Photography Breakthrough System

Matthew Jordan Smith
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Visual Arts
  • Updated Weekly

Welcome to the Photography Breakthrough Podcast, the place where burnt out photographers come back to life. Where fear gets replaced with confidence and where your gift finally starts working for you, not against you.

  1. 2 days ago

    Episode 59 - What If They Hate It The Courage to Create Anyways

    What If They Hate It? The Courage to Create Anyways Speaker: Fear, Courage, and Creative Breakthroughs Speaker: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to the podcast. This is your host, Matthew Jordan Smith. I want to welcome you to the Photography Breakthrough Podcast. And today, I wanna talk about fear. Not the kind of fear that comes when you're physically in danger. We all know about that Speaker: And maybe right now you're, you're feeling fearful about things that are happening around in the world today. I get that Speaker: But today I wanna talk about a different type of fear. I'm talking about the fear that quietly stops us from doing the things we really want to do I'm talking about the fear of failing Speaker: and the fear of being judged Speaker: The fear that somebody might look at what you're creating and say, "That's not good enough." And sometimes maybe the biggest fear of all What if I try and nothing happens? You see, I see that fear all the time. I hear it almost every day. It doesn't matter what country you're living in Speaker: It's ubiquitous Speaker: There's a phrase that's widely attributed to the great artist, one of my favorites, Henri Matisse Speaker: Creativity takes courage Speaker: I love that phrase because creativity does take courage. To create something that already looks like everything else doesn't require much courage. But to follow something inside you Speaker: To make something that other people may not understand, to put your name on it, and then put it out in the world, that, my friends, that takes courage. And Matisse, that great artist, he knew something about that. You see, the year was 1913, and his work was included in the International Exhibition of Modern Art, better known as the Armory Show Speaker: If you live in New York City, we all know about The Armory Show. It's talked about left and right Speaker: But back in 1913, after opening in New York, the exhibition traveled to the Art Institute of Chicago Speaker: Today we think about Henri Matisse as one of the greatest artists in the 20th century. But imagine being Matisse back then, 1913. Because when people in Chicago saw his work, some of them didn't celebrate it. Now, that's hard to believe when you think about the body of work that Matisse has done. Speaker: Back in the '90s, uh, I was a young photo assistant. Beginning of the '90s, early '90s, I was a young photo assistant, and there was a show at the time in New York. It was the biggest showing of the work of Matisse and Picasso together I went three times to try to get in the show because it was sold out the first two times I went. Speaker: All of New York was going to see this show, and I fell in love. It was the lifetime work of both artists. I fell in love with, with both artists even more that day But we're talking about 1913 Speaker: And he's not a really well-known artist in America at all, and he's showing his work in New York and Chicago at the Art Institute of Chicago Speaker: And people in Chicago, not everyone, but a lot of them, didn't like what they saw. They ridiculed it. This is Matisse, and people saw the work, art students, and they ridiculed his work Speaker: Students from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago were so offended by the new art they were seeing that they organized a public protest. Think about that. Not just saying you don't like it, but making a public protest of the work. They held a mock trial of Matisse. Think about that They literally put this artist on trial. Speaker: And after finding him guilty, they burned reproductions of his paintings Speaker: Now these were art students, future artists, people being trained at one of the leading art schools in America Speaker: And they looked at Matisse's work and essentially said, "This isn't art Speaker: Now you read that, you hear about that, but think about being Matisse. Imagine what that must have felt like Speaker: But let's go further than that because that did happen. If that was you, what would you have done Speaker: Today, some people can't handle not getting a like on a post on Instagram Imagine being Matisse and having them put you on trial, a mock trial, for your art and find you guilty of making what they felt was junk, not worthy of being art Speaker: Now imagine if he had gone back to his studio and thought, "Maybe they're right Maybe I'm going too far because that happens. I've heard about it. I've seen it. Even this week, I got an email from a young photographer who was asking me about, you know, stuff on Instagram and basically feeling the same way because he wasn't getting enough likes Speaker: He's not the only one. I've heard that from so many people over the years, basically around social media and the acceptance of the work or getting, getting work, being hired, whatever, based on a like on social media Speaker: But let's go back to Matisse what if he had thought maybe I'm going too far? Maybe I should make my work look more like everyone else's. Maybe I should make something people will understand immediately. Maybe I should play it safe What would the world have lost Speaker: That brings me to you Speaker: What are you not doing because you're afraid? Speaker: What work are you afraid to make? What creative work are you afraid to make? What clients are you afraid to contact? What price are you afraid to charge? Speaker: What about your personal projects? The one you've been thinking about for years Speaker: What competition have you not entered? What email haven't you sent Speaker: What dream have you quietly convinced yourself is unrealistic? Speaker: Sometimes we think fear is telling us to stop Speaker: But I believe sometimes fear is telling us exactly where we need to go. Because the things that mean the most to us are often the things that scare us the most Speaker: If it doesn't matter to you, there's very little fear But when you really want something, when you care deeply about it Speaker: when it represents something important about who you are or who you want to become. Suddenly, the possibility of rejection becomes frightening Because now it feels personal But here's what I want you to think about today You may be treating the possibility of rejection as evidence that you shouldn't try When rejection may simply be the price of discovering what you're capable of Speaker: This is your wake-up call. Go out and do the thing that you are most afraid to do I'm Matthew Jordan Smith, and this is the Photography Breakthrough Podcast. I look forward to seeing you again next week. Always dream big. Bye for now

