What if you use in-camera fx like lenses, filters, lighting etc? How puritanical is what we consider photography? Is it like the puritans of guitar rejecting digital then later embracing profilers and modellers?
And what about those cheaters who set up lights, or put makeup on models?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldag... >“The work… is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge. For me, working with AI image generators is a co-creation, in which I am the director. It is not about pressing a button – and done it is. It is about exploring the complexity of this process, starting with…
The website was just updated to say that Sony removed the photo
Can tell it's AI generated from the weird looking pinky on right hand side of the photo, looks like it tried to do a thumb there instead. Stellar faces and eyes though.
The official contest rules are here [0]. There is actually very little in the rules restricting how the image is created; technically it doesn't even say it has to be a photograph, although that is clearly implied. The rules mostly cover usage and legal rights.
His photo has been removed from the gallery, but here are the other finalists in the category he won. The category tends towards the abstract, so it's not super surprising that they'd confuse AI images with real ones. https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/win...
The works by Richard PoE, Billal El Harousse and Yi Han really struck a tone with me.
His post suggested that he had won the overall award, not a sub-category.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldag... >“The work… is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge. For me, working with AI image generators is a co-creation, in which I am the director. It is not about pressing a button – and done it is. It is about exploring the complexity of this process, starting with…
It's not an April Fool's joke; it was an intentional effort to deceive the competition to highlight the fact that such competitions aren't well-prepared for the addition of AI to the artist's toolbelt.
The artist refused the award, and declared it was their intent to highlight this concern.
> could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera They could, and some already do, but this doesn't fully solve the problem. You'd still be left with the analog loophole[1]. A sufficiently advanced attacker could feed a generated image directly to the camera sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole
You just have to dive deeper. You need two cameras that have cryptographic signatures automatically attached. In order to submit picture 1, you need to have picture 2 that was taken at the exact same time (and time is in the signature too) by a different camera, of picture 1 being taken, as a verification picture.
Even with this elaborate setup, you still can't prove that the person taking the photo is the one that set up the composition or camera settings. I think you'll need a third camera recording a video of the setup process. Also cryptographically signed, of course.