AI image wins award at Sony World Photography Awards

[FishyFish]

Artist Refuses Prize After His AI Image Wins at Top Photo Contest

An artist is refusing his prize after his AI-generated image controversially won first place at one of the most prestigious photo contests.

petapixel.com

A photographer has stirred up fresh controversy and debate after his AI image won first prize at one of the world’s most prestigious photography competitions. He has since declined to accept the prize while the contest has remained silent on the matter.

“I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not,” he states. “We, the photo world, need an open discussion. A discussion about what we want to consider photography and what not. Is the umbrella of photography large enough to invite AI images to enter – or would this be a mistake?

To be honest, it looks like an AI generated image. Looking at the hands is the giveaway (AI seems to struggle with hands, doesn’t it), but it has an air of an AI image beyond that. I’m surprised it wasn’t picked up by the judges - don’t competitions with prizes usually ask for original files / EXIF data and suchlike for submissions?

It’ll be an interesting debate.

 

[srichards]

It's also often the skin. It's wrong. Looks like a mask a lot of the time. Teeth are another area. Too uniform.

It does look a bit like an old plate photograph though. If he'd cropped the poor hands...

 

[FishyFish]

It's also often the skin. It's wrong. Looks like a mask a lot of the time. Teeth are another area. Too uniform.

It does look a bit like an old plate photograph though. If he'd cropped the poor hands...

It’s very easy to get things that look realistic if you don’t look at them too closely. This took under a minute to produce:

 

[furq]

I believe the judges have now said that they KNEW it was AI generated? (it was a 'creative' round)

 

[FishyFish]

I believe the judges have now said that they KNEW it was AI generated? (it was a 'creative' round)

Hmmm, that doesn't sound suspicious after the fact at all...

 

[ShinySideUp]

The article talks about AI taking over photography: “Just as photography replaced painting in the reproduction of reality,..."

Which is, of course, complete b*****ks. Photography hasn't replaced painting. People still paint, they still have models sitting, they still sit by the side of a lake creating a landscape using oils or watercolours, they still do portraits. Some people paint, some people take photographs and some people sit in a dark room squinting at a computer screen while telling a piece of software to create an image -- which for the most part, is probably porn anyway. They thought that vinyl was dead, it isn't, far from it; they even still sell cassettes of new music. We still use musical instruments first designed 800 years ago to create classical as well as modern music. On this forum there are still many people who use film even though digital took over years ago for most things.

Many things can be superseded in the main -- techniques for surgery, the carburettor, the penny farthing bicycle but very little ever really dies out so to imply that AI imaging will replace photography is somewhat disingenuous.

 

[Box Man]

Fascinating. But not entirely unexpected or unpredictable. In some respects photography has been subsumed by the Image.

This is not a photo; it is an image of a photo.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One person's "great art" is another person's "rubbish".

It's always been that way and it always will because there are no absolutes in peoples' taste. This is why making a fuss about a particular image or a piece of music simply indicates the prejudices of those making the fuss and nothing else. When the fuss makers justify their decision with a lot of fancy words, they do no more than reveal their own foolishness.

Which is a suitably long and fancy way of saying "so what?".

 

[sphexx]

AI seems to struggle with hands, doesn’t it),

As do a lot of human painters etc.

 

[Dave Canon]

I cannot see why so much fuss. Most competitions do not allow computer generated images. If Sony allowed them, they only have themselves to blame.

Dave

 

[Mintchocs]

There are quite a few images appearing on Instagram accounts. The issue I have is how much is a photographer’s work and how much is an AI generated image as in a year’s time it’s going to be very difficult to tell. The lines between skill and digital computational photography are getting very blurry. Could this lead to a resurgence of film photography as proof of a photographer’s skill?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Could this lead to a resurgence of film photography as proof of a photographer’s skill?

That would depend, surely, on what you mean by "skill".

I'd be far more worried about people creating images that appear to show particular individuals in particular situations, either to incriminate them in crimes they did not commit or to alibi them against crimes they did commit.

 

[Sangoma]

I posted some rough "photos" created by AI in September last year. I could see things like this coming.

