High skill/high quality photography being rejected as AI?

For me, his key message is around 9:03 - get back to the basics of good photography, engaging with the people etc. I think this is especially true for live events. People still want, and are paying for, great photos. At least where I am.
 
PS, going through the airport over Easter, I noticed the electronics shops only had action cameras and film cameras...
 
sk66 said:
Just stumbled across this. I don't generally like Tony's/Chelsey's stuff, but I found this one interesting.

View: https://youtu.be/zkdO-q9zJec?si=3lrzyYpnvsVZ27ng
Click to expand...
I haven't watched this, but...

I've picked up on a few wildlife photographers who, through hard work and a bit of luck, have captured some extraordinary pictures, which have then been rudely dismissed, because "they had to be AI". Including condemnation around AI destroying the planet, and that wildlife photographers using AI should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Just goes to show how far The USA is behind the UK. We in the UK have been using the word "cringe" for decades, Acording to Tony he has only recently discovered it. :rolleyes: ;):ROFLMAO:
 
It's the coachman problem.

At one time, a good coachman was needed to get people from A to B and you needed a coachman for every four to eight travellers. Along came those steam trains and three specialists (driver, fireman and guard) could get a hundred or more travellers to their destination. Coachmen became less in demand but a good coachman was still wanted by those passengers who required a more specialised service.

The "Artificial Intelligence" tools will suit the hundred or so who just want the result as cheaply as possible but the specialist photographer will continue to have a niche serving those who want something different
 
It's becoming a real problem. I've seen genuinely impressive photographs dismissed as "AI" simply because they're too clean, too well-lit, or perfectly timed.


Instead of assuming an image is AI-generated, I think it's better to ask about the workflow, camera settings, or editing process. Years of practice, patience, and good post-processing can produce results that look almost unbelievable.


Great photography shouldn't be considered fake just because it's exceptional.
 
Where I see this new technology causing a problem, is in the legal system.

A great deal of both criminal and civil litigation now relies on photographic evidence, of one form or another. For decades, such evidence was considered reliable but artificial intelligence tools, which can be used by untrained people, are going to cause considerable problems by removing that trust.
 
cutoutimageretouching said:
It's becoming a real problem. I've seen genuinely impressive photographs dismissed as "AI" simply because they're too clean, too well-lit, or perfectly timed.


Instead of assuming an image is AI-generated, I think it's better to ask about the workflow, camera settings, or editing process. Years of practice, patience, and good post-processing can produce results that look almost unbelievable.


Great photography shouldn't be considered fake just because it's exceptional.
Click to expand...
It is a problem for International and National Salons which probably do not allow AI in their competitions. It does now mean some of the best images come under close scrutiny as it can be difficult to identify AI with certainty. So far, we have found those that were using AI tended to confess when confronted with the evidence.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
It is a problem for International and National Salons which probably do not allow AI in their competitions. It does now mean some of the best images come under close scrutiny as it can be difficult to identify AI with certainty. So far, we have found those that were using AI tended to confess when confronted with the evidence.

Dave
Click to expand...
I completely agree. In professional photography, the final image is often the result of much more than just pressing the shutter button. Camera skills, lighting knowledge, years of experience, and careful post-processing all play a major role in creating a polished result.


A clean and perfectly balanced image doesn't automatically mean it was AI-generated. Many photographers and editors spend hours refining colors, removing distractions, enhancing details, and bringing their creative vision to life.


Instead of judging an image only by its final appearance, it’s better to understand the process behind it — the camera settings, lighting setup, editing workflow, and the artist’s experience. Exceptional photography should be appreciated, not immediately questioned.
 
Dave Canon said:
It is a problem for International and National Salons which probably do not allow AI in their competitions. It does now mean some of the best images come under close scrutiny as it can be difficult to identify AI with certainty. So far, we have found those that were using AI tended to confess when confronted with the evidence.

Dave
Click to expand...
These days, if you post process at all it's getting hard to avoid AI... I think complete bans on using it are going to be hard to have.

I'm not entirely certain that would be a bad thing as focusing on "the art" rather than the IQ/methodology seems more to the point for most genres... of course that is also far more subjective. I.e. AI might make some things "easier," but it certainly doesn't make it "artistic" or "better."
 
Will we go back to slightly blurred, slightly out of focus black and white photography? :p
 
Pound Coin said:
Will we go back to slightly blurred, slightly out of focus black and white photography? :p
Click to expand...
I've mentioned it before, but some high-end commercial clients are asking for the photographs to be made using film AND asking for a BTS (behind the scenes) video that they can promote along with the advert to "prove" the advert imagery is real (according to Tin House Studios).
 
The Forum uses AI modding now ;)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Where I see this new technology causing a problem, is in the legal system.

