p.1 #4 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
But how does Instagram know? And how long will that last? IMO not very long.
The nature of AI is that it intends to learn and adapt. If Instagram has an algorithm to detect that an image was edited with AI, then it's only a matter of time until AI is trained to assimilate that algorithm with the intent to defeat it's recognition -- by creating new images that defeat the detection algorithm.
AI will respond by revising it's photo creations to make recognition impossible. Then the detection AI at Instagram has to be retrained, and an AI arms race ensues between AI detection and AI detection avoidance.
p.1 #6 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
RoamingScott wrote:
Adobe is inserting a metadata tag and Instagram is reading it. This isn’t some weird arms race or whatever you are imagining up in your head.
"But it’s not yet possible to identify all AI-generated content, and there are ways that people can strip out invisible markers. So we’re pursuing a range of options. We’re working hard to develop classifiers that can help us to automatically detect AI-generated content, even if the content lacks invisible markers."
p.1 #7 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
Why are you quoting a months old article when this is a brand new feature?
snapsy wrote:
"But it’s not yet possible to identify all AI-generated content, and there are ways that people can strip out invisible markers. So we’re pursuing a range of options. We’re working hard to develop classifiers that can help us to automatically detect AI-generated content, even if the content lacks invisible markers."
With Ai will there be any photography left at all?
There are so many questions about this. Your's are welcome.
I can't get your link at adobe to open. I just get a blank page that fails to load. If the link works for everyone else then I might have a browser problem (Brave) or perhaps this could be a problem at my end with spyware blocking that runs on our network. I have not taken the time to troubleshoot the problem yet. Is anyone else having a problem?
---
Regarding the "how are we to tell" question, I think that depends upon whether or not the entity that created the AI image intends to provide disclosure of the fact that the image was generated with AI, or whether it intends not to provide disclosure in order to conceal the fact that the image was generated with AI.
As AI improves it will become harder and harder to for us to use the naked eye to recognize AI-generated images. At present we are very early in the genesis of AI based imagery, and AI images often have a look to them that we can recognize with the naked eye. As AI's ability to create more realistic imagery improves, the intent will be for AI to improve it's rendering to create progressively more realistic images that are harder to recognize. There will come a point in time where our ability to recognize AI-generated images with our naked eye is defeated. At that point we have to rely upon the beneficence of an image creator to voluntarily disclose that their image is AI-generated, or we suffer the risk of being duped when someone publishes an AI-generated image with deceptive intent. When that point is reached we have to develop tools to identify AI-generated images.
Relying upon voluntary disclosure won't be good enough because some people will create images with the intent to deceive the viewer about their authenticity.
p.1 #10 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
RoamingScott wrote:
Why are you quoting a months old article when this is a brand new feature?
Software features don't materialize out of thin air. They are developed over time, and that article discusses that development. It also discusses how Meta is working to identify AI content in the absence of metadata, which directly contradicts the assertion you made to @coralnut@.
p.1 #12 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
coralnut wrote:
I can't get your link at adobe to open. I just get a blank page that fails to load. If the link works for everyone else then I might have a browser problem (Brave) or perhaps this could be a problem at my end with spyware blocking that runs on our network. I have not taken the time to troubleshoot the problem yet. Is anyone else having a problem?
---
Regarding the "how are we to tell" question, I think that depends upon whether or not the entity that created the AI image intends to provide disclosure of the fact that the image was generated with AI, or whether it intends not to provide disclosure in order to conceal the fact that the image was generated with AI.
As AI improves it will become harder and harder to for us to use the naked eye to recognize AI-generated images. At present we are very early in the genesis of AI based imagery, and AI images often have a look to them that we can recognize with the naked eye. As AI's ability to create more realistic imagery improves, the intent will be for AI to improve it's rendering to create progressively more realistic images that are harder to recognize. There will come a point in time where our ability to recognize AI-generated images with our naked eye is defeated. At that point we have to rely upon the beneficence of an image creator to voluntarily disclose that their image is AI-generated, or we suffer the risk of being duped when someone publishes an AI-generated image with deceptive intent. When that point is reached we have to develop tools to identify AI-generated images.
