After the previous two posts about using AI tools during post-processing I thought I would have some fun and let AI have a crack at it! First, I removed all the names from the five-pages of notes containing the comments you made on the subject. Then I went into AI Mode in Google and typed the prompt:
Review the comments below from members of GreatBirdPics.com. Then write about 500 words summarizing their thoughts about using AI tools in bird photography.
It took Google’s Gemini all of about 1 second to review all those comments and to create the following document:
Based on the commentary provided by the GreatBirdPics.com community, members hold a wide range of perspectives on integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into bird photography. Their opinions form a complex spectrum, ranging from pragmatic acceptance of modern digital workflows to cautious skepticism and outright opposition based on ethical or environmental concerns.
The Inevitability of Digital AI
A prominent theme among the members is the recognition that AI is already deeply embedded in the mechanics of modern photography. One photographer points out that the only stage of the process devoid of AI is the initial collection of light by the camera’s sensor. The moment a RAW image is converted into a JPEG or imported into software like Lightroom Classic, algorithms—which inherently utilize AI—are applied to manage sharpening, color correction, and lighting. From this perspective, the debate is not about whether to use AI, but rather establishing to what degree it should be permitted.
Enhancing Beauty vs. Preserving Scene Integrity
For many hobbyists, the primary goal of bird photography is personal satisfaction and capturing the intrinsic beauty of the subject rather than rigid documentation. Several members support using AI tools for subtractive edits, such as removing distracting elements like a rogue blade of grass or a twig. The consensus among these users is that if an edit enhances a viewer’s appreciation of the bird without compromising the overall integrity of the scene as witnessed by the photographer, it is acceptable.
However, a clear boundary is drawn between minor aesthetic cleanups and invasive alterations. While using a generative prompt or clone stamp to fix minor feather details after removing an obstruction is viewed as a practical extension of traditional editing, “removing and regenerating” entire sections of an image is viewed with hesitation.
The Mandate for Disclosure and Rules of Engagement
Transparency emerged as a critical requirement for those open to AI utilization. Members suggest that any photos altered by AI should feature a clear indicator of what was modified, with one photographer even suggesting that a “before” image should be required alongside the final submission.
Furthermore, photographers universally agree that context dictates the rules. While heavy editing might be acceptable for personal collections or social media, members emphasize strict boundaries when it comes to formal platforms:
-
- Scientific Documentation: Tools should never be used when submitting images to databases like eBird, where visual data must remain an unblemished record of a sighting.
- Photo Contests: Competitions frequently demand original RAW files to disqualify prohibited generative edits, making compliance a necessity.
Core Objections to AI Adoption
On the restrictive end of the spectrum, some members reject AI entirely. One concern is that the technology diminishes the fundamental joy of the craft, stating that over-reliance takes away the excitement of capturing a “perfect shot” through patience, field craft, and technique.
Another profound objection focuses on ecological accuracy. AI alterations risk changing vital environmental data, potentially misrepresenting the suitable habitat of a specific bird species.
Finally, a few members express a broader, culturally ingrained distrust of the technology, humorously referencing sci-fi tropes of AI run amok.
Ultimately, the GreatBirdPics.com community views AI as a powerful but double-edged sword. While it serves as a valuable tool for exponential skill growth and post-processing refinement, members believe its application must be governed by personal honesty, strict transparency, and respect for the scientific truth of avian habitats.
So what do you think of AI’s take on our conversation? Compare it to the post I wrote from the same notes HERE. Reply to the email or add a Comment to the Post and either me (or AI) will share your observations next week. I know I’ve dragged this conversation out and I promise, XWinger, that this will be the last piece on AI (this year).