A great deal of both criminal and civil litigation now relies on photographic evidence, of one form or another. For decades, such evidence was considered reliable but artificial intelligence tools, which can be used by untrained people, are going to cause considerable problems by removing that trust.
Click to expand...
Photographic evidence in criminal cases has always required an evidence trail, I doubt AI is able to provide that.
 
gramps said:
Photographic evidence in criminal cases has always required an evidence trail, I doubt AI is able to provide that.
Click to expand...

It could be generated at need, though possibly not based in reality.
 
Phil V said:
It might be enough to get someone arrested, but as @gramps says, it’ll never be enough to get to court, where the barrier to admission is so much higher.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that's true. But I would also worry, if circumstances have been contrived enough to get someone arrested a couple of times on suspected rape, for example, would there begin to be a 'no smoke without fire' view of them. I could imagine this would be an ideal ploy for removal of opposition even if it never led to a prosecutions (like the list of names being given to Burnham of MPs and staff accused of sexual abuse etc).
 
ancient_mariner said:
Hopefully that's true. But I would also worry, if circumstances have been contrived enough to get someone arrested a couple of times on suspected rape, for example, would there begin to be a 'no smoke without fire' view of them. I could imagine this would be an ideal ploy for removal of opposition even if it never led to a prosecutions (like the list of names being given to Burnham of MPs and staff accused of sexual abuse etc).
Click to expand...
Evidence requirements are evidence requirements, whether photographic, CCTV, or forensic. They aren’t subject to whether someone wants to believe. And I’m responding to court requirements as that was the original point.

In matters of employment law (all civil law), the bar is lower.

And frankly, as someone who’s been on the planet a long time, it’s exceedingly rare for someone to get a reputation of being a horrible person without them being a horrible person.
 
myotis said:
I've mentioned it before, but some high-end commercial clients are asking for the photographs to be made using film AND asking for a BTS (behind the scenes) video that they can promote along with the advert to "prove" the advert imagery is real (according to Tin House Studios).
Click to expand...

At the moment I tend to find that AI generated images are not particularly high resolution, so unless a photographer's image is cropped, could the higher resolution perhaps be a method of proof?
 
There is loads of AI on facebook. One of the big giveaways for me is the eyes. The AI knows how to make the catch lights in the pupil match the lighting if the subject is looking forward. But then it makes the subject look to the side and the catch lights then wrong.
Another giveaway is a stream of pictures of exceptionally attractive models just posing. If it was real who would be paying for that? They are not selling anything. If someone is using AI it is easy and cheap to do dozens of pictures.
 
sk66 said:
These days, if you post process at all it's getting hard to avoid AI... I think complete bans on using it are going to be hard to have.

I'm not entirely certain that would be a bad thing as focusing on "the art" rather than the IQ/methodology seems more to the point for most genres... of course that is also far more subjective. I.e. AI might make some things "easier," but it certainly doesn't make it "artistic" or "better."
Click to expand...
Lots of processes on image editing is labelled AI but it is not. For example reconstruction part of your image based on pixels with your image is usually allowed but if the pixels are brought in from elsewhere the it is not allowed as you do not own the copyright. We are having to explain to some of our club members which processes/filters on LR/PS are allowed and which are not. If we give up on not allowing AI in amateur competitions, I would give up photography. I feel confident that we will have some good AI identifying apps soon; the existing apps are not accurate enough.

Dave
 
Nod said:
NOT intended as in any way snarky!

They're probably based on AI themselves!
Click to expand...
Given the amount of any software program that is very old, I’d say not much of the old school software most of us use owes any programming to AI.

Also, we live in a world where the ‘AI’ label gets attached to tons of stuff that technically isn’t AI for pure marketing.

As an AI skeptic I wonder if the labelling is losing sales too?
 
Dave Canon said:
For example reconstruction part of your image based on pixels with your image is usually allowed but if the pixels are brought in from elsewhere the it is not allowed as you do not own the copyright.
Click to expand...
So if I use Topaz Gigapixel in recover or redefine mode, that's ok? According to everything I have read says it is generating the data based on the supplied image and not compositing from other source material.

 
sk66 said:
So if I use Topaz Gigapixel in recover or redefine mode, that's ok? According to everything I have read says it is generating the data based on the supplied image and not compositing from other source material.

Click to expand...
It seems to have turned the streaked belly of the original into a striped belly, plus other changes.

Looking at all the changes, it looks like a different species of owl to me.

If you know what species it actually is, how different is it from how it should really look ?
 
myotis said:
It seems to have turned the streaked belly of the original into a striped belly, plus other changes.

Looking at all the changes, it looks like a different species of owl to me.

If you know what species it actually is, how different is it from how it should really look ?
Click to expand...
It's a short eared owl. The top image is the original and how it should look (except sharper!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top