get it. Many young people that are getting married don’t want GOOD photos…they want simple capture the moment images like they get from their iPhones. I’ve talked to a couple of “good’ wedding photographers and they say the majority of their business is not from the two getting married, but their parents. The couple getting married don’t want that phony dressed up, nice lighting great background shot, but instead want that sporadic ugly composition that captures the moment shot.
They've grown up seeing awful photos get "great pic" on social media.
chez wrote:
You don’t get it. Many young people that are getting married don’t want GOOD photos…they want simple capture the moment images like they get from their iPhones. I’ve talked to a couple of “good’ wedding photographers and they say the majority of their business is not from the two getting married, but their parents. The couple getting married don’t want that phony dressed up, nice lighting great background shot, but instead want that sporadic ugly composition that captures the moment shot.
I know you speak for all photography, but there are plenty of wedding photographers who are doing just fine.
AmbientMike wrote:
Yours is. Nowhere near the pro photography/photographers these days. I post something obvious and you inexplicably want to argue
Maybe you should learn the English language. If as you claimed Digital photography killed professional photography. , how is it that tens of thousands of pro photographers have been using digital gear for years
You did not say Nowhere near the pro photography/photographers these days..
chez wrote:
You don’t get it. Many young people that are getting married don’t want GOOD photos…they want simple capture the moment images like they get from their iPhones. I’ve talked to a couple of “good’ wedding photographers and they say the majority of their business is not from the two getting married, but their parents. The couple getting married don’t want that phony dressed up, nice lighting great background shot, but instead want that sporadic ugly composition that captures the moment shot.
Usually when there is a new technology, some forms fade but other new forms arise. With the rise of printing, illuminated manuscripts gave way to the novel. I think in an era when photographs and cameras are ubiquitous and easily used, the aesthetics of images changes, as you suggest. "Staged" photographs become less interesting; photographs made from the viewer's rather than the photographer's perspective have more emotional impact and authenticity and are preferred. Thus your son's camera-at-every-table at his wedding. But professional photographers who, like Jeffrey Ascough, can create a record of the experience of a wedding or other event, rather than a sequence of staged photos that are the same for every wedding, will find work. They are more like photojournalists than like the traditional conception of a wedding photographer.
I use AI as an assistant daily, and I think he is spot on.
It's an unbelievable tool for me, I use it for research, compiling and doing deep dives into what I am interested in. I uploaded what I was interested in doing, set paramaters and bounce ideals off of it daily.
But, since I am an amateur birder I have decided to stop using AI in my hobby.