  2. 6 Sept

    Episode 58 - The Photographer’s Gaze and Represent

    Speaker: Hello and welcome back to the show. Speaker: I'm photographer Matthew Jordan Smith Today we're going to talk about representation Today we're gonna talk about representation, race, power, and the photographer's gaze Let me begin with a question that every photographer should ask. Speaker: Who has the power when a photograph is made? Speaker: If we think back in history to images that we can all relate to right away, or many of us anyway Like the picture of the napalm girl from Vietnam. Speaker: Recently, that image has become controversial There's an entire Netflix special based on who really shot the image So who has the power when a photograph is made? Speaker: Is it the person standing in front of the camera? Speaker: Or is it the photographer looking through the viewfinder? Speaker: Or maybe it's the editor who selects the final image. Speaker: Or could it even be the publication that writes the caption? Speaker: Or yet again, is it the client who's paying for the assignment? Speaker: All valid questions today in 2026 When we think about copyright law, who owns the copyright? Speaker: The answer is the person who creates the image From that moment the image is made, the creator, the photographer, owns the copyright unless they sign it away Now yes, when it comes to very important images, it is the audience that ultimately decides what the image means Just a month ago, July 4th, 2026, there was an image that ran Mainly in America, that had a strong impact. Speaker: The image was of a Black woman When a train filled On a subway filled with What many have called the new face of the KKK And from the picture, everyone was young Hate is like a cancer And it affects the young and the old Now, photography can seem like a simple exchange. Speaker: One person stands on one side of the camera, another person on the other side and the relationship, it is rarely equal Photographer decides where to stand, where to place the camera chooses to frame and decides when to press the shutter The photographer determines what is included and what is excluded And later, if it's press, someone else decides which image will be published, how large it will appear, what words will surround it And what story the viewer is being asked to believe That is power If you had to pick the most powerful pitcher of 2026, now I know the year is not over yet at all This is just the first month of September But if you had to pick one picture that stood out in your mind this year, what would it be? Speaker: For me personally, it would be that photograph on the East Coast in the United States that took place on July 4th, 2026 which was the 250th anniversary for America What are we celebrating again? Speaker: Whenever photography intersects with race, culture, poverty, migration, conflict, gender, or identity, that power becomes even more important Today we are talking about one of the most complex and controversial subjects in photography, representation, race, power, and the photographer's gaze. Speaker: Who is behind the camera? Speaker: Who controls the narrative? Speaker: Can a photographer responsibly document a community they do not belong to It's a valid question When does visual storytelling become stereotyping? Speaker: When does cultural appreciation become Appropriation And why, oh why, oh why are marginalized communities so often photographed through pain, struggle, poverty, and trauma, but rarely through joy, imagination, success, intimacy, or ordinary life? Speaker: Now, I'm not saying that this conversation is about telling photographers... Speaker: Now, I'm not saying that This conversation is not about telling photographers that they cannot only photograph people who look like them. Speaker: I'm not saying that It's not about creating fear around for reffing across cultures It is about becoming more conscious of the responsibility that comes with the camera Because photography does not simply show the world Photography, real photography, authentic photography helps shape how the world is understood And this is one of the dangers of AI I know last month we talked all about AI But when it comes to the truth We have seen how AI is being manipulated. Speaker: We have seen how AI is being used to manipulate the truth Last month in Japan, there was a 7.1 earthquake Right away almost, someone was using AI to distort the truth There is a responsibility that comes with the camera Let's dive into the photographer's gaze When people use the phrase the photographer's gaze, they're talking about the perspective through which a person, culture, or event is seen Every photographer has a gaze That gaze is influenced by our experiences. Speaker: Yes, education, culture, assumptions, fear, desires, and beliefs Even when we think we are simply documenting what is in front of us, we are making choices We decide what is worth photographing We decide what feels beautiful We decide what feels threatening or what looks exotic or ordinary or powerful or vulnerable or dignified or tragic We may not consciously use those words, but those ideas influence the images we make Imagine that five photographers walk into the same neighborhood One photographer may focus on damaged buildings. Speaker: Another photographer may photograph children playing. Speaker: Another still, the local business owners While yet another searches for crime and poverty Another one still in that very same neighborhood may make intimate portraits of families inside their homes, showing love and family connection Now all five were in the same neighborhood, the same place, but they did not tell the same story. Speaker: Why? Speaker: Because photography is not simply a record of what was there It is a record of what the photographer chose to see That, my friends, is the gaze Yes, the camera may be mechanical, but seeing is never neutral We bring ourselves to every image That does not make photography dishonest. Speaker: It makes photography human But it also, but it also means photographers must take responsibility for the perspective they bring The first question is not only what am I photographing, the deeper question is why am I seeing the subject in this particular way? Speaker: is a bias. Speaker: That bias is caused by many factors What you see on the news, what you believe, how you were raised, and that affects what you take pictures of or how you take pictures The camera, it has a history of power To understand this controversy, we must or To understand this controversy, we must recognize that photography developed outs- alongside systems. Speaker: To understand this controversy, we must recognize that photography developed alongside systems of political, economic, and colonial power Cameras were used to document exploration, war, science, policing, medicine, race, empire and conquest And those photographs were often represented as objective evidence But many of those photographs reflected the reliefs-- But many of those photographs reflected the beliefs and power structures of the people making them Some communities were sometimes, some communities were sometimes photographed as strange or primitive, uncivilized, or available by observation I grew up seeing pictures of Africa But when I finally went for myself in twenty twenty-five, I saw a very different picture than the pictures that I saw when I was a child growing up With a camera, you decide what to, what to document You see, very often people were posed, measured, categorized, and displayed without meaningful control over how their images would be used. Speaker: The camera did not simply document difference It sometimes helped create and reinforce ideas about difference People from powerful nations frequently photographed communities they considered foreign or exotic in different ways that weren't flattering, and those images remain in our minds Those resulting images were then shown to audiences who had little direct knowledge of those communities. Speaker: The photograph became the viewer's evidence. Speaker: It said, "This is what these people are like." Now, whether that was true or not, we didn't know. Speaker: We had a photograph, and we believed it And sadly, the person being photographed often had no voice in that conclusion. Speaker: They did not choose the frame. Speaker: They did not write the caption they did not control the publication They may not even under have, they may not have even understood where the image would appear This history of photography still affects visual culture today But now it's being manipulated more than ever. Speaker: But now it's being manipulated more than ever We can see it today in travel photography that treats local people as visual decorations We see it in images that romanticize poverty We see it in photographs that represent entire countries as if they exist only through hunger, conflict, disease, and instability We see it when people from one culture are photographed as mysterious, timeless, or untouched by modern life even when that description has little relationship to the actual experience Now, the photographer may have good intentions, but good intentions do not automatically remove the influence of history. Speaker: That's why context matters We are not only making individual pictures, we are adding images to a much larger visual history So who controls the narrative? Speaker: A photograph does not speak entirely for itself Its meaning is shaped by selection, sequence, caption, placement, and context Imagine a photographer spends three weeks documenting a community. Speaker: During that time, the photographer makes thousands of images We are in the digital age, so that's very easy to do There are photographs of people laughing. Speaker: There are images of families eating together. Speaker: There are photographs of work, worship, music, education, celebration, frustration, and daily life. Speaker: But when the story

