Cheaters Getting Caught By The Photo Police!

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
bleirer said:
There can be artifacts and loss of image quality if you go too deep. So quality long lenses on full frame cameras are in no danger of going obsolete. But the software is pretty amazing used in moderation. Even the things included in lightrrom/Photoshop do a remarkable job, but you have to watch for and fix artifacts sometimes. Super Resolution, Super Zoom, Preserve Details 2.0 are all good, I suspect Gigapixel might even top those.
Click to expand...
Right, it's like a lot of enhancements, it can't fix terrible, but occasionally make a decent image better I think.
 
PhotoLover said:
Right, it's like a lot of enhancements, it can't fix terrible, but occasionally make a decent image better I think.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think it can ever improve image quality, but can lose less with ai than straight resampling if you need more pixels for a large print.
 
Member's gallery
A very personal opinion - I dont think there should be photo competitions. At all. I have judged several, and I am very familiar with how it works, how subjective judging is, and the effect it may have on the contestants, how argumentative they become, or how despondent. We have seen it right here on this forum. If I regard photography as art - it should not be judged in a competition. AGAIN - it is my personal opinion

It is clear to see what competition does to certain photographers - they cheat. It becomes less about art and more about wanting to be "someone"
And this will NEVER stop. I find it just as unnecessary as beauty contests.

I want photography to be a joy for everyone. Not something they HAVE to be great at.

Of course I recognise that many many people will have a different opinion to mine above. And for them, it is as valid as my reasons are to me.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
PhotoLover said:
But actually, I was interested in what members of this forum had to say about this particular question, not the internet at large.
Click to expand...

PhotoLover said:
But actually, I was interested in what members of this forum had to say about this particular question, not the internet at large.
Click to expand...

PhotoLover said:
But actually, I was interested in what members of this forum had to say about this particular question, not the internet at large.
Click to expand...
Well, just in case no one replies to your question, from the internet at small, you can go to the link I provided you. They have thoughts and comments, just like the people on this photography forum.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
Personally I don't think it can ever improve image quality, but can lose less with ai than straight resampling if you need more pixels for a large print.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but the scenario I'm thinking about is one has a picture with a pretty good subject, but just not as close as they'd like. So maybe you have a competition where they specify the print size, etc and to hit that print size you need either a photo that doesn't work (subject not close enough) or crop a LOT and maybe lose a lot of resolution. So how do people feel about the "ethics" of using something like gigapixel if permitted by rules?

As an example, below is an "okay" picture of a pelican in flight. But I wasn't that close. So the image below was 2x by Gigapixel and then heavily cropped. I think it's a better photo than the original shot cropped, or minimal crop (to keep resolution high). It's hard to tell with the downsized images we can post, but Gigapixel retained detail quite well.

PelicanUpsized-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
PhotoLover said:
So how do people feel about the "ethics" of using something like gigapixel if permitted by rules?
Click to expand...
If it's permitted by the rules I don't see how there's any ethical issues. If deep crops and image enlargement via AI based tools is allowed I don't see how there could be any breach of ethics in using such tools.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
If it's permitted by the rules I don't see how there's any ethical issues. If deep crops and image enlargement via AI based tools is allowed I don't see how there could be any breach of ethics in using such tools.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it just feels a little different, but I think there are lots of gray areas here. I mean, if I had a 600 + TC on the camera it would have worked out about the same without the upsizing.

Should AI based enlargement be disallowed?? While doing things like generating different backgrounds with AI seems really wrong, this seems more like "I didn't have a bigger lens, or a full frame camera so I did this :)" The AI here is not changing the image ... conceptually it is merely giving the same image more pixels, which allows more cropping.
 
Member's gallery
PhotoLover said:
Yeah, it just feels a little different, but I think there are lots of gray areas here. I mean, if I had a 600 + TC on the camera it would have worked out about the same without the upsizing.