Since then I have come to the opinion that it is a valid method to create "art" if that is what you enjoy, or it meets a need.

Even if that entry was a photo, I wouldn't like it

 

[woof woof]

It's an art form but it's surely not photography and doesn't IMO belong in a photography competition.

I suppose as with more photography based computer use, HDR and the like, all this AI stuff may be done well, not so well or badly.

 

[Sangoma]

It's an art form but it's surely not photography and doesn't IMO belong in a photography competition.

I suppose as with more photography based computer use, HDR and the like, all this AI stuff may be done well, not so well or badly.

Well, he didn't accept the prize

He was making a point that needed making.

HDR "and the like" is a different topic altogether than AI creation, people have been doing similar for years to enhance photos, even with film.

Today, photo software is just a set of tools to process/enhance/personalise or whatever people do with it to photos they have taken, everyone has the same set of tools to use if they wish to, people have their personal preferences on that just as they do on what camera they like.

 

[sphexx]

It's an art form but it's surely not photography and doesn't IMO belong in a photography competition.

I suppose as with more photography based computer use, HDR and the like, all this AI stuff may be done well, not so well or badly.

It’s going to be difficult to define photography in this situation now that so many photos are manipulated in camera or computer.

As I understand it it the AI has been ‘trained’ on ‘real’ photographs so arguably it’s just another form of manipulation.

I see a return to daguerreotypes as the answer

 

[Sangoma]

It’s going to be difficult to define photography in this situation now that so many photos are manipulated in camera or computer.

As I understand it it the AI has been ‘trained’ on ‘real’ photographs so arguably it’s just another form of manipulation.

I see a return to daguerreotypes as the answer

To me a photograph is an image that some one has taken with some kind of camera, if that is enhanced in a darkroom or computer doesn't stop it being the photographer/artist's original work.

Some one may guide the AI software to produce the image they have in mind, but the image, no matter how good, was not created photographically.
If an image is taken by a camera, then loaded into AI software for manipulation, the image was still originally created by the person.

To me it is clear, don't know if I expressed it clearly though

 

[sphexx]

To me a photograph is an image that some one has taken with some kind of camera, if that is enhanced in a darkroom or computer doesn't stop it being the photographer/artist's original work.

Some one may guide the AI software to produce the image they have in mind, but the image, no matter how good, was not created photographically.
If an image is taken by a camera, then loaded into AI software for manipulation, the image was still originally created by the person.

To me it is clear, don't know if I expressed it clearly though

Some ‘writing with light’ can and has been done without a camera.

 

[f/2.8]

It’s going to be difficult to define photography in this situation now that so many photos are manipulated in camera or computer.

As I understand it it the AI has been ‘trained’ on ‘real’ photographs so arguably it’s just another form of manipulation.

I see a return to daguerreotypes as the answer

AI is so good now you can even tell it which camera and lens to use and it will replicate it very well.

Personally can't wait until it advances enough that I can just shout at the computer to cull a wedding and edit it for me, we are nearly there.

 

[sphexx]

There is at least one area where I think AI may struggle to oust conventional photogaphy and that is sport and I suppose news in general. No doubt it can replicate players and perhaps group action shots in, say, football but it would take longer than just snapping and where would be the point?

 

[ShinySideUp]

We are looking at 'photograph' in it's accepted sense but looking at the etymology of the word does allow for the creation of an image by any means:

photograph (n.)​

"a picture obtained by any process of photography," 1839, coined by English polymath and photography pioneer Sir John Herschel (son of the astronomer) from photo- "light" + -graph "something written."

No matter what device was used to create an image it is still 'written' and you can still see it so it is also 'light' so it might be said that anything you can see recorded is a 'photograph'. Kind of pushes the point to absurdity though.

 

[sphexx]

We are looking at 'photograph' in it's accepted sense but looking at the etymology of the word does allow for the creation of an image by any means:

photograph (n.)​

"a picture obtained by any process of photography," 1839, coined by English polymath and photography pioneer Sir John Herschel (son of the astronomer) from photo- "light" + -graph "something written."