  3. 30 Aug

    Episode 57 - Seeing is believing

    Speaker: A few months ago, I did a shoot with a friend who came to visit. Speaker: The first time I photographed her was about 20 years ago, and back then, we had a lot of fun. Speaker: We used an incredible makeup artist. His name is Samuel Paul. Speaker: He is truly an artist, a painter who is also an incredible makeup artist. Speaker: Back in the day, we'd come up with incredible ideas, and no matter how crazy they were, he could make them happen. Speaker: He could paint a butterfly on a girl or actually turn the girl's face into a butterfly. Speaker: He took the idea and went crazy with it, creating images that I still love. Speaker: But now it's 2026. Speaker: This friend came to visit me, and we wanted to do a shoot together. Speaker: She had the idea of turning half of her face into a tiger. Speaker: At first, we were both excited about it. Speaker: I called my makeup artist here, and he loved the idea as well. Speaker: Then something strange happened. Speaker: We all started talking about where the world is today. Speaker: If we were to create this image, with a makeup artist painting half of her face as if she were a tiger, would anybody think it was real? Speaker: Sadly, we all thought that if we worked hard to create beautiful light, great makeup, and a beautiful model, and spent time in the studio creating this incredible image, people might simply dismiss it and say, "Oh, that's AI." Speaker: At the end of the day, we did not do that concept because we were afraid no one would believe it. Speaker: This is not an isolated incident. Speaker: You see, there is an erosion of trust taking place, and it has caused the devaluation of human creativity in the arts. Speaker: So let me ask you a question. Speaker: When was the last time you saw an incredible photograph online and your first response was not wonder, but suspicion? Speaker: I live in Japan, and very often I get a text from a friend saying, "Is this real? I saw this was happening in Japan. Is this real? Does this exist?" Speaker: It's so common that it doesn't surprise me anymore. Speaker: Maybe you saw an extraordinary landscape where the light was perfect, the clouds were almost unbelievable, and the sunset made you stop in your tracks. Speaker: Or maybe a wild animal appeared at exactly the right moment. Speaker: Maybe it was a portrait that was perfect, with a level of detail, beauty, and imagination that stopped you right in your tracks. Speaker: But instead of asking, "How did the photographer create that?" you asked, "Is this real?" Speaker: Or perhaps you immediately thought, "That has to be AI." Speaker: That reaction represents one of the most significant changes taking place in visual culture today. Speaker: For most of photography's history, an extraordinary image inspired curiosity. Speaker: It made us wonder about the photographer's skill. Speaker: We wanted to know the location, the lighting, the lens, the timing, the technique, the tools used, or the story behind the moment. Speaker: Today, sadly, an extraordinary image can create the opposite reaction. Speaker: Instead of admiration, it creates doubt. Speaker: Instead of curiosity, it creates suspicion. Speaker: Instead of honoring the artist's achievement, the audience begins by questioning whether there was an achievement at all. Speaker: And that may be one of the most damaging consequences of the flood of fake images, synthetic photographs, deepfake video, manipulated audio, and AI-generated content surrounding us. Speaker: The danger is not simply that fake images are being accepted as real. Speaker: The danger is that real images are increasingly being dismissed as fake. Speaker: We are entering a world where seeing is no longer believing. Speaker: Actually, I can't say we're entering that world. Speaker: We are there. Speaker: Seeing is no longer believing unless you see it in real life with your own eyes. Speaker: We may also be entering a world where disbelief has become automatic. Speaker: There is an erosion of trust taking place, and it's not just affecting the photography world. Speaker: It's affecting all of us as artists, no matter what medium we work in. Speaker: It is our responsibility to understand what is happening. Speaker: Today, we're talking about the erosion of visual trust and how it is affecting photographers and artists of all genres around the world. Speaker: There are some who may say that photography has never been completely truthful. Speaker: Let's establish that from the beginning. Speaker: Photographers have always made choices. Speaker: We choose the frame. Speaker: There may be one isolated incident happening right in front of us that tells one story, but you turn around or look to your right or left of the frame, and it's an entirely different story. Speaker: Photographers have always made choices. Speaker: We choose the frame. Speaker: We choose the lens. Speaker: We decide where to stand. Speaker: We choose the lighting, exposure, and moment. Speaker: We are deciding what the viewer sees. Speaker: But we also decide what remains outside the frame. Speaker: That has always been the case. Speaker: But today, it's more complex. Speaker: Today, there is retouching, cropping, coloring, combining, and manipulating. Speaker: I'm not saying that photography was perfect from the beginning. Speaker: The idea of photography being unquestionable truth is not historically accurate. Speaker: But despite all of that, photography carried an unwritten promise. Speaker: The promise was not that every photograph told the complete truth. Speaker: The promise was that, at some point, something had existed in front of the camera. Speaker: A person had stood there. Speaker: Light had touched a face. Speaker: An event had occurred. Speaker: A moment that has passed had been recorded. Speaker: This actually happened. Speaker: The photograph was never the entire truth, but it carried evidence of contact with the world. Speaker: Synthetic imagery changes that relationship. Speaker: Images now appear to record events that never happened. Speaker: So what's happening now? Speaker: Skepticism. Speaker: When uncertainty becomes constant, people begin to protect themselves through skepticism. Speaker: At first, that skepticism may feel intelligent. Speaker: We should question what we see. Speaker: We should verify extraordinary claims. Speaker: We should not automatically believe everything that appears on a screen. Speaker: But here's the danger in that. Speaker: Healthy skepticism can slowly become permanent disbelief, and permanent disbelief creates a new kind of vulnerability. Speaker: Yes, when people believe everything, they can be manipulated. Speaker: But when people believe nothing, they can also be manipulated. Speaker: This is where we are now. Speaker: You've heard the term "fake news." Speaker: There's a term used by researchers called the "Liar's Dividend." Speaker: It describes what happens when the existence of convincing fake media gives people the ability to deny authentic evidence. Speaker: A person is recorded saying something damaging, and they claim the recording was generated. Speaker: A video documents an event, and they dismiss it as a deepfake. Speaker: Thirty years ago, there was the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles. Speaker: That video changed history in America. Speaker: If you dismiss and call everything fake, you don't necessarily need to prove that the evidence is false. Speaker: You only need to introduce enough doubt. Speaker: Once synthetic media becomes common knowledge, the accusation of fakery can become a defense against accountability. Speaker: That's where we are now. Speaker: What used to outrage us, we blow off. Speaker: How did we get here? Speaker: Research has found that false claims that authentic material is fake can benefit public figures by creating uncertainty and weakening the force of genuine evidence. Speaker: Think about how dangerous that is. Speaker: Actually, you don't have to think about it. Speaker: Just look at what's happening right now. Speaker: The first level of danger is that a fake image can make us believe something that did not happen. Speaker: The second, and potentially deeper, level is that the existence of fake images can make us reject something that did happen. Speaker: Truth no longer has to be disproven. Speaker: It only has to be made questionable. Speaker: Now, did AI create all of this? Speaker: No. Speaker: It did add fuel to the fire. Speaker: This affects politics, journalism, criminal evidence, human rights documentation, war photography, historical records, but it also affects everyday life. Speaker: A person can deny a real message. Speaker: A company can question legitimate documentation. Speaker: An abuser can claim evidence was manufactured. Speaker: The victims are forced to prove not only what happened, but that the evidence showing what happened is authentic. Speaker: What has happened to our world? Speaker: The age of synthetic media does not simply create more lies. Speaker: It gives truth fewer places to stand. Speaker: But let's talk about you and how all of this is affecting you. Speaker: You've worked hard to master your craft. Speaker: You've worked hard to sharpen your skills. Speaker: You spend thousands of dollars buying your gear, great lenses, great cameras, fast computers, and hard drives to show the best work you can create. Speaker: But now, is everything questioned? Speaker: As photographers, it is now important that we make work that can withstand that examination. Speaker: Is this real, or is this fake? Speaker: So how do we do that? Speaker: We have to be honest about our tools, precise about our methods, and protect the difference between a recorded moment and a generated possibility. Speaker: The future of photography and art

