Should AI generated images have identifying characteristics?

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).

Should they be identified?

  • No

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 92.9%
  • Total voters
    14
I admit I'm a little disheartened by AI. I spent years learning how to hand paint with digital brushes and compositing and all the rest. Now any shmo can get similar results. Sigh. I'm not special anymore, if I ever was.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I admit I'm a little disheartened by AI. I spent years learning how to hand paint with digital brushes and compositing and all the rest. Now any shmo can get similar results. Sigh. I'm not special anymore, if I ever was.
Click to expand...
I agree because I’ve spent thousands of hours learning editing software and now most of it can be done with little effort. I certainly don’t mind making it easier and some of the additions like the remove tool in photoshop are fantastic additions.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I suppose I could have laser honed in on one area but for me and basing it solely on wildlife photography, if you didn't shoot it, then it should be disclosed where warranted.
Click to expand...
That does narrow it down, but I still think there are shades of grey. For me adding an animal that wasn't there is no longer photography. It's back to the old question of how much post processing is too much. Extensively retouched. Yes I would like to know, but things are already so far gone I automatically think anything I see online is not real. Brave new world.... :(
 
Member's gallery
Well there goes another one.
Sorry for bringing religion into the chat. I was and am not aware that I did. The issue I was highlighting was the difference between simple and complex.
Anyway I will stick to simple things in the future.
Reminder to self: take the lens cap off.
 
Member's gallery
https://martynaeidukynaite.wordpres...o-manipulation-throughout-history-a-timeline/ <--- just one of a lot of things about image manipulation. BTW I am after seeing the images on the website convinced fairies exist, they are real.
Human reasoning as demonstrated by Benny Hill:
Man in night club says to lady at the bar:
"Will you let me have carnal knowledge of you for $5 000 000?"
Lady replies:
"ohhh maybe, ok then, yes."
Benny Hill:
"Great! Will you let me have carnal knowledge of you for ten cents?"
Woman aghast replies:
"No you horrible man! What do you think I am?!!"
Benny Hill:
"We have already established what you are. We are now negotiating a price."
 
Member's gallery
Ibrahim said:
https://martynaeidukynaite.wordpres...o-manipulation-throughout-history-a-timeline/ <--- just one of a lot of things about image manipulation. BTW I am after seeing the images on the website convinced fairies exist, they are real.
Human reasoning as demonstrated by Benny Hill:
Man in night club says to lady at the bar:
"Will you let me have carnal knowledge of you for $5 000 000?"
Lady replies:
"ohhh maybe, ok then, yes."
Benny Hill:
"Great! Will you let me have carnal knowledge of you for ten cents?"
Woman aghast replies:
"No you horrible man! What do you think I am?!!"
Benny Hill:
"We have already established what you are. We are now negotiating a price."
Click to expand...
Interesting Article!
I have always said - the very first image was not a true reflection of the scene, as it was in black and white - and the world was not (and never will be) black and white.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
AI is here to stay. The tagging in the metadata is fine for competition or sale because it can and will be checked. Social media on the other hand is where a dilemma comes. Example. I start a photo website or any type of website and post AI images or AI manipulated images. The general public has no idea my images are not actually a photo. So I can pull the wool over the viewers eyes and they will subscribe to my site and I'll make millions. Lmao. Does it really matter? To me it does because when I look at someone's photos I enjoy usually wildlife I unfortunately assume they are really a photograph. I get that the biggest percentage of people who view photos on social media don't care how the photo was made. They just like it or don't. I'm pretty good at detecting photoshopped photos today but the AI is extremely hard or impossible to detect. So in my personal opinion which means absolutely nothing. I think all AI manipulated images be watermarked in some fashion. Just as I think heavily manipulated images of any kind should be marked in a way that the average social media warrior can see at the bottom of the image.
I put a chickens head on my granddaughter. Pretty easy to see it isn't real but if I put my grandsons head on her body it would be impossible to tell at 4 years old. Get my drift? I love technology but I believe in one hundred percent divulging the use of anything other than a little sharping and cropping. Maybe a slight brightness or contrast adjustment anything that doesn't change the actual image content.
 
Member's gallery
Drbobcameraguy said:
AI is here to stay. The tagging in the metadata is fine for competition or sale because it can and will be checked. Social media on the other hand is where a dilemma comes. Example. I start a photo website or any type of website and post AI images or AI manipulated images. The general public has no idea my images are not actually a photo. So I can pull the wool over the viewers eyes and they will subscribe to my site and I'll make millions. Lmao. Does it really matter? To me it does because when I look at someone's photos I enjoy usually wildlife I unfortunately assume they are really a photograph. I get that the biggest percentage of people who view photos on social media don't care how the photo was made. They just like it or don't. I'm pretty good at detecting photoshopped photos today but the AI is extremely hard or impossible to detect. So in my personal opinion which means absolutely nothing. I think all AI manipulated images be watermarked in some fashion. Just as I think heavily manipulated images of any kind should be marked in a way that the average social media warrior can see at the bottom of the image.
I put a chickens head on my granddaughter. Pretty easy to see it isn't real but if I put my grandsons head on her body it would be impossible to tell at 4 years old. Get my drift? I love technology but I believe in one hundred percent divulging the use of anything other than a little sharping and cropping. Maybe a slight brightness or contrast adjustment anything that doesn't change the actual image content.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense at all :

Just as I think heavily manipulated images of any kind should be marked - cant be defined
I believe in one hundred percent divulging the use of anything other than a little sharping and cropping - huh
Maybe a slight brightness or contrast adjustment anything that doesn't change the actual image content. - just maybe?
I'm pretty good at detecting photoshopped photos - I don't believe that is possible
etc etc etc

This one we agree on: Simply because it applies all of us
So in my personal opinion which means absolutely nothing

Yes, it will be possible to make rules and guidelines and laws. I say it again - there is no snowball's hope in hell for consensus.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
With the recent invention of Adobe firefly and several other photography AI generators, should there be a way those images be identified as such? For instance, if I am in the backwoods of Missouri and create a cheetah in the background, should it be mandated these images be identified in some manner? I think it is a good idea because like anything else, it is probably going to be abused. I’m not referring to the remove tool or anything like that and have absolutely no problem with removal of distractions and things of that nature. I think were the gray area really starts whenever you start adding complete subjects to an image that you did not photograph. If there becomes a market for AI generated artwork, then that’s fine. I think Adobe in particular should have some way of baking that information into the metadata of the image, If heavily modified. I have not downloaded the beta version of Photoshop to even try this yet, but I am extremely impressed with the remove tool they have implemented. I just really have no desire to generate things I didn’t photograph. I’m just curious what others think of this?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, we chased people out of our club when they wouldn't stop using AI means in competitions, it was hard to police.


Only an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top