Relying upon voluntary disclosure won't be good enough because some people will create images with the intent to deceive the viewer about their authenticity.
p.1 #14 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
bs kite wrote:
This is about what I am thinking too.
I don't mind Ai....... BUT if I am looking at an Ai-generated image I should know that is not real. By definition Ai is not real.
Photography has a long history of manipulating images to fulfill the photographer's artistic intent. There's an interesting article on PetaPixel that reviews just how extensively dodged-and-burned some of the most iconic B&W photos turned out to have been:
I was amazed by how much effort went into subtle manipulation of the exposure zones in the image of James Dean walking in Times Square. Great effort was taken to balance all of the background images and selected foreground images to force them into the same exposure zone. Purists might argue that the manipulation of the photo does not reflect reality, even though every subject contained in the image was a realistic element of the original image.
Jump forward into the digital photography era and people have the ability to perform these kind of tricks on their PC using 'real intelligence'. Manipulation of color has become all the rage in photography -- to the point that many of the photos on this site are enhanced for artistic intent but can hardly be described as realistic. The manipulation of color saturation and contrast are so extreme that many of the photos that I see posted on this site defy realism. Although the subjects are real the light is heavily manipulated, sometimes to the point of surrealism.
Jump further forward into AI-manipulated imagery and the subjects themselves can be manipulated to the point that the images defy realism. Some of the subjects in the photos are completely faked, and some subjects in the original photos don't even exist in the photo after manipulation. The sample video that's linked on the Adobe site clearly demonstrates the power of these new tools.
There comes a point in time where we have to draw an arbitrary line when it comes to what types of photo manipulation are acceptable, what types are not, and where the distinction is made between real and faked. My personal opinion is that anything that is SOOC is real, and anything that has been manipulated is faked -- and the only difference is the extent to which faking has taken place.
Consider the difference in how the exposure of the photo of James Dean was faked, how the color and contrast in many FM users' photos are faked, and how an AI generated images are faked -- the difference depends upon the tool that is used to create the modified image. In the yesteryear our tools included techniques like dodging and burning. Today the tools are becoming more powerful and allow more extensive faking to take place. But in the big scheme of things we've been looking at enhanced/faked images for a long time. The difference is a subjective definition that draws the line between what constitutes artistic enhancement vs. what constitutes total deception. Going forward I think these lines are going to be blurred -- as AI tech improves it will become harder to recognize when faking is taking place. At that point a metadata tag that can easily be manipulated will be insufficient to rely upon for identifying real vs. fake imagery.
---
I got the link working, thanks. for some inexplicable reason the page still took several minutes to load.
p.1 #15 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
coralnut wrote:
Photography has a long history of manipulating images to fulfill the photographer's artistic intent. There's an interesting article on PetaPixel that reviews just how extensively dodged-and-burned some of the most iconic B&W photos turned out to have been:
I was amazed by how much effort went into subtle manipulation of the exposure zones in the image of James Dean walking in Times Square. Great effort was taken to balance all of the background images and selected foreground images to force them into the same exposure zone. Purists might argue that the manipulation of the photo does not reflect reality, even though every subject contained in the image was a realistic element of the original image.
Jump forward into the digital photography era and people have the ability to perform these kind of tricks on their PC using 'real intelligence'. Manipulation of color has become all the rage in photography -- to the point that many of the photos on this site are enhanced for artistic intent but can hardly be described as realistic. The manipulation of color saturation and contrast are so extreme that many of the photos that I see posted on this site defy realism. Although the subjects are real the light is heavily manipulated, sometimes to the point of surrealism.