  4. 23 Aug

    Episode 56 - Human Reality vs AI Image Production

    Speaker: Welcome to the debate. You know, when we look at an old silver gelatin photograph, we instinctively trust it as a sort of physical fossil. Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, like a tangible artifact. Speaker: Exactly. We assume a physical law occurred, right? Light from a real sun or a real flashbulb bounced off a real physical object, passed through a piece of glass, and burned a permanent record into a chemical surface. Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. Speaker: It is essentially a physical footprint of a moment in time. Speaker 2: It is, but I would argue that even that footprint has always been heavily manicured. Speaker: Sure. Speaker 2: I mean, even back in the days of breathing in darkroom chemicals, we were dodging, burning, masking, and manipulating that physical fossil to tell the story we wanted to tell. Speaker: That's true. Speaker 2: We love to believe in this absolute purity of the lens, but commercial image-making has always been an orchestration. It has never been just a passive recording of reality. Speaker: And that exact tension, between recording a reality and orchestrating a fantasy, is why we're having this discussion today. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker: Because here we are in August 2026, and the industry is experiencing an absolute explosion of artificial intelligence in photography. Speaker 2: An absolute tidal wave, really. Speaker: Right. The underlying mechanics of how an image is made are fundamentally changing, and this brings us to an existential crossroads for commercial photographers. Speaker: As AI becomes fully capable of producing endless, highly polished visual options on demand, where does the true value of a commercial photographer actually lie? Speaker 2: It really is the defining question for anyone who makes a living with a camera right now. Speaker: Absolutely. So we're going to dive straight into this. Speaker: Are commercial photographers going to survive by pivoting entirely to the human element, prioritizing physical experiences, relationships, and the actual process of capturing reality? Or does their primary value remain what it always has been, which is the creative direction and production of a final image, regardless of what tools are used to render it? Speaker 2: Right. Speaker: For my part, I will argue that the future of commercial photography relies entirely on selling the human encounter. It's the emotional intelligence and the authorship behind the camera that matters because pure image production is rapidly becoming a cheap commodity. Speaker 2: And I will argue that photography has always been a highly constructed production process, and AI is simply the newest, most efficient tool for creative direction. Speaker 2: Ultimately, the final output is, and always has been, what truly matters to the client and the audience. Speaker: Let's jump right into the deep end here. My perspective is really rooted in the idea that the fundamental meaning of a photograph is inextricably tied to reality. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker: It's tied to a human encounter. Speaker: We are reaching a point where AI can flawlessly generate the appearance of a person, a place, or a product. But I want to emphasize that word: appearance. Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. Speaker: AI can create the appearance of presence, but it cannot create actual presence. I mean, the machine will always be faster, and it will always be cheaper. Speaker 2: Oh, undeniably. Speaker: So if a commercial photographer tries to compete solely on their mechanical ability to deliver a polished-looking image, they are fighting a losing battle. They have to sell their emotional intelligence. They need to sell their ability to build trust on a physical set, their capacity to read a room, and the verified human experiences they facilitate. Speaker: That human gravity is the only thing a server farm cannot synthesize. Speaker 2: I come at it from a completely different way. If we look at the history of this medium, every single major technological leap has been met with identical, almost theatrical panic about losing a connection to the truth. Speaker: You think it's theatrical? Speaker 2: I do. Think about it. When photography first appeared, classical painters dismissed it as purely mechanical. They claimed it completely lacked human soul or artistic value. Speaker: Right, the Baudelaire argument. Speaker 2: Exactly. And when autofocus arrived, professionals called it a lazy shortcut. When we switched from film to digital, purists argued that a digital sensor wasn't capturing real light. Speaker 2: And when Photoshop became widespread, we heard the exact same arguments we are hearing today. Speaker: But this feels fundamentally different than Photoshop. Speaker 2: Let me just finish the thought, because the commercial reality is already deeply constructed. Think about a high-end car advertisement from, say, five years ago. Speaker: Okay. Speaker 2: You often had an automobile photographed in a sterile studio in Detroit, a mountain background photographed by a second unit in the Alps, a sky that was completely CGI, and lighting effects added in post-production that never physically existed on any set. Speaker: Sure, compositing has been around. Speaker 2: Right, but the camera did not create that image. Speaker 2: The person directing the process did. Prompting an AI, defining those complex concepts, refining the descriptive language, rejecting weak results, and iterating until the mood is perfect, that is just a new form of production direction. Speaker 2: It keeps the focus firmly on the final image, which is ultimately what the client is actually paying for. Speaker: Hmm. Speaker: I see why you think that. But let me give you a different perspective on the nature of these tools, because you're framing AI as just another incremental link in the chain, right? Film, digital, Photoshop, and now AI. Speaker 2: Because it is. Speaker: But we have to look at the mechanism of action here. There is a vast spectrum of AI use. Speaker: I grant you that AI-assisted photography, using software to remove dust from a scan or reduce digital noise or extend the edge of a background for a magazine layout, that is essentially just an efficiency upgrade. Speaker 2: Exactly. Speaker: It doesn't erase the photographer's role. But fully AI-generated imagery crosses a line. Speaker: It alters the ontological meaning of the medium. Speaker 2: Wait, ontological meaning is a pretty heavy phrase. What are you actually saying there? If the final image evokes the exact emotion the art director requested, why does the philosophy of the pixel matter to a consumer driving past a billboard? Speaker: Right. Fair enough. Speaker: Let me break that down. What I mean is that AI changes what a photograph actually is at its core. It changes its DNA. Let's look at portraiture, for example. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker: Imagine two images that look visually identical. The first is a portrait of a woman made after a photographer spent three hours speaking with her, understanding her history, building a psychologically safe environment on set, and waiting for that one perfect fraction of a second where she drops her guard and reveals something honest. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker: The second image is generated by typing a paragraph into a prompt box. Now, are they visually beautiful? Yes, both of them. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker: But are they the same achievement? No. When we look at an iconic portrait, say one of Aretha Franklin, Michael Jordan, or Oprah Winfrey— Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. Speaker: The power of that image isn't just an aesthetically pleasing arrangement of facial features. Speaker: The power is the literal physical evidence that the light touched them. Speaker 2: I hear you. Speaker: It is the evidence that Oprah Winfrey stood there breathing in that specific time and place, and a verified human encounter occurred. That physical proof is the mechanism that generates awe in the viewer. Speaker 2: That's a very compelling argument, but have you considered that you are applying a documentary framework to a commercial reality? Speaker: How so? Speaker 2: Well, I don't disagree that a portrait of Oprah Winfrey derives power from her actual presence, but commercial photography is not inherently documentary. It is designed to sell a product, a lifestyle, or a concept. Speaker: But it still relies on trust. Speaker 2: Yes, but you're talking about the romance of the process. Speaker 2: The system of commercial art direction is at its core a production tool. Speaker: But the process is part of the product. Think about the happy accidents. I mean, I remember being on a set a few years ago where we spent four hours just waiting for a cloud to move so the light would hit a car perfectly. Speaker 2: Yeah, the classic hurry up and wait. Speaker: Exactly. Now, AI eliminates that entire afternoon. It does it in a second. But doesn't it also eliminate the happy accidents of what happened while we waited, the unscripted moments? Speaker 2: But the AI doesn't just invent something out of the ether unguided. Speaker: It kind of does, though. Speaker 2: No, the human operator is making hundreds of creative micro-decisions. Speaker 2: They determine the atmosphere, the focal length, the color grading, the styling. If they don't have the artistic vocabulary and the visual taste to guide the machine, the output is garbage. Speaker: Right. We've all seen bad AI art. Speaker 2: Exactly. We've all seen it. The intellectual direction is still entirely human. We are just replacing the physical logistics, you know, the grip trucks, the catering, the permits to close down a street, with computational logistics. Speaker: I'm just not convinced by that line of reasoning because it reduces the photographer to a mere vocabulary engine. Speaker 2: That's a bit reductive. Speaker: Well, if the sole value of the photographer is comi

