81–90 of 116 posts
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...
...did they paint a dog to do that ? Or there is some half and half dog running around somewhere?
First, the image sucks. Do you really get any artistic whatever from that image? At best, it looks like a badly photoshopped image that struggles to simulates 80's look and feel. It also has AI-specific dirtiness. I really wonder how many people can legitimately argue for this image. Perhaps this may mark that the competition is somewhat irrelevant to the taste of general public anyway, and this kinda relates to the small trolling impact he made.
Second, the competition already accepts photoshopped images[1], as long as the scope of modification is clearly outlined in description. On top of that, the specific category he competed is more open to heavily photoshopped images in the first place. It's likely that images modified using AI will be allowed to some extent. (i.e. insert/remove items, minor fix to the posture, etc).
[1]: https://www.worldphoto.org/help-contact#13
I mean, if he were such a pioneer, he could've just based his work on smartphone photos, and provide fully honest description and still win. That could've been a real history. This? It's just a dead copycat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> And so 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? Oh, that's actually possible with cryptographic techniques. Very excit…
While that is good and useful (and I would be willing to even go so far as saying "needed" for journalistic uses), the transformations available are remarkably limited for artistic use that even represent what can be done in a traditional darkroom.
Earlier 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
Or... Extract the keys from the camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What efforts like this are missing is publishing a cryptographic hash before engaging in the deception. Otherwise it can seem like the author intentionally decided to mislead but might have changed their intention after winning. Publishing something openly like e1c7aa9150766bd5279b54951e3828ed9c19367af21f03f669eb586bd54c13b1 which can later be verified once "revealed". $ echo "I, CapableWeb, is gonna participate in S…
Of course, what you do is publish plenty of different hashes on the block chain(s) of your choice. Then you can later reveal what you feel like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Too many people happily go along with the status quo, despite correctly recognizing something should be changed. It takes energy, courage, and sacrifice to create change. A body at rest will remain at rest unless acted up on by an outside force. In this case, this author correctly recognized that its better to force the conversation now, himself, than let things play themselves out naturally.
Excuse me, but what kind of "changes" are you talking about? Professionalism is primarily built on trust, including a mutual trust in professional systems. Therefore, students are not allowed to cheat on exams, for example (not only for this reason, of course, but also for this reason). If you think that the destruction of the system of mutual trust is some kind of "change", then I want to upset you, because such "ch…
"organizers of professional photography competitions will not trust photographers"
But this is already present. There were plagiarism or alleged plagiarism scandals [1][2][3]. There were cases of doctored photographs [4][5], or misinformation [6]
Most competitions use means to protect against this to some extent [7]
So what is new?
1: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/01/plagiarism-coincidence-curi...
2: https://blog.photoshelter.com/2021/10/a-student-plagiarized-...
3: https://www.boredpanda.com/man-steals-photo-wins-exhibition-...
4: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography...
5: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/arts/design/world-press-p...
6: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/world-press-photo-award-wi...
7: https://time.com/3706626/world-press-photo-processing-manipu...
My 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…
Just watching where the tech is heading I’m not going to be surprised if almost all creative tools in 10 years go through this tech so the whole idea that we can cordon off “pure and honest art” seems impossible on the long timeline.
It doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't be able to understand the origins of the image and correctly categorize it. Contests like this will definitely have to grapple with their handling of generated images, just like they've had to decide rules about photoshopped images.
My 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…
> 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
This is nothing significant TBH. First, the image sucks. Do you really get any artistic whatever from that image? At best, it looks like a badly photoshopped image that struggles to simulates 80's look and feel. It also has AI-specific dirtiness. I really wonder how many people can legitimately argue for this image. Perhaps this may mark that the competition is somewhat irrelevant to the taste of general public anywa…