My first camera was an old Lordox 35mm, fully manual. It was a gift from my brother when I was young. Film was expensive, so I rarely had any. Instead, I learned about depth of field by placing Scotch Magic Tape across the back of the camera to mimic a ground glass and watching how the scene changed as I adjusted the lens.
Even then, the lesson was clear. The camera did not make the photograph. The photographer did.
Over the years, photography has gone through waves of innovation, each one accompanied by predictions that the medium itself was about to be ruined. Consumer cameras, instant cameras, autofocus, auto metering, digital sensors. Each new tool was greeted with the same concern: that skill was disappearing and that the machine was taking over.
More recently, the rise of high-megapixel phone cameras and increasingly sophisticated computational photography has accelerated that conversation. Phones now produce technically impressive images with very little effort from the person holding them. But many of those images share a recognizable look. The small sensor is compensated for by layers of software decisions made long before the shutter is pressed.
For me, the turning point came when I began shooting RAW and working with tools like Capture One. I began to understand how much interpretation had already been embedded in the image by the device itself, and how much control could be regained by stepping outside those defaults.
Even so, I find that holding a camera invites a different mindset than holding a phone. A camera asks for intention. A phone often suggests convenience.
Artificial intelligence now seems to be following a familiar path. My own reactions have moved through several stages. At first it was simply fascinating. Then it felt immature. Soon after, it became impressively capable. At one point I wondered if it might replace more human effort than I was comfortable with.
But as I spent more time with it, another possibility emerged. What if the tool itself was not the threat? What if the real question was whether we would continue to use it deliberately rather than passively?
Photography has taught this lesson before. The tools change constantly. What matters is whether the person holding them remains engaged.
The anxiety feels new.
The pattern does not.
Leave a Reply