The Generative AI Debate in Landscape Photography: Art, Authenticity, and Drawing My Line

Steve Hammond in Malibu created with Generative AI via LTX Studio

As a landscape photographer deeply engaged in both the craft and art of image-making, I have observed with fascination—and a healthy dose of concern—the rapid rise of generative AI and advanced digital tools in our field. This development raises a critical and sometimes polarizing question: When does editing become fabrication, and what should be considered photography?

Below, I outline my perspective on where we should draw the line, why this distinction is important, and how both tradition and technology influence the boundaries of authentic landscape photography.

Classic Methods: The Artistic Foundation We Build On

Before the era of pixels and plugins, renowned photographers like Ansel Adams relied on a combination of technical skill and creative darkroom techniques. 

• Dodging and Burning: Adams used cardboard paddles and even his hands in the darkroom to selectively lighten (dodge) or darken (burn) specific areas of his prints. This process was not merely about adjusting exposure; it was about shaping drama, mood, and storytelling in every image.

  

• Zone System: Adams developed the famous Zone System, in collaboration with Fred Archer, which allowed for precise control over tonal range. This technique ensured that highlights and shadows matched Adams' artistic vision, rather than simply reflecting what the film captured.

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” – Ansel Adams

For me, these tools and systems are about interpretation—elevating and clarifying what I saw and felt in that moment, rather than morphing it into something it wasn’t.

Other Pioneering Photography “Tricks”

I’m not alone in turning to creative techniques to enhance, not reinvent, reality. Our predecessors set the example:

Edward Weston: Light Sculpting

Weston improvised with tin funnels and reflectors to shape light around his subjects, bringing still lifes and landscapes to life with incredible texture and dimensionality.

Dorothea Lange: Emotional Framing

Lange’s genius was natural light and considered composition, guiding the viewer’s eye and emotion, but never staging or falsifying her scenes.

Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Decisive Moment

Cartier-Bresson mastered the art of timing, waiting for the perfect confluence of elements, and composing in-camera, not on the cutting room floor.

Man Ray: Rayographs and Solarization

Man Ray pushed boundaries with rayographs (placing objects on photosensitive paper to create images without a camera) and solarization (dramatic, partially reversed images achieved in the darkroom).

Classic In-Camera and Darkroom Methods

• Double/Multiple Exposures: Composites were created by layering exposures, such as a detailed, short-exposure shot of a landscape with a longer, night-time exposure of the Milky Way.

• Pinhole and Mirror Photography: These hands-on tricks created dreamy effects, long before “filters” existed.

• Hand-Coloring: Manual application of color to black-and-white prints was painstaking, but brought a new expressive dimension.

These weren’t shortcuts or deceptions—just innovative ways to coax more beauty and truth out of the real world.

And that’s the standard most landscape photo competitions, forums, and professionals still uphold: Edits are fine, as long as they don’t materially alter the reality of the original scene. That ethos echoes back to Adams.

The Digital Editing Revolution

The arrival of Photoshop and Lightroom intensified the debate in the photography community. My rule of thumb—shared by many of my peers—can be summarized on a spectrum ranging from Acceptable to Unacceptable in terms of editing in landscape photography. This perspective uses clear language along with common distinctions in the field.

Spectrum of Editing in Landscape Photography	Examples & Notes
Generally Acceptable (Enhancing Reality)	- Exposure adjustment, contrast, color grading, cropping - Dust/spot removal, lens corrections - Techniques possible in darkroom (dodging & burning, zone system) - Enhances the scene but does not invent new elements
Controversial (Use With Disclosure and Restraint)	- Object removal (e.g., removing tourists or distractions) - Sky replacements if from real photos by you and disclosed - Composite images from multiple exposures of the same scene (e.g., combining long exposure Milky Way with short exposure landscape) - Selective masking (e.g., in “portrait landscapes” combining shots with and without light box) - These can clarify or improve, but can alter scene meaning if done without care or disclosure
Mostly Unacceptable (Fabrication; Not Photography)	- Adding new objects, animals, people, or landscapes not present in original capture - Generative AI creation or full image generation - Digital painting or composite scenes invented from scratch - Passing such images as straight photography, especially in competitions or serious posts

• This spectrum emphasizes the ethical line centered around authenticity and transparency: editing to clarify or enhance what was actually there is allowed, but fabricating elements or creating artificial scenes crosses into digital art or illustration.

Most major contests now require you to disclose heavy edits or multi-image compositing, and often demand RAW file checks for finalists.

The Definition of Generative AI—and Why It Matters

Generative AI, simply put, is any tool that creates new image content—a sky, a mountain, a flamingo—that wasn’t present in your original capture:

• Using prompts to create synthetic elements (e.g., new clouds, animals).