Should AI based enlargement be disallowed?? While doing things like generating different backgrounds with AI seems really wrong, this seems more like "I didn't have a bigger lens, or a full frame camera so I did this :)" The AI here is not changing the image ... conceptually it is merely giving the same image more pixels, which allows more cropping.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Though I would add that I've seen limits on cropping for contest submissions (e.g. no more than 15% along either axis) and that was well before the AI tools issue came up so some contests do have issues with deep crops even if AI based tools aren't used for subsequent resizing. I haven't seen this a lot, but I have seen it.

I posted my thoughts on this a while back, but I think some of this is the industry including contest judges trying to figure out what AI means in different contexts. A lot of folks conflate AI image editing with complete synthesis of an image (which admittedly is one AI use case) and are having trouble differentiating between wholesale AI based image generation and intelligent editing tools like AI based noise reduction, sharpening or image resizing.

It doesn't help that the software industry and the financial markets see both AI and ML as very hot technologies so many companies are tagging their products as AI/ML products when a deeper dive into their software and algorithms might show much more traditional heuristic based logic or perhaps adaptive heuristic thresholds which really isn't textbook AI or ML but if it increases the company's value or increases sales they'll likely keep doing it.

Much of what can be done with the 'AI based' noise reduction, sharpening and even image resizing tools can be done step by step but a lot more slowly with existing image editing tools like Photoshop. The AI tools can usually do it a lot faster without as much time learning to use things like masks, selections and other existing tools so I could see some contest judges choosing to reward the learned skill of the photographer/image editor but frankly I don't see those particular AI based tools as a problem though I can easily see why a nature photography contest judging panel might not allow background substitutions or wholesale AI based subject replacements where the subject or background wasn't actually present when the image was captured.

But also, I'd say the vast majority of photo contests don't yet prohibit the use of AI based sharpening, noise reduction or resizing tools though a few that do apparently include NANPA and WPOTY so perhaps other contests will follow in their footsteps.

In the end though, they're just contests with their own rules and if we don't like the rules there's no obligation to submit any of our photos but if we do participate we should follow the rules like 'em or not.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Agreed. Though I would add that I've seen limits on cropping for contest submissions (e.g. no more than 15% along either axis) and that was well before the AI tools issue came up so some contests do have issues with deep crops even if AI based tools aren't used for subsequent resizing. I haven't seen this a lot, but I have seen it.

I posted my thoughts on this a while back, but I think some of this is the industry including contest judges trying to figure out what AI means in different contexts. A lot of folks conflate AI image editing with complete synthesis of an image (which admittedly is one AI use case) and are having trouble differentiating between wholesale AI based image generation and intelligent editing tools like AI based noise reduction, sharpening or image resizing.

It doesn't help that the software industry and the financial markets see both AI and ML as very hot technologies so many companies are tagging their products as AI/ML products when a deeper dive into their software and algorithms might show much more traditional heuristic based logic or perhaps adaptive heuristic thresholds which really isn't textbook AI or ML but if it increases the company's value or increases sales they'll likely keep doing it.

Just about anything that can be done with the 'AI based' noise reduction, sharpening and even image resizing tools can be done step by step but a lot more slowly with existing image editing tools like Photoshop. The AI tools can usually do it a lot faster without as much time learning to use things like masks, selections and other existing tools so I could see some contest judges choosing to reward the learned skill of the photographer/image editor but frankly I don't see those particular AI based tools as a problem though I can easily see why a nature photography contest judging panel might not allow background substitutions or wholesale AI based subject replacements where the subject or background wasn't actually present when the image was captured.

But also, I'd say the vast majority of photo contests don't yet prohibit the use of AI based sharpening, noise reduction or resizing tools though a few that do apparently include NANPA and WPOTY so perhaps other contests will follow in their footsteps.

In the end though, they're just contests with their own rules and if we don't like the rules there's no obligation to submit any of our photos but if we do participate we should follow the rules like 'em or not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed reply!

To run with one point you made, I believe editing restrictions should not use (or care) about "AI." They should simply say what effects are/are not allowed. AI is often just a buzzword tossed around, and of course the definition of "AI" tends to be fuzzy and overused as you note.

It is interesting to hear what folks think *should* be allowed, though ... it's not really actionable :) We must live by contest rules if we enter said contest.
 