Jump further forward into AI-manipulated imagery and the subjects themselves can be manipulated to the point that the images defy realism. Some of the subjects in the photos are completely faked, and some subjects in the original photos don't even exist in the photo after manipulation. The sample video that's linked on the Adobe site clearly demonstrates the power of these new tools.
There comes a point in time where we have to draw an arbitrary line when it comes to what types of photo manipulation are acceptable, what types are not, and where the distinction is made between real and faked. My personal opinion is that anything that is SOOC is real, and anything that has been manipulated is faked -- and the only difference is the extent to which faking has taken place.
Consider the difference in how the exposure of the photo of James Dean was faked, how the color and contrast in many FM users' photos are faked, and how an AI generated images are faked -- the difference depends upon the tool that is used to create the modified image. In the yesteryear our tools included techniques like dodging and burning. Today the tools are becoming more powerful and allow more extensive faking to take place. But in the big scheme of things we've been looking at enhanced/faked images for a long time. The difference is a subjective definition that draws the line between what constitutes artistic enhancement vs. what constitutes total deception. Going forward I think these lines are going to be blurred -- as AI tech improves it will become harder to recognize when faking is taking place. At that point a metadata tag that can easily be manipulated will be insufficient to rely upon for identifying real vs. fake imagery.
---
I got the link working, thanks. for some inexplicable reason the page still took several minutes to load....Show more →
Hmm....... I never had any knowledge of how or how much print photographers altered the original image. Not interested in knowing how they did it.
"There comes a point in time where we have to draw an arbitrary line when it comes to what types of photo manipulation are acceptable, what types are not, and where the distinction is made between real and faked. My personal opinion is that anything that is SOOC is real, and anything that has been manipulated is faked -- and the only difference is the extent to which faking has taken place."
I agree. And I have used the PS clone tool hundreds of times over the years.
Jun 01, 2024 at 11:24 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #16 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
In the Google phone ad, the guy gives himself a 4 foot vertical and removes the people from the photo, then in the next ad, the dachshund gets a big vertical. They seem to be having a hard time finding a use for it
On one portrait photographers social media, he posted something that I'd guess is AI generated, I think it even had elephants or something. But people don't tend to like massively edited photos.
One big problem is image theft, could they even make any money if they paid photographers vs just going online and grabbing images? The AI in the Northrup's video generated watermarks!!! And how can you let people copyright images containing stolen material off the internet?
Jun 01, 2024 at 11:37 AM
Magnum PI Offline • • [X]
p.1 #17 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
RoamingScott wrote:
Adobe is inserting a metadata tag and Instagram is reading it. This isn’t some weird arms race or whatever you are imagining up in your head.
And I open that AI image in my 24 year old Paint Shop Pro verion, reduce size to the IG max of 1080 and upload that instead. All meta data etc is gone.
Jun 01, 2024 at 12:04 PM
Magnum PI Offline • • [X]
p.1 #18 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
I don't use any AI editing, and I don't pay for any software that generates AI tools. My last Lightroom version I own and will ever use is 6.2. I will not be held hostage by having to pay a subscription and being forced to pay for whatever they deem necessary or profitable. Ever. My alternative is Affinity.
All I need is basic correction tools.
AI generated content gets ignored and blocked by me, any chance possible.
When you pay for ANY software or services that usees AI, you are contributing to the demise of photography and alike.
p.1 #20 · Ai and Photoshop's Generative Fill (a discussion please)
Magnum PI wrote:
I don't use any AI editing, and I don't pay for any software that generates AI tools. My last Lightroom version I own and will ever use is 6.2. I will not be held hostage by having to pay a subscription and being forced to pay for whatever they deem necessary or profitable. Ever. My alternative is Affinity.
All I need is basic correction tools.
AI generated content gets ignored and blocked by me, any chance possible.
When you pay for ANY software or services that usees AI, you are contributing to the demise of photography and alike.
Losing battle my friend unless you want to live in a cave. Even posting online you are entering the world of AI as big brother is listening and watching you. Run…hide, don’t let them win.
