User ID

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

After reading this comment, I tweaked Digital Artistry's guidelines to say simply "identify the source" when sharing a composite. The points:

1. Identify when a posted work is a composite.

2. Give attribution to source images.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-693895-1.html#12174909

Thanks!

PoppieJ Loc: North Georgia

the use of ai in one's work is a personal choice, the end result is still your work. To call ai generated images photos is misleading and to say well I shot this part of the work so it is a photo is also misleading. This does not make it any less the presenters art, nor does it lessen its value as art. Your original question was do we suspect everything as being ai unless we know for sure. That is a much more difficult question to answer and might fall under the category of buyer beware. If I see a picture that I like I am not likely to ask or care if it was shot with a 10,000 dollar camera system, with an iphone, or if it was computer generated the only thing that I really care about is that I like.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Regarding UHH's Digital Artistry section, the current guidelines give interested viewers information about image creation, and help as a starting point for further discussion of vision and execution.

I believe that personal websites, personal pages on websites (like flickr's photostreams) or blogs are where a visitor would browse and "like" or "dislike," without much - if any - interaction between artist and viewer. UHH's structure offers an opportunity for conversation and learning.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

Photography is like everything else in life. Change is coming no matter how anyone feels about it. Otherwise we as photographers would all be shooting with a 8 x 10 view camera and producing Daguerrotype plates. New jobs and industries are created replacing what used to be.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Those are the rules.
Enforcement of those rules is quite another matter.
It's good to understand rules and abide by them but who does the enforcing?
Obvious and obtrusive abuses will get moved by Admin, but although Admin may be omnipotent (on this forum) all-seeing is not part of omnipotence in this case.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Volunteer-managed sections are left alone by site owner (user name Admin), unless site rules are violated.

One example of an "obvious abuse" of this website's rules would be nude photos posted anywhere except the nekked ladies section.

Most volunteer-managed sections have guidelines as to their purpose. The way sections have been created over the years, there is much overlap. Volunteer-managers can delete topics within their section or ask owner Admin to move them.

Arguments, trolling and verbal abuse within volunteer-managed sections are left to the section managers to deal with as they wish. I'm not sure, however, what happens in a volunteer-managed section if/when the "report issue" button is used to notify Admin.

MWojton Loc: Yardley, PA

To answer your question, I have now reached a point where I question every image, video, etc.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I've been doing that for a long time Goes with being alert to "fake news" and misleading headlines.

It's all part of attempting to maintain critical thinking skills. Question, verify... etc.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I've been saying this for years about SOOC vs Edited images. People constantly claim photographers should identify edited pictures. I've assumed all great pictures have been edited and soon (if not already) might as well assume some amount of AI is involved in said editing. For example, removing a garbage can from a photo is now greatly aided by "AI" editing tools that will automatically replace said garbage can with surrounding data.

I figure if your image is SOOC you need to claim that unusual fact. Otherwise, one can reasonably assume some amount of editing has been performed up to, and including AI. Identifying that fact is not needed unless one want's to brag about what a fine job of editing they performed, including use of AI.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The Black Hole of this debate is that the majority of today's digital cameras have built-in editing selections such as color saturation and sharpness. They also have pre-sets for night scenes, landscapes, people, on and on. There is no "SOOC" unless you believe that in-camera edits are somehow different from after-shooting edits

jaredjacobson

Distrust but verify?

This is my approach, too. Even well-meaning people without any intent to deceive have preferences, beliefs and (mis)understandings that color how they present and what they present on any given topic visually, orally, or in writing. Malintent amplifies this.

A photograph is a thing, but it is not the thing photographed. That seems obvious, but the implications are perhaps a little more subtle. Because it is not the thing, at most it can only be a representation of the thing. Unless the thing photographed is a two-dimensional object, there are guaranteed to be significant differences between the photograph and the thing.

Sometimes we try to make the representation of the thing as accurate to one particular view if the thing as possible. If we misrepresent how we captured or modified the image or whether the scene the image represents was real, that is a lie. But since the image is not the scene, the image itself cannot be a lie, any more than a chair is a lie.

On the other hand, the implications of an image can be a lie, especially if the image is presented as an accurate representation of reality. And since filters, distortion, shutter speed, editing, etc. can significantly change or manipulate the resulting image, it’s best to be skeptical of whether any image accurately represents what someone on the scene would have seen. Many news organizations (laying aside tabloids) try to provide accurate representations of reality in written word, imagery, and video. But even theirs are colored by belief and the need to make money.

So I return to the first point: distrust but verify. As with anything, if a person or organization has a long history of accuracy, you can likely trust the next thing they put out. Otherwise, maybe not.

And if the purpose of an image is to create a beautiful, interesting, or compelling image, I trust it to be exactly that regardless of provenance, because the image is its own thing.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

If all you want is a "picture of something," use your computer and graphics card. Tell the computer what you want and it will create something for you, any knowledge of art or drawing skills optional.

If you want to record a memory, you'll need a camera. If you want a picture of your baby, your wedding, your house on Maple Tree Lane, your classic Bugatti, or the bridge that collapsed after the boat hit it, you'll still need a camera.

Imagine, if you will, a security system where, after your garage is broken into, you tell it to "Create a criminal breaking into my garage so I can take the image to the police and they can find the perpetrator." The police then go to their computer and say "Generate 2,000 criminals to compare to the garage thief." No cameras necessary.

Brave new world?

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

You also did burn and or dodge when printing (equivalent of today's ai). And if the film was shot at wrong asa, them more changes to compensate.

Ai is here. For me, I embrace it. It's a lot easier than the old ways, and just as much fun to see the final image.