Member's gallery
Dancogan said:
I agree with you, Elsa! Seems these days everything is turned into a competition - cooking, art, sewing, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Life in general is a never-ending competition for most of our lives, whether you like it or not At home, school, work, talent contests, sports, cards, horse racing, the stock market, businesses, car shows, reality shows, keeping up with the Jones, politics, and the list goes on and on. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Even if Gigapixel and such is allowed, the resulting image often has that characteristic creamy smooth look due to too many invented pixels. If you take an extreme example the software would have to take one pixel and turn it into a block of 4 pixels. Doing this straight with no ai looks terrible because you basically gets blocks of 4 of the same to replace the one. But the ai and even some of the non ai like preserve details 2.0 can find edges and contrasts and the algorithm guesses at where variations are needed. The result looks ok but still not fully convincing.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
Even if Gigapixel and such is allowed, the resulting image often has that characteristic creamy smooth look due to too many invented pixels. If you take an extreme example the software would have to take one pixel and turn it into a block of 4 pixels. Doing this straight with no ai looks terrible because you basically gets blocks of 4 of the same to replace the one. But the ai and even some of the non ai like preserve details 2.0 can find edges and contrasts and the algorithm guesses at where variations are needed. The result looks ok but still not fully convincing.
Click to expand...
I never used Gigapixel, but from recollection (Topaz seems to spam me everywhere I turn), it is AI-trained on images, suggesting that it's smarter than simply adding blocks just by looking at nearest pixels.

Possibly because I am not proficient in noise reduction and I am extra sensitive to artifacts, I use none of it.
 
Nimi said:
I never used Gigapixel, but from recollection (Topaz seems to spam me everywhere I turn), it is AI-trained on images, suggesting that it's smarter than simply adding blocks just by looking at nearest pixels.

Possibly because I am not proficient in noise reduction and I am extra sensitive to artifacts, I use none of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was contrasting ai like gigapixel with regular upsizing.
 
Member's gallery
Feiertag said:
Life in general is a never-ending competition for most of our lives, whether you like it or not At school, work, sports, playing cards, horse racing, the stock market, businesses, dog shows, keeping up with the Jones, and the list goes on and on. Cheers!
Click to expand...
That statement has nothing to do with my opinion. Or else we may say we are all going to die anyway so whats the point.

I am quite happy for others to disagree with my sentiments about competitions. One of my friends says he refuses to enter any competition as he is a very bad loser. Another valid reason I suppose 😂
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
That statement has nothing to do with my opinion. Or else we may say we are all going to die anyway so whats the point.

I am quite happy for others to disagree with my sentiments about competitions. One of my friends says he refuses to enter any competition as he is a very bad loser. Another valid reason I suppose 😂
Click to expand...
I was commenting on Dan's post.

Yep, we will all die, soon enough. While you are still here, enter a few contests and have fun with it. B^)
 
Member's gallery
Feiertag said:
I watched the video you provided. Interesting and confirming that nothing is perfect.

I have never entered a contest where I have to pay an entry fee. I have always thought that it was simply a cash cow venture for the contest creators.
Click to expand...
Ye -I don't think all competitions are like that - and probably thats the exception.

I also dont think an entry fee should be charged. But wait - I don't believe it competitions to begin with 😂


I was recently entered into a competition - without my knowledge - and took first and second place - but have discussed it with the Indian chiefs and it was agreed I will make my photos available for their cause - but not to be entered into their competition again. So yes - I know how it feels to win (twice) , and I am even more adamant now about it than ever. No more for me. But I really do see how other people could get a lot of joy out of it
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
Ye -I don't think all competitions are like that - and probably thats the exception.

I also dont think an entry fee should be charged. But wait - I don't believe it competitions to begin with 😂


I was recently entered into a competition - without my knowledge - and took first and second place - but have discussed it with the Indian chiefs and it was agreed I will make my photos available for their cause - but not to be entered into their competition again. So yes - I know how it feels to win (twice) , and I am even more adamant now about it than ever. No more for me. But I really do see how other people could get a lot of joy out of it
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your 1st & 2nd place. What's the chance of you illustrating them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top