Off topic but that site has some awful contrast issues on the text
AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
61–70 of 116 posts
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That brings us to the classic series of photos that started with a pair of hands. https://www.boredpanda.com/confusing-hands-picture
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#63Is there any independent confirmation of this?
There is this Spanish page:
https://www.photolari.com/imagen-ia-boris-eldagsen-sony-worl...
(Nb. there are some nsfw images in the border, for those who care about that).
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#64Can anyone see why this was titled "the electrician"?
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#65"AI images and photography should not compete with eachother in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award" That is, the author of this dirty trick knew this very well from the very beginning, but nevertheless he submitted to the competition not a real shot (which is a unique stopped flat moment of reality), but a synthetic picture of which he is not…
At a minimum the author has been a professional photographer for over 30 years, and an art professor for over 6 years.
If he believes that the industry needs a reckoning and that this is the best way to accelerate that, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
That does no good. You can present any image to a camera you want. You can't solve that problem by requiring another camera also being fed an arbitrary image.
The problem is that you want to ensure that an image corresponds to some real object. This problem is unsolvable, because a camera does not sense "real objects". It senses photons, and we already have the technology to shine any arbitrary combination of photons that a camera sensor can detect onto a camera sensor. There is no possible "signature" to apply to the output of a camera sensor that can validate that it is the result of "real objects", a definition that would get fuzzy if you tried to really nail it down in the presence of hostile attackers deliberately gaming your definition anyhow.
Besides, the entire idea that a photo is a concrete, specific thing is a very Hacker News, computer-programmer idea anyhow. Photos aren't just files. Long before we had the tech to shine arbitrary photons onto CCD camera sensors, photos were a process, not a single file. Even if we stipulate that the image on film can be reasonably called a "file", itself a rather large stipulation, the final photo would be the result of substantial decisions in how the image was developed. The program "Photoshop" is called that precisely because "photoshops" had numerous tools to affect the image at that point in the process, many of the tools in Photoshop are still named after these processes. Photo competitions absolutely include these elements; if there have ever been any photo competitions that accepted film as the input and rigidly developed all contestant's films the exact same way, they are the vanishing minority. Photos have always encompassed post-processing as part of their identity. A signature on a file is no good. You'd have to fundamentally rewrite the entire photo stack to include all the transforms, in a completely official and 100% specified manner, all signed, so the final signed photo has the complete record of everything done to it from the source... it's theoretically possible but absolutely not going to happen, especially in light of the fact the source is still meaningless for the above reasons. The whole idea is comprehensively unworkable.
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#67[deleted]
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
For a long time, polaroids have been held as the "this image can't be faked." Somewhere in my collection of lesser used equipment, I've got a Daylab. https://www.instantphoto.eu/pola/pola_daylab_300.htm and I used it to transfer some 35mm slides to 4x5" to practice the various manipulations you can do there (emulsion lifts and transfers). The thing was I had a 35mm slide that was projected onto the film. If I could m…
> what if you sign the EXIF data. That only really guarantees that version of the image. If you adjust the saturation or curves or exposure... or correct for some lens aberration does that EXIF information still match the resulting photo? For that matter, what if you crop it to a square from a rectangle or stitch two images into a panorama?
While you won't be able to verify the final work mechanically by just verifying the signature, at least, if you bundle the original raw file with the final work, an human (or an AI!) should be able to tell if the final work is at least derived from a real picture.
But of course the analog hole is real.
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#69Yeah, I don't get it. It doesn't look very good to me. It is also obviously AI generated, with the telltale signs of deformed limbs and hands.
The hands in the photograph are immediately noticed (e.g. the smudged, mushy look of the hands). I wonder: why did the judges not noticed the hands in the photo?
Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award
#70My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…
And how do you know the signing keys are legitimate? Are they in a hardware root of trust for a high security, completely locked down device that can’t be rooted to sign whatever? Is the CA that endorsed them trustworthy?
There is not a tech solution to this problem.