Photographers Turn Tables on AI in Major Photo Competition

[Ricochetrider]

There’s a long road ahead of us in this AI thing. Good for these folks for standing up against AI imagery. 
 

 

Photogs United Against AI Acceptance in Prestigious Photo Competition

[samstevens]

I'm suspicious about the dangerous uses of AI. And, while photos have been successfully used to show facts, they've also often been misunderstood to show facts when, in fact, they're showing perspective, leaving out context, and playing all kinds of other intended and unintended tricks. I think, ultimately, AI will probably win out. [I don't see how we stop the train.] And I think what will happen, over time, is that photos will no longer be seen as a means to verify anything or as a reliable conveyer of facts. Hopefully, we'll develop other methods of doing that. But I don't have much hope for anything but a continued tension between facts and alternative facts, between education and willful ignorance, between honesty and propaganda. I do believe we're in the throes of a Neo-Dark Ages. And I think there's a whole lot more trouble ahead. The world of photography is just a microcosm of a much greater threat to our well being.

[AlanKlein]

This organization is world press, a documentary photo organization.  How they can approve AI used for documentary is beyond belief.  This isn;t for a fine art organization even.

I don't know if editors in newspapers like the NY Times have new rules for Ai yet, but I think they will.  They already forbid photos from being cloned, items added and removed.  They only allow "standard" exposure type adjustments and crops.  Many editors will fire photographers who play games with this stuff.  

[AlanKlein]

3 hours ago, samstevens said:

I'm suspicious about the dangerous uses of AI. And, while photos have been successfully used to show facts, they've also often been misunderstood to show facts when, in fact, they're showing perspective, leaving out context, and playing all kinds of other intended and unintended tricks. I think, ultimately, AI will probably win out. [I don't see how we stop the train.] And I think what will happen, over time, is that photos will no longer be seen as a means to verify anything or as a reliable conveyer of facts. Hopefully, we'll develop other methods of doing that. But I don't have much hope for anything but a continued tension between facts and alternative facts, between education and willful ignorance, between honesty and propaganda. I do believe we're in the throes of a Neo-Dark Ages. And I think there's a whole lot more trouble ahead. The world of photography is just a microcosm of a much greater threat to our well being.

The better publications will have standards that will include firing photographers who don't abide by their standards.  But I agree with you in general that photos like written text are going to be fast and loose with the truth.  The bigger issue than playing with the image editing,  is that the text that goes with it is bogus.  "Honest" pictures are selected to support untruths in the articles.  

[mikemorrellNL]

My 2  cts (and many more):
- I suspect that there are many images in magazines, on websites - perhaps even in newspapers - which are intended to be 'illustrative' rather than a photographer's factual account from her/his perspective; personally, I don't have a great problem with applying AI to generate 'illustrative' images/videos though I would strongly prefer adding a note saying "illustration". Let's be honest, many of the TV-ads we see on TV these days (take auto's as an example) have been extensively manipulated via CGI and/or AI

- there of course many 'news' images (and videos) which readers/viewers assume to be authentic; i.e. have not been AI-manipulated

Consumer 'trust' in media outlets (amongst many other things) is critical to their succes. I can well imagine the confusion about - and the protests against -  the World Press Photos' initiative to allow AI-generated images into its 'Open Forum' category. This initiative runs IHMO completely counter to what press photos and the World Press Photo have always been about.

As far as I'm aware, there is still hope.  Photo competitions increasingly request original RAW images for entry. Together with EXIF data that shows how a final image has been produced step by step. Sure, Photo-editing apps such as Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop now incorporate native so-called AI-functions. and filters. The same is true for many Lightroom and Photoshop 'plug-in' filters. So for photo-editors and curators, the job of deciding which photos are eligible and which aren't is becoming increasingly complex. My main hope is that image AI-tools develop, so do image AI-detection tools. As far as I've read, these 'detection tools' search for subtle patterns of 'pixel manipulation' that can't be explained by the Exif data.

On a last point, image manipulation occurs during post-processing (with or without AI). Image manipulation occurs IMHO on a much wider scale by:

- photographers who (coincidently or deliberately) take photos and decide which to submit to various news outlets

- news outlets who decide which submitted images to publish

It will come as no surprise that few news outlets are completely neutral w.r.t. their targeted readership/viewer groups. Readership/viewer groups often break down along political and demographic lines. So the selection of submitted photos/videos by a photographer and especially the choice of photos/videos to publish to their targeted readership/viewer groups IMHO far outweighs any 'technical image manipulation'.

I completely accept that media outlets may select and manipulate photos and videos to appeal to their targeted readership/viewer groups.

So - even without AI - readership/viewership targeted selection and manipulation of images and videos has been with us for years. My main fear is that media outlets may use AI to manipulate photos and videos to better target their readership/viewership groups.

[AlanKlein]

Few believe what they read and see today.  AI will just make it worse.  How can you run a society when no one trusts anything from anyone else?  Everything's distorted.  Photographer's use of AI and cloning etc just adds to the confusion.  We're just as guilty of this maybe more so because it's our products and creations.  We've been mesmerized by technology using it in unethical ways that deceives the public.  That's what makes a photo competition from world press organizations that encourages it so disturbing. 

[samstevens]

We’re living in a society one-third to one-half of which knowingly embraces deception because they think it means they “own” the other side. Lying has become a key political and social commodity. It is embraced for what it is, not despite what it is. It is the platform. Good luck.

[James Bryant]

I like original negatives and slides because they require more effort to fake.

 

[dmanthree]

Might as well allow paintings in the competition, as well.

[robert_bowring]

It is very simple. AI generated pictures are not photographs. They should not be allowed in any photography competition.