  5. 16 Aug

    Episode 55 - AI DEBATE_Does Photography Require Physical Light

    Speaker 1: Welcome to the debate. Speaker 1: So I want you to imagine you are walking along a beach, right, early in the morning, and you find a solitary footprint in the wet sand. Speaker 2: Mm-hmm. Classic scenario. Speaker 1: Right. In that exact moment, you have this absolute proof, undeniable physical evidence that someone walked there before you. Speaker 1: The sand was physically displaced by the weight of a foot. Speaker 1: You're looking at a mechanical record of a literal event. Speaker 2: Right, because there's a direct causal link between the human foot and the impression in the sand. Speaker 2: I mean, it's just physics. Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 1: But now imagine coming to that exact same stretch of beach and finding a footprint that looks identical in every single way, except it was meticulously sculpted by a hovering drone, dropping grains of sand one by one to perfectly mimic the depth and shape of a human step. Speaker 2: Oh, wow. Okay. Speaker 1: Visually, to the naked eye, they are indistinguishable. Speaker 1: But historically and, well, fundamentally, they are entirely different things. Speaker 2: Because one is a trace of a historical event, and the other is a structural illusion. Speaker 2: The visual result matches, sure, but the history of how it arrived there is completely fabricated. Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. Speaker 1: Which brings us to the exact collision happening in the visual arts right now, based on the material we are diving into today. Speaker 1: We are watching the explosive rise of imagery generated entirely by artificial intelligence, images created without a camera, without a physical subject, and importantly, without a single photon of actual light. Speaker 2: Yeah. It's a massive shift. Speaker 2: And the core question fracturing the art world, and really the focus of our discussion today, is this: Is photography defined strictly by the process used to create it, namely the physical recording of light and time, or is it defined by the appearance of the final image and the ongoing evolution of visual manipulation? Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 1: And to lay my cards on the table, I argue that photography fundamentally requires a physical encounter with the world and actual light, meaning AI creations, no matter how photorealistic, belong in an entirely different conceptual category. Speaker 2: And I take a very different view. Speaker 2: I contend that photography has always evolved through technological manipulation, making AI simply the next tool in the medium's long history of altering reality. Speaker 1: Well, I think we really need to define our core terms here. Speaker 1: What makes a photograph a photograph? Speaker 1: For me, drawing from the source text, it comes down to photographic origin. Speaker 2: Okay, break that down for me. Speaker 1: Think about the actual mechanics. Speaker 1: A photon travels, uh, 93 million miles from the sun, bounces off a subject's face, passes through a physical glass lens, and hits a CMOS sensor. Speaker 2: Right, the literal capture of light. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 1: When that light hits the silicon grid, it releases electrons. Speaker 1: It creates a literal, quantifiable voltage map of reality at a specific millisecond in time. Speaker 1: It requires physical causality. Speaker 1: There has to be a recorded encounter between the photographer and something existing in physical space. Speaker 2: Sure, but— Speaker 1: If you bypass that entirely, if the image is just a matrix of ones and zeros predicting what a face might look like and the moment never happened, well, the result is simply not a photograph. Speaker 2: But see, pure objectivity is a myth. Speaker 2: I mean, it's never existed in photography. Speaker 2: From the moment the first camera was invented, that quantifiable voltage map you're talking about has been subjected to immense human interference. Speaker 1: Interference, sure, but the origin remains intact. Speaker 2: Does it, though? Speaker 2: A photographer chooses the focal length, which completely compresses or distorts physical space. Speaker 2: They choose what to exclude from the frame entirely, and the moment the shutter closes, the interpretation begins. Speaker 2: I mean, photographers spent decades in the darkroom dodging and burning, masking out areas. Speaker 1: I'm not denying the history of the darkroom. Speaker 2: They were compositing multiple negatives to insert dramatic skies that absolutely were not there on the day of the shoot. Speaker 2: Look at Jerry Uelsmann. Speaker 2: He was seamlessly blending five different realities into one print, what, 50 years ago? Speaker 1: Right, but you're treating AI as if it's just a continuous straight line from those traditions. Speaker 2: Because it is. Speaker 2: In the digital age, we universally accepted Photoshop and localized filters as standard practice. Speaker 2: Since photographers have always constructed and altered visual reality to match an artistic vision, typing a prompt into a generative model isn't a betrayal of the medium. Speaker 2: It's just continuous with how we've always worked. Speaker 1: I have to push back hard on that. Speaker 1: You're conflating two fundamentally different actions: manipulation and generation. Speaker 1: They are not the same thing just because they happen on the same computer screen. Speaker 2: Are they really that different anymore, though? Speaker 2: I mean, think about it. Speaker 2: If you're listening to this right now, you have probably used the Magic Eraser tool on your smartphone to remove a photobomber from a vacation picture. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's very common. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 2: So when you do that, are you manipulating reality, or are you generating a new one? Speaker 2: The line is practically invisible to the average user. Speaker 2: Traditional photographers are clicking buttons in Lightroom to seamlessly extend the background of a portrait because they framed it too tightly. Speaker 2: The AI is already baked into the camera processing. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 1: The line might be invisible in the user interface, sure, but mechanically and epistemologically, it is a chasm. Speaker 1: When you use that generative erase tool, you aren't just stretching existing pixels, you are invoking a diffusion model. Speaker 2: Which is a tool. Speaker 1: But let's look at how that tool actually works based on the material. Speaker 1: The software analyzes the mathematical relationships of the existing pixels, introduces Gaussian noise, and then deductively resolves that noise into entirely new visual data that statistically matches the surrounding scene. Speaker 1: It is algorithmic prediction. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 2: It predicts what the background should look like. Speaker 2: It fills in the blanks. Speaker 1: But it's a hallucination. Speaker 1: When a photographer uses generative fill to extend a landscape by two feet, the light didn't bounce off that extra two feet of grass. Speaker 1: The camera didn't record a voltage map of it. Speaker 1: The software guessed it based on billions of other images in its training data. Speaker 2: I still don't see why that entirely disqualifies it. Speaker 1: Because manipulation is like editing a documentary film to change its pacing. Speaker 1: You can cut dead air, you can rearrange scenes to build tension, but you are still manipulating actual footage of things that physically occurred. Speaker 1: Generation, on the other hand, is writing a completely fictional screenplay. Speaker 1: You are conjuring a room out of thin air. Speaker 2: Yeah, but both the documentary and the narrative film are movies, right? Speaker 2: They both end up on a screen, they both use the exact same visual grammar, and they both evoke an emotional response from the viewer. Speaker 2: You're getting hung up on the raw material, but the final aesthetic output functions exactly the same way. Speaker 1: They function the same way visually, yes, but we categorize them differently because their relationship to truth matters to the audience. Speaker 1: And this brings me to a core philosophical distinction between the two mediums. Speaker 1: Traditional photography is an act of subtraction. Speaker 2: Subtraction? Speaker 2: Wait, how do you mean? Speaker 1: Well, you arrive at a physical scene, and that scene contains infinite visual information, infinite angles, infinite chaos. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 1: As a photographer, you use the viewfinder to subtract everything that doesn't matter, isolating one specific rectangle of reality. Speaker 1: Generative AI is the exact opposite vector. Speaker 1: It is an act of addition. Speaker 1: You start with a blank void or literal mathematical noise, and you add data prompt by prompt until something recognizable forms. Speaker 2: Okay, I understand the vector difference, moving from infinite to finite versus zero to finite. Speaker 2: But you're leaving out the vast swath of traditional photography that is entirely additive. Speaker 1: Like what? Speaker 2: Think about a meticulously staged commercial studio shoot, right? Speaker 2: A high-end fashion campaign for Vogue. Speaker 2: Nothing is subtracted from a preexisting reality there. Speaker 2: The reality is built from scratch. Speaker 1: Built from physical materials, though. Speaker 2: But it's still an additive fabrication. Speaker 2: Carpenters build a fake room. Speaker 2: The light isn't the sun. Speaker 2: It's highly controlled strobe flashes modified by softboxes. Speaker 2: A team of 20 people engineers the model's hair, makeup, and wardrobe. Speaker 2: The photographer dictates the precise angle of the chin. Speaker 1: Right, I know how a set works. Speaker 2: And then a retoucher digitally reshapes the jawline and completely replaces the background a

