This site has been dormant for some time. Not that I didn’t have things to say about the world of photojournalism – just too many things that I made a higher priority. I’ve been thinking about resetting priorities for some time and moving this back to the top of the list.

Today’s the day. A lot has evolved since the last postings. There is a lot to talk about in the field of photojournalism. One thing that hasn’t changed is the perspective that led to the name of this blog – a persistent vision. Photojournalism, in its range of forms, plays a significant role in documenting history and informing a public. That’s been the case for most of the past 200 years, and it will continue to be the case.

So let’s start the discussion with this item I saw today: A photographer wanted to work on a project about life in Russia, but ran into some issues. Carl De Keyzer is part of the Magnum photography collective. He has photographed project in Russia/Soviet Union, India and the Belgian Congo, and he has photographed media stories about the Ukraine war. He says he wanted to work on a new project about Russia, but couldn’t go there to do it (COVID and the war keeping him away). What’s a photographer to do? In this case, De Keyzer turned to Artificial Intelligence AI tool and then had it create photographs for the book. The continued evolution of AI and its uses has generated discussion about the future of photography and photojournalism. In many cases the conversation has been critical, and rightly so, as the images contain flaws that reveal their origins. But the technology is getting better, and the work De Keyzer put into training the tool with his own photographs seems to have paid off. The samples on the web page reveal some very life-like photographs, though some close scrutiny can reveal some details that raise eyebrows regarding their origins as traditional photographs.

My take is that AI definitely represents a threat to the credibility of photojournalism and documentary photography – if it’s used in such a way as to present the work as reality. De Keyzer didn’t do that. He’s transparent about the fact that the work in the book is the creation of AI. In that sense it’s a work of fiction, and perhaps entertainment. As long as we’re going to be upfront about the work and how it was created, AI can offer some very interesting possibilities.

As long as we’re going to be upfront about the work and how it was created…….

You can read the article and view some of the photographs here:
https://petapixel.com/2025/03/10/magnum-photographer-carl-de-keyzer-couldnt-shoot-in-russia-so-he-controversially-used-ai-instead/