No matter what device was used to create an image it is still 'written' and you can still see it so it is also 'light' so it might be said that anything you can see recorded is a 'photograph'. Kind of pushes the point to absurdity though.

I don’t find that dictionary definition all that useful!

I’m fairly sure the origin of the the word “photography” has always been taken as describing something written by light. I don’t think a “camera” has always been considered essential, especially because the word in the context of producing pictures long predates photography.

I don‘t think that if something is created in a computer and then displayed on a screen that it is a photograph just because light is used to transmit it to your eyes.

Producing precise exclusive definitions of anything is jolly hard and almost always fruitless because there are almost always weird exceptions.

 

[Sangoma]

I don’t find that dictionary definition all that useful!

I’m fairly sure the origin of the the word “photography” has always been taken as describing something written by light. I don’t think a “camera” has always been considered essential, especially because the word in the context of producing pictures long predates photography.

I don‘t think that if something is created in a computer and then displayed on a screen that it is a photograph just because light is used to transmit it to your eyes.

Producing precise exclusive definitions of anything is jolly hard and almost always fruitless because there are almost always weird exceptions.

That is why it is clear to me, I am not looking for a precise definition, as I can see the spirit of the definition.

There is an expression to "get away with murder" and that or similar is quite possible on a technicality because of precise definitions that don't cover every eventuality, where as if the spirit of the meaning was looked at (ie what the written law was intended to protect against) there would be no getting away with it.

I think this is also clear looking at the general feeling here, and at the winners own decision.

We can't change the definition, as it was based on two Greek words, however it needs to be applied in context.

Perhaps Wikipedia has a more suitable description....

"Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating durable images by recording light, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film. It is employed in many fields of science, manufacturing (e.g., photolithography), and business, as well as its more direct uses for art, film and video production, recreational purposes, hobby, and mass communication."

I'm sure there are better ones, I'm also sure that everyone knows the literal definition, and what is meant by the word today in context.

 

[wornish]

Times are certainly changing.

The BBC have commented on the Sony Award.

BBC

 

[sphexx]

Times are certainly changing.

The BBC have commented on the Sony Award.

BBC

As Chris Vallance writes there “who owns the copyright for an AI image.”?

 

[wornish]

As Chris Vallance writes there “who owns the copyright for an AI image.”?

There a a number of lawsuits going on across Europe and in the USA.

Apparently, the latest US position if no human was involved in creating an image then there is no copyright. The UK has no formal position as of today.

Its a minefield!

 

[smr]

It isn't photography at all. It's digital painting, it doesn't belong anywhere near a photography competition.

If they want to run competitions for fictional images then they should create a digital painting awards.

Naming a competition with the word 'Photography' in it and allowing computer generated fictional images to enter is blasphemous.

And I don't think people will receive AI imagery well in terms of well, before long people will want to know whether the image was created by actual photography or if it's completely fictional and I think that people will even go to mention that all of their work is photography - actual photography and that will attract more of a following as there's a human connection there.

 

[sphexx]

There a a number of lawsuits going on across Europe and in the USA.

Apparently, the latest US position if no human was involved in creating an image then there is no copyright. The UK has no formal position as of today.

Its a minefield!

But of course there are humans involved at the AI end — creating the software in the first place and no doubt polishing it every day

 

[Faldrax]

But of course there are humans involved at the AI end — creating the software in the first place and no doubt polishing it every day

There are also software engineers busy developing the Jpeg engines in cameras, and the RAW converters in LR, etc. You wouldn't expect them to have some claim on the copyright of images you take or process, I assume?

 

[sphexx]

There are also software engineers busy developing the Jpeg engines in cameras, and the RAW converters in LR, etc. You wouldn't expect them to have some claim on the copyright of images you take or process, I assume?