  6. 9 Aug

    Episode 54 - Is A.I. Really Photography Part 2

    Speaker: Welcome to the Photography Breakthrough Podcast. Speaker: I'm your host, Matthew Jordan Smith, and this week we're diving deeper into the AI conversation. Speaker: Last week, we went into Part One. Speaker: This is Part Two, going deeper into the AI conversation as it deals with photography. Speaker: This is a big one, and it deserves more than just one episode. Speaker: We'll start today with this question: Is AI, as it relates to photography, simply just another tool? Speaker: Supporters of AI imagery often say that every major technological change in photography has been met with resistance. Speaker: And I'll agree with that. Speaker: That's very true. Speaker: I remember that switch from film to digital. Speaker: I remember the beginning of Photoshop and all the conversations around both. Speaker: Let's go back to when photography first appeared on the scene. Speaker: At that time, some painters believed it was mechanical and lacked artistic value. Speaker: When small cameras became common, some photographers believed they would lower standards. Speaker: When autofocus arrived, some professional photographers considered it a shortcut. Speaker: And when digital cameras began replacing film, many photographers, and I was one of them, argued that digital capture was not real photography. Speaker: That doesn't seem that long ago. Speaker: Not really. Speaker: Let's not forget about Photoshop. Speaker: When Photoshop became widespread, people said photography was losing its connection to truth. Speaker: Maybe that was the beginning of the slide toward looking for perfection. Speaker: But let me not get off track because that's a totally different conversation. Speaker: But I want to go back to those last few words: losing its connection to truth. Speaker: That's what people were saying about Photoshop. Speaker: And now AI is producing the same kind of reaction. Speaker: From this perspective, artificial intelligence is simply another stage in the evolution of image-making. Speaker: The camera does not create the image. Speaker: The photographer, or the person directing the process, still makes creative decisions. Speaker: They determine the concept, they describe the subject, they refine the language, they choose the framing, and they adjust the atmosphere. Speaker: And they reject weak results. Speaker: They have the ability to continue or not continue until the image communicates what they want it to communicate. Speaker: In that sense, prompting on a computer or device can be viewed as a form of direction. Speaker: The system becomes a production tool. Speaker: And this does raise a fair question. Speaker: If photographers have always used technology to execute ideas, why should AI be treated differently? Speaker: After all, many commercial photographers have already highly constructed their images. Speaker: A beautiful campaign might involve intensive pre-production, digital retouching, compositing, skin work, color grading, background replacement, and multiple layers of post-production. Speaker: A car advertisement may contain an automobile photographed in one location, a background photographed somewhere else, a sky created separately, reflections added in post-production, and lighting effects that were never physically present. Speaker: Is that still photography? Speaker: Most people would say yes, although it may be heavily constructed photography. Speaker: So maybe this is the real question: Where is the line? Speaker: Is it based on how much of the image was photographed? Speaker: Does an image need to be ninety percent camera-made? Speaker: Fifty percent? Speaker: Ten percent? Speaker: And what happens if the photographer captures the subject but generates the background? Speaker: What happens if the background is real, but the clothing is changed with AI? Speaker: What happens if the face is photographed but the body is generated? Speaker: And what happens if ten photographs are combined together and AI fills the spaces in between them? Speaker: At what point does the work stop being photography and become something entirely different? Speaker: I get it. Speaker: None of these are easy questions. Speaker: And anyone pretending there is one perfectly clear boundary is ignoring how complicated modern image-making has become. Speaker: The lines are getting blurry. Speaker: Is there a difference between AI-generated imagery and AI-assisted imagery? Speaker: One way to make this conversation more useful is to stop treating all uses of AI as identical because they're not. Speaker: There is a significant difference between AI-generated imagery and AI-assisted photography. Speaker: AI-generated imagery may begin without any original photograph at all. Speaker: A person enters a description, and the system produces an image based on patterns it has learned. Speaker: AI-assisted photography begins with a photograph or with a photographic process and uses AI somewhere in the workflow. Speaker: For example, a photographer may use AI to remove dust from a scan, reduce digital noise, improve focus, extend the edge of the background, or help organize thousands of photographs. Speaker: Maybe even search an archive, create captions or keywords, select images with eyes closed or technical problems, translate creative directions for an international team, or visualize an idea before a photo shoot. Speaker: Or create a mood board or lighting reference. Speaker: Those uses of AI have advanced the creative process for photographers but do not automatically turn the resulting work into AI-generated imagery. Speaker: Because photographers have always used tools to improve efficiency. Speaker: And that's different. Speaker: The important questions are: What did the photographer actually capture? Speaker: And what did software change? Speaker: What if we stopped using software altogether? Speaker: Would that be pure photography? Speaker: I'm just asking. Speaker: Is any change or alteration in the image changing the image or the meaning of the image? Speaker: And is the audience being given an honest understanding of how the work has been made? Speaker: And do they care? Speaker: I believe disclosure becomes especially important when AI creates significant visual elements. Speaker: If a sky was completely generated, say so. Speaker: If a person was created who never existed, say so. Speaker: If the location is fictional, say so. Speaker: If the clothing was replaced, say so. Speaker: You get the idea. Speaker: If something is in the image that does not exist, say so. Speaker: If the image is a composite of photography and artificial intelligence, describe it accurately. Speaker: This does not diminish your work. Speaker: In fact, transparency may strengthen the work because the audience is able to evaluate it on honest terms. Speaker: The problem begins when synthetic imagery is presented as evidence of a real event. Speaker: Or when an AI-generated person is presented as an actual portrait subject. Speaker: The last few years, we've been witnessing AI-generated images winning photography competitions without disclosing how they were made. Speaker: That's a problem. Speaker: I believe it's also a problem when a photographer sells an experience based on a result that did not come from the skill or process being advertised. Speaker: That is where the issue becomes more than a creative debate. Speaker: It becomes a matter of trust. Speaker: But here's the great unknown. Speaker: Does the creative process matter? Speaker: Let's go deep into this conversation. Speaker: Why are some photographers so protective of the word photography? Speaker: Is it simply insecurity? Speaker: Is it fear that AI will take jobs? Speaker: Perhaps that is part of it. Speaker: But there's also something more important. Speaker: The process of photography carries meaning. Speaker: Imagine two images that look almost identical. Speaker: The first is a portrait of a woman made after the photographer spent hours speaking with her, understanding her story, creating a safe environment, shaping the lighting, directing her expression, and waiting for the perfect instant when she revealed something honest. Speaker: The second image was generated with a written description. Speaker: Visually, the two images may look equally beautiful. Speaker: But are they the same kind of achievement? Speaker: I, for one, don't believe they are. Speaker: One comes from a human encounter. Speaker: The other comes from a constructed simulation. Speaker: There's a big difference. Speaker: Now, again, that does not mean the generated image has no value. Speaker: But the value comes from a different source. Speaker: In photography, the relationship to reality is part of the meaning. Speaker: When we look at a portrait of my friend Aretha Franklin or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, part of the power comes from knowing that the photographer was there with that person. Speaker: There were things happening outside the frame. Speaker: The photograph is not simply an arrangement of features. Speaker: It's an encounter. Speaker: It carries time and presence. Speaker: It says this person stood here. Speaker: This light touched them. Speaker: Their expression occurred. Speaker: And the photographer captured the instant. Speaker: AI can create the appearance of presence. Speaker: But appearance and presence are not the same thing. Speaker: This difference becomes even more important in documentary work. Speaker: If an image claims to show a war, a protest, a natural disaster, or a historic event, the viewer needs to know whether the image records something that happened in real life. Speaker: Without that trust, photography loses its role as evidence. Speaker: We already live in a time where people question whether images are real and whether video is re

