jhgribble Loc: Michigan

Anyone playing with this Adobe Firefly AI yet? If so please share before and after pictures! Think we might need something put out in all pictures, some meta data indicating photo was updated with AI! Thoughts?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I've briefly played with it and watched some Adobe demos.

Some of those that learned photography with Kodachrome and Ektachrome seem to have a belief system based on accuracy. They want an image to display exactly what came through the lens with nothing less than perfection.

Others believe that photography is another form of art. The photographer develops and uses his talents to reflect what is in their "mind's eye". Collecting the light data is only the start.

The first group might hate AI. The second group will probably love it.

I think I'm in the second group! I've not figured out how I'm going to use Firefly, but will when I see a project where it fits.

An example might be a real camera shot of our new, cute, fluffy puppy and the result of a Firefly search for "cute fluffy puppy".

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

My Thoughts:

I find the statement that “…needs something put out in all pictures...” is attempting to create a "right" that viewers are not entitled to.

For viewers of art, the only "need" is the final image. They can enjoy it [or not]. Viewers have no inherent right to the methods an artist uses to create an image and the artist has no obligation or duty to disclose those methods. If the artist chooses to disclose that’s a privilege, not a right, that the artist confers to the viewer. It’s no different with PP. The artist/photographer is under no obligation to disclose how their image was edited or manipulated. The viewer can enjoy it [or not].

Furthermore, do I think that there should be a requirement on UHH, specifically, to disclose? No. If a UHH member wishes to understand how a particular image was created, they can just ask. I'm sure most members will readily provide their methods/techniques.

With respect to forensics, the legal system controls any use of image manipulation.

With respect to photojournalism, the journalism community "attempts" to manage image manipulation, with varying degrees of success. These days, there’s probably as much or more fake or false news as real news. This is really where the "need to disclose" would be beneficial, but good luck trying to implement and enforce that requirement. Today, an AI generated image depicting an explosion at the Pentagon was released into the wild. The news media responded that is was fake but how many people, whose only news source is social media, got the real story.

Mike

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I've been playing with Firefly since the first day, but it's not ready for prime time yet. The Photoshop version, contained in the beta version 24.6 seems to work better than the web version for many things, but neither can produce a photorealistic looking human yet, and animals are not much better. When I have attempted to generate a human hand I have been modestly successful maybe 1 out of 20 times.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

When I generated the Firefly puppy above, it came with two tails! I used Photoshop to remove one!

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

I have played around with Adobe Firefly with mixed results. I have had much better results using Generative Fill which is apparently an offshoot of Firefly but not Firefly itself. As far as Firefly goes, it has generated some results that are very close to being photorealistic but other examples generate images of people with some obvious distortions and mistakes. At this juncture, I don't believe that Photographers have too much to worry about but clearly, as AI continues to evolve it will ultimately lead to images that will be extremely difficult to determine whether an image is real or fake.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

As always, Salvage Diver has contributed thoughtfully written, on-point commentary.

My thought about general disclosure is that "it depends." For me, disclosing on UHH is important because of the wide range of interests and skills here. I don't want to mislead someone by omission, but even that intent is subject to how much I manipulate a photo.

I would disclose AI elements, for sure

jhgribble Loc: Michigan

Salvagediver, I totally understand where you are coming from! But the question is where we draw the lines to divide things up. Some people believe in post processing others don't. So I am thinking there may need to be more categories, i.e. one where AI has been used. Hence why I suggested a metadata marker. I will say that if AI progresses at the rate it is improving at today, it will be less than 2 to 3 years and we will not know if it was even taken by a person. IMHO (in my humble opinion)!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Outstanding cuties 🥇🥇♦️🥇🥇

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Thanks! Taking snaps of a puppy is like cheating.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

When I first learned about burning, dodging and pushing development in the darkroom, I didn't think it was fair. The famous photographers at the time were good at and didn't put a note on their prints about doing it or make separate categories for their prints.

Maybe our "art" will be better in 2 or 3 years.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

Ive been playing with it a lot. I asked it to make the sky a deep blue with mountains. I got what looked like a rock floating in space. I asked it to put a girl in the field. I got a green blob. then I asked it to make a pic of the most beautiful girl in the world. then I asked for a boat and a volcano and mountains. which are the two pix below.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Hi Linda, I don't think we're very far apart on our thinking. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to disclose, especially on this website, since teaching and learning is part of the hobby. What I object to is the idea that disclose should be required or mandatory, like having an entry in the metadata or any other forced compliance methods. If you're using a free AI generation website, they may embed info in the file for their own purposes and that is their prerogative as the owner of the service.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

I fully agree with you that in the next few years, images capturing a "moment in time" will be indistinguishable from artificial images. Society's challenge will be how to adapt to that fact. Technology always marches forward and some will resist but "Resistance is Futile". In the end, it might be easier to just put a flag in the metadata indicating that the image was created with a real camera. Oh, I forgot, they already do that.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I typed in "Split Rock Lighthouse at sunset, Sept. 13," and then chose this out of about 12 generations. I added the ship in Photoshop by making a rough oval selection and typing "Great lakes ore ship."

This is not Split Rock Lighthouse, but bears a halfway decent resemblance. That is also not an ore carrier, but who cares? This is all fake anyway...