I don’t think the process is quite the same. Of course there are a lot of people who seem to think the camera makes the photo - “you must have a good camera” …”yeah I just tell it what I want and it does the rest”

 

[jerry12953]

For some reason I get a lot of Facebook posts from sites with names like "Sunrises and Sunsets" and "Wonderful Nature". I usually point out that in most cases the "photographs" are either photoshopped almost out of existence or, increasingly, and very suddenly, have never seen the inside of a camera at all. Most of the comments are from people that just can't see that the "images" bear very little relation to reality, with comments like "Beautiful", "Gorgeous", and "Thank the Lord for his Beautiful World". There's seems to be an awful lot of the latter, for some reason, but that's another matter. But my point here is that the majority of viewers just can't see that an "image" for what it is.... a fake or almost a fake. And in a future where AI images are churned out by the squillion, where does that leave us as photographers?

 

[Ed Sutton]

AI imaging will eventually find its place and photography will realign itself to continue, just as painting did when photography came along. It probably won't be photography as it is now, some areas of photography might dwindle to almost nothing, but there will still be photography.

 

[FishyFish]

For some reason I get a lot of Facebook posts from sites with names like "Sunrises and Sunsets" and "Wonderful Nature". I usually point out that in most cases the "photographs" are either photoshopped almost out of existence or, increasingly, and very suddenly, have never seen the inside of a camera at all. Most of the comments are from people that just can't see that the "images" bear very little relation to reality, with comments like "Beautiful", "Gorgeous", and "Thank the Lord for his Beautiful World". There's seems to be an awful lot of the latter, for some reason, but that's another matter. But my point here is that the majority of viewers just can't see that an "image" for what it is.... a fake or almost a fake. And in a future where AI images are churned out by the squillion, where does that leave us as photographers?

I think that sort of thing will impact people who are chasing likes / affirmation the most. I do feel good when someone says they like one of my photographs, but I never take photos for that reason. The person who I really want to like my pictures is myself. Anyone else liking them is a bonus.

 

[delb0y]

Just shooting the breeze... It's interesting how in the last few months AI has become almost a constant fixture on the news. Obviously it's been around a long time, but with exponential improvements it was always going to hit a critical public-awareness point sometime, and that feels like now.

I think this awareness is a good thing.

Today on the ITV news we have this very story about the Sony competition photo (and another story about an AI generated rap music track that's had several million + hits so far). Recently there has been the AI generated school essays piece, the report on the AI created artwork that won the state competition in Colorado, and a story on the use of AI narrators in reading audio books. Also recently, there's been Loose Women generating AI poetry on the fly (and pretty good it was, too, in a basic verse style way) and the news that some magazines are having to shut their doors to fiction submissions because they are getting so many AI generated stories submitted it's no longer possible to keep up with the slush pile. One of the articles on this subject also stated that there are (or were at the time of writing) over 200 eBooks on Amazon that listed AI as the author. One of these books has generated $100 for the author - not a lot, but as the author said, well worth doing for pretty minimal effort. Last year there was quite a push on deep-fake videos in the news (and on America's Got Talent with that Simon Cowell singing piece done in real time).

All of this is just what I'm aware of. I'm sure there's much much more. I'm not saying it's good or bad (although I do know someone who works in PR and they've let a junior member of staff go because it's cheaper and quicker to get AI to write simple PR pieces, than a human being... and that's not good. Unless you're the business owner, I guess.) and I know it's not going to stop. I just think it's vitally important that Joe Public understands that this is happening and that there are still real photographers / authors / voice-actors / artists etc out there and that they (Joe Public) should not assume that anything they see is real, or false, just that it could be either and they need to start applying some judgement to all the content they consume from here on in. Hell, we've been told for years that you should never believe anything you read on the web - and now that's more true than ever, but for images (still or moving), and sound, too.

One thing I did read is that AI may put troll farms out of business as it will probably be cheaper to get AI to write all those false social media pieces that flood our apps, rather than pay for hundreds of humans, which is kind of ironic.

It's actually quite addictive creating artwork from simple text descriptions on some of the free sites. I can only imagine how much better the paid-for versions would be. I suspect that's something that I will continue to imagine, though, as I still prefer the old world.

 

[Plain Nev]

Photography hasn't replaced painting. People still paint, they still have models sitting, they still sit by the side of a lake creating a landscape using oils or watercolours, they still do portraits.

Black! It's all black!