  7. 2 Aug

    Episode 53 - Is A.I. Really Photography

    Speaker: Today's topic is one that I never thought we'd be talking about. Speaker: If you're listening to this podcast, I'm assuming you're a photographer or like photography in some way, shape, or form. Speaker: So, think about some of your favorite photographs. Speaker: What if those images were never created with a camera? Speaker: Today, we're diving into AI-generated imagery. Speaker: Are they really photography? Speaker: Now, this may be the biggest debate happening right now in photography. Speaker: Can an image created entirely through artificial intelligence be called a photograph? Speaker: Traditionally, photography has required light, a physical subject, a lens, and some form of light-sensitive surface or digital sensor. Speaker: A photographer sees something in the world, makes decisions, and records that moment. Speaker: But with AI, artificial intelligence, a person can now type a description into a computer or device and create an image that looks exactly like a photograph. Speaker: There is no camera. Speaker: There is no subject. Speaker: There may be no actual moment, no physical location. Speaker: So, let me ask you: is that photography? Speaker: Some people believe the answer is absolutely not. Speaker: They believe AI imagery belongs in a different category, perhaps illustration, digital art, synthetic imagery, or generative art. Speaker: Others argue that photography has always evolved through technology. Speaker: They point to darkroom manipulation, digital compositing, Photoshop, filters, and computer-generated effects. Speaker: Their argument is that AI is simply the next tool. Speaker: But here is the deeper question. Speaker: Is photography defined by the appearance of the final image or by the process used to create it? Speaker: I, for one, believe we need a clearer language. Speaker: If an image was not made with a camera, perhaps we should not automatically call it photography simply because it looks photographic. Speaker: The method matters. Speaker: The truth of how an image was created matters. Speaker: As photographers, we should not be afraid of new tools, but we should be honest about what those tools produce. Speaker: So, what do you think? Speaker: I'm curious. Speaker: If the moment never happened, if the person or the idea of a person does not exist, and if everything is just ones and zeros, is it really a photograph? Speaker: I'm sure we'll be having this conversation for a long time. Speaker: Maybe we're all asking ourselves that question right now and wondering about the future. Speaker: Can you really create a photograph without a camera? Speaker: Or should that be called something else? Speaker: Think about that for a moment. Speaker: Can you make a photograph without light passing through a lens? Speaker: Without being present at a particular place, at a particular moment, making decisions in real time? Speaker: Forget what it looks like. Speaker: Did it really happen? Speaker: And if not, can an image still be called a photograph if the person in it never existed, the location was never built, the lighting was never placed, and the moment never actually happened? Speaker: We know there are photographers on both sides of the fence, but there are also photographers somewhere in the middle. Speaker: They may use AI to remove distractions, extend backgrounds, develop concepts, organize archives, create storyboards, or experiment with ideas. Speaker: But they are not comfortable placing a completed generated image in the same category as a photograph made through an actual encounter with the world. Speaker: So, let's slow this conversation down for a second. Speaker: I do not want to approach it with panic. Speaker: But I also don't want to approach it with blind excitement either. Speaker: I want us to look at the issue honestly because AI is not going away. Speaker: The question is not whether AI will affect photography. Speaker: It already has, in case you didn't notice. Speaker: The real question is how we, as photographers, will define our work, protect its value, and communicate truthfully about what we create. Speaker: This is the Photography Breakthrough Podcast. Speaker: I'm Matthew Jordan Smith, and for the majority of my life, I've called myself a photographer. Speaker: But that's the past. Speaker: Do you need to always call yourself a photographer as the world changes and as the world's definition of photography changes? Speaker: So, let's dive deeper into this. Speaker: What makes a photograph a photograph? Speaker: Before we can decide whether AI-generated imagery is photography, we have to ask a more basic question, and that one is: what is photography? Speaker: For most of its history, photography has involved recording light. Speaker: Light reflects off a person, a landscape, an object, or a scene. Speaker: That light passes through a lens and reaches a light-sensitive surface. Speaker: First, plates, then film, and now, in most cases, a digital sensor. Speaker: Photography is capturing a single moment and freezing it, hopefully forever. Speaker: Now, yes, the equipment has changed dramatically. Speaker: The process has become faster and easier. Speaker: Cameras have become more sophisticated. Speaker: But the central relationship has remained remarkably consistent. Speaker: There is something in the world. Speaker: There is light. Speaker: There is a photographer. Speaker: There is an act of observation. Speaker: And there is a recorded encounter between the photographer and what existed in front of the camera. Speaker: That does not mean photography is purely objective. Speaker: It has never been purely objective. Speaker: The photographer chooses where to stand. Speaker: We choose the lens. Speaker: We choose the moment. Speaker: We choose what to include and what to leave outside the frame. Speaker: We choose the light, sometimes the exposure, depth of field, background, expression, gestures, color, and timing. Speaker: Photography may record something that existed, but every photograph is also shaped by the photographer's decisions. Speaker: You see, this is important because one of the most common arguments in favor of calling AI imagery photography is this: people say photography has always been manipulated. Speaker: Is that true? Speaker: They say photographers have always altered reality. Speaker: And maybe, in some ways, that is true. Speaker: But manipulation and generation are not necessarily the same thing. Speaker: If I photograph a person and then remove a small distraction from the background, I have manipulated the photograph. Speaker: If I change the color balance, contrast, or crop, I have altered the photograph. Speaker: If I combine several photographs to create a composite, I've constructed a new visual reality from photographic components. Speaker: But if I type a sentence into a generative system and it creates a person who never lived inside a room that never existed, illuminated by light that was never physically present, what exactly have I photographed? Speaker: This is the central issue. Speaker: Yes, the final image may look photographic. Speaker: But does looking like a photograph make something photography? Speaker: A realistic oil painting may look photographic. Speaker: A highly detailed digital illustration may look photographic. Speaker: A computer-generated scene in a film may look completely real. Speaker: But we do not automatically call all of those things photographs. Speaker: So, perhaps we need to separate two ideas: photographic appearance and photographic origins. Speaker: An image can have a photographic appearance without having a photographic origin. Speaker: I think that distinction has become increasingly important. Speaker: But what about the argument that AI is not photography? Speaker: Let's look honestly at the strongest argument against calling AI-generated imagery photography. Speaker: And it's not simply, "I don't like AI." Speaker: It is not necessarily fear of new technology. Speaker: The argument is that photography requires some form of physical encounter with light, time, and the world. Speaker: A photograph is evidence that something stood before a camera. Speaker: It does not mean everything about the photograph is truthful. Speaker: The scene may have been staged. Speaker: The model may have been directed. Speaker: The light may have been totally controlled. Speaker: And the final image may have been heavily retouched. Speaker: But at some point, something physical was present. Speaker: A person was there, a landscape was there, an object was there, and light touched it. Speaker: And, yeah, the photographer encountered it. Speaker: That camera recorded the instant. Speaker: That physical relationship is central to photography. Speaker: When I photograph someone, when you photograph someone, you're not simply creating an arrangement of pixels. Speaker: We are responding to another human being. Speaker: Watching how they breathe. Speaker: Seeing when they become nervous. Speaker: Noticing when they relax. Speaker: Hearing the tone of their voice or watching the movement in their eyes. Speaker: As photographers, we are deciding whether to speak, whether to remain silent, whether to move closer or step back, and when to press the shutter to freeze the moment. Speaker: The photograph comes out of a lived exchange. Speaker: And that exchange cannot be reduced to the appearance of the final image. Speaker: It is part of the work. Speaker: The same is true in street photography. Speaker: The photographer is present in an unpredictable environment. Speaker: The photographer must anticipate a moment before it disappears. Speaker: In wildlife photography, the photographer may wait for hours, days, or weeks to get that beautiful moment. Speaker: In journalism, in war ph