• Sky or background replacement with AI-generated imagery instead of real imagery.

• Inpainting or content-aware fill that invents parts of a scene, filling gaps with algorithm-generated content.

But making adjustments to color, brightness, clarity, or contrast—even if “AI-powered”—is not generative AI if it doesn’t actually create new objects or realities. That’s just interpretation, not fabrication.

Where Most Professionals Draw the Line (and Where I Stand)

Here’s the spectrum as I see it, with clarifying examples from the field:

Editing Technique	Widely Permissible & Common Use Cases	Sometimes Acceptable (with Disclosure)	Not Permissible as “Photography”
Dust/spot removal, cleaning	Yes—removing lens or sensor dust, stray people, or distracting power lines
Basic color, exposure, contrast	Yes—Lightroom/Photoshop adjustments to better match the “feeling” of the scene
Cropping, straightening	Yes—reframing for emotion or balance
Composite double exposures	Yes: e.g., Combining a sharp, short-exposure foreground with a long-exposure Milky Way sky (all from the same location)	Multiple exposures blended for dynamic range (HDR), if scene and sequence are true
Selective masking (Portrait Landscapes)	Yes: Using a light box to highlight a person, shooting again without the light, then layer masking to remove the box (the underlying scene is real)
Sky replacement	Occasionally: Replacing a sky with another genuinely photographed by YOU, from the same session/location (with disclosure)	Subtle, documentary-aligned, not visually misleading	No—AI-generated, unrealistic, or out-of-context skies
Object/person removal	Occasionally: Removing distractions (like an unintentional tourist)	When it doesn’t change the meaning or integrity of the image	No—removal that changes story or geography
Adding objects/people via AI			No—creating fictitious elements or scenes
Generative AI full images			No—labeled as photography, these are digital art

Where I draw my line: Clean up what’s distracting or unintentional, adjust how the camera “sees” (because it never gets the feeling just right!), and occasionally blend exposures for technical or creative necessity—as long as the integrity and authenticity of the scene remain intact. Never invent what wasn't there.

Why This Line Matters: Truth, Trust, and Art

Photography’s unique power is its relationship to the real: the implicit promise that “I was standing here, and this is what I saw.” Even when we interpret a scene in post, adjusting mood or tone, viewers trust that the bones of what they see truly happened.

Generative AI, by fabricating reality, risks breaking that bond of trust. If the audience can’t tell what’s real, the value of photography as a reflection of the world—and as a personal, authentic voice—is seriously diminished.

My Position: Respect for Craft, Space for Innovation

Debate is healthy, and as a marketer and creative, I appreciate innovation. However, I have a firm stance on this:

• NO: to using generative AI for creating objects, people, or events that didn’t happen. While it can be fun for personal projects, presentations, and playful content, it is not acceptable for serious photo posts or award submissions.

• YES:  to maintaining the photographer’s vision by cleaning up spots, fine-tuning colors, cropping for impact, and blending exposures when necessary, as long as the final result remains honest.

• Using AI for complete image creation or significant element insertion? Definitely no if you’re presenting it as a landscape photograph.

AI: Useful and Fun—But Keep It Honest

AI is fantastic for business use cases, mockups, social content, or personal play. But for photographic credibility, let’s use AI clearly, transparently, and with an honest label about what’s been changed.

In the end, great landscape photography is about patience, vision, and skill—revealing the world as you experienced it. The magic is in what’s real, not generated.

The Debate Rages On

As AI reshapes creative possibilities, I urge everyone—both professionals and hobbyists—to be transparent about their processes. Let’s celebrate the ongoing challenge and reward of genuine photography, keeping our craft both honest and extraordinary.

Footnote References

1. Ansel Adams: The Print, The Camera, The Negative – comprehensive trilogy on darkroom technique and the Zone System (Little, Brown & Company).

2. Edward Weston: Daybooks of Edward Weston, Aperture Foundation, and Edward Weston: 1886–1958 by Beaumont Newhall.

3. Dorothea Lange: Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits by Linda Gordon; Library of Congress archives.

4. Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Decisive Moment (Simon & Schuster); Magnum Photos.

5. Man Ray: Self Portrait by Man Ray; The Getty Museum, essays on “Rayographs and Solarization.”

6. Nature Photographers Network Survey 2023: Official results published on NPN forums.

7. Sony World Photography Awards 2024 Guidelines: World Photography Organisation, official competition rules.

8. Community Polls: From Reddit r/LandscapePhotography and National Geographic Instagram, 2023–2024.

9. Hand-Coloring and Physical Retouching: A World History of Photography by Naomi Rosenblum; George Tice’s essays on historical printing methods.

10. Competition Standards: Guidelines from International Landscape Photographer of the Year and Natural Landscape Photography Awards.