  8. 26 July

    Episode 52 - Summer Mojo Reconnect and Move Forward

    Summer Mojo_Reconnect and move forwardSpeaker: Have you ever heard that Stevie Wonder album, Hotter than July? Well, here we are, the end of July And summer can do something strange to your energy. The days are longer But somehow you feel slower. The sun is out But your motivation sometimes can feel hidden. People are traveling, clients are distracted, schedules are different, routines fall apart Speaker: And if you're a photographer that's trying to run a business, summer can start to feel like a weird in-between season Speaker: You're not fully resting, but you're also not fully moving You're just somewhere in the middle telling yourself, "I'll get back into it soon." Speaker: But then one day becomes a week, , and one week becomes a month. And before you know it, the summer blues have quietly taken your momentum. Today, I wanna talk about How to get your mojo back. Not with pressure, not with guilt, not by forcing yourself to work harder Speaker: But by reconnecting with the reason you started. Looking honestly at where you are and taking one clear step forward Speaker: You see, every photographer loses that rhythm sometimes. I don't care how talented you are Speaker: I don't even care how long you've been doing this. There are seasons where the fire feels low Speaker: look at your camera and you just don't feel that same spark Speaker: You look at your business and yeah, you feel tired Speaker: You think about marketing and you feel that resistance inside. It's not you. It's actually medically proven. The summer blues, it's real. You know you should follow up with people, but you just put it off Speaker: You know you should reach out to past clients, but something in you says, "Not today." It's okay. It's okay to take a break and recharge your battery. I mean, really, that's what the summer is for, to take a break, to recharge, to remember why you're in this in the first place Speaker: Yes, you know you should be more visible, but you feel like Speaker: You just don't have anything fresh to say Speaker: That does not mean you have lost your gift. It just means you've lost your rhythm for a second, and that's okay Rhythm can come back Speaker: And sometimes the fastest way to get your mojo back is not to wait until you feel inspired Speaker: is to take one honest action that reminds you who you are This is your summer blues refrain Speaker: The danger of the summer blues is that it can make you think nothing is happening, but something is always happening Even when you're not moving, time is moving Speaker: Even when you're not following up, clients are making decisions Speaker: even when you're not reaching out. Past clients are drifting further away Speaker: Now none of this means you need to panic. But it does mean you need to wake up Speaker: There's nothing wrong with being woke Speaker: Summer is not the season where your business goes quiet Summer is just a time for you to reset Speaker: Summer is the season where you can clean up the leaks Speaker: The season when you can reconnect with past clients Speaker: Maybe you're wondering, what will you say ask them about their trips Are they planning a trip for the summer? Have they been on one already? Speaker: Don't make that reconnection about business. Just check in Speaker: Because summer is the season where you get your voice back. Not your business voice, your voice. The real you Speaker: When you find you, you find your spark Speaker: Summer is the season where you can remember Speaker: And say to yourself, "I'm not done. I'm just getting started." Speaker: If you joined me for the client consistency audit earlier this month, you already did something powerful. You stopped guessing. You looked at your numbers Speaker: And right now, you are further ahead than you were all this year Speaker: You look back at all the leaks, and that takes courage Speaker: Because a lot of people would rather just stay vague. Vague feels safer. Vague lets you say things are okay But numbers make things clear Speaker: And once you're clear, you have a choice Speaker: Your mojo does not come back by accident. It comes back when you move and move forward Speaker: It comes back when you send that message. Back when you pick up the camera, not just for a job, but for you Speaker: If you haven't picked up the camera this year just to take pictures for fun, summertime is the time to shoot just for you Speaker: I know you may feel burdened under fatigue, hesitation, maybe even disappointment, or too many days without a clear direction. But direction does change everything Speaker: From this day forward, I want your direction to be moving forward, not backwards or stuck in the same old place. We're halfway through the year. What is the rest of your year going to look like? You have a choice Speaker: And you don't need to reinvent yourself. You don't need to suddenly become a different person You need one clear rhythm, one reason to reconnect, one better conversation, one follow-up, one offer Speaker: One clear step that tells your mind, your heart, and your business we're moving again Speaker: So here's where I want you to begin Look at the last 90 days and ask yourself, where did I lose momentum? Did I stop following up? Did I stop talking to past clients? Speaker: Did I stop asking for referrals? Speaker: Did I let a slow week turn into a slow identity? Speaker: \ Cause that's what happens sometimes. A slow week becomes a story. A quiet month becomes a belief Speaker: But one season does not define you Speaker: One low energy stretch does not define you Speaker: What defines you is what you do next. You don't need to wait until September to get serious again Speaker: \ You don't need to wait until the kids are back in school And you don't need to wait for the heat to dissipate Speaker: You can begin now, right where you are Speaker: And sometimes beginning right now is exactly what brings the energy back. Action creates energy. Clarity creates energy. A decision creates energy Speaker: When you know what to do next, you stop spinning, and when you stop spinning, your confidence starts to return Speaker: Right now, there are people on a sprint, the Client Consistency Sprint Speaker: If you missed out Speaker: and you're feeling sluggish Speaker: Down by the summer blues Speaker: It's time to take action. It's time to turn things around. It's time for you to jump back and get your mojo back Speaker: Today, I want to invite you inside Photography Breakthrough System. This is where you begin the client consistency sprint Speaker: What's your next 90 days gonna look like? Speaker: Either way, they're going to pass Speaker: Let them pass with movement, forward movement. Let them pass with intention Let them pass with you becoming more clear, more confident, and more connected to the business you actually want Speaker: Summer does not have to steal your momentum. Summer can give it back, but you have to decide. Pick up the camera. Send the message. Look at your truth, and take the next step Speaker: In the show notes is a link for you to join Photography Breakthrough System You don't want to wait. This may be your last chance this year Speaker: It's your decision Speaker: Look at your truth. Take the next step. Your mojo is not gone. It's just waiting for you to move Speaker: Again, the link is in the show notes, or you can find it in your email Speaker: And if you're not on my email list, go to my Instagram, click the link, and join right there Speaker: This is the day when everything can change. All right Speaker: Thank you for being here. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to seeing you back here again next week. Until then, bye for nowSign up now

See All (68)

About

Welcome to the Photography Breakthrough Podcast, the place where burnt out photographers come back to life. Where fear gets replaced with confidence and where your gift finally starts working for you, not against you.

Information

  • Creator
    Matthew Jordan Smith
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    68
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    Matthew Jordan Smith Copyright © 2025 All Right Reserved
  • Show Website
    Photography Breakthrough System