Should AI edited photos be labelled?

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before.
Should a photo that has been edited with AI be labelled as such? After all, it is neither one's own creativity nor one's own implementation that leads to the final result of a photo. For my part, I feel somewhat deceived when I discover that AI was involved in the raw development. What is your opinion on this?

[jaapv]

First non-official reaction: 

Not practicable - Nearly all postprocessing programs have AI powered tools  and algorithms, often not labelled as such, so you can never be sure. It would be a complete hassle for posters and moderation could never check.
And non-AI powered tools will modify an image significantly as well, like content-aware technology, for years in Photoshop already, which adds computer-generated content to images. Or perspective correction and much more. We do not label stuff like that either. Even spot removal is creating new pixels, and I am sure that we won't have to wait long for an AI component to be incorporated. 

In the end, Andreas will decide on this.

To be clear - AI generated images are NOT allowed on this forum, as they were not  made with gear by Leica or its partners. 

[pgh]

As with everything, it depends.

The context is important.

If they appear in any place where it would be reasonable to expect to be seeing actual photographs that function as a record of a real scene, or where it their placement without labeling may be read as deceptive, they should be labeled.

I'm not in the business of legislating what is made by AI and what isn't, and I'm glad I'm not.

While news photography organizations are hopelessly behind the times in many ways, in this arena they have useful templates to start from. 

In the end the only real and lasting solution is education with a focus on increasing visual literacy among the general population. 

[jaapv]

I think that we can only accept that AI is here to stay and will insinuate itself into many aspects of our life. It is no use doing a King Canute. The challenge will be to learn to use the technology responsibly. In photography we are lucky to be able to judge the results without paying too much attention to the procedure used. 

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, 01maciel said:

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before.
Should a photo that has been edited with AI be labelled as such? After all, it is neither one's own creativity nor one's own implementation that leads to the final result of a photo. For my part, I feel somewhat deceived when I discover that AI was involved in the raw development. What is your opinion on this?

yes it should, with a watermark of some kind

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Not practicable - Nearly all postprocessing programs have AI powered tools

Absolutely. I am guessing when I use a brush tool with edge detection activated in Lightroom some "AI" is involved. A AI free image would probably need to be devoid of post processing, or process on very old versions of the software.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

51 minutes ago, frame-it said:

yes it should, with a watermark of some kind

Why? if you can’t see it , does it have any impact? And why just AI and not other digital manipulation? 

[pgh]

Perhaps AI really shouldn't be the term used.

I'm not sure AI should be used even for LLM's or anything of that nature. 

And then if we can free ourselves of this almost now meaningless term, we could actually discuss what sorts of tools feel acceptable for the realm of documentary photography that Leica seems to align themselves with. 

[jaapv]

I don’t associate Leica with documentary photography as such. I have seen anything from fine art to abstract in this forum. 

[frame-it]

10 minutes ago, pgh said:

Perhaps AI really shouldn't be the term used.

I'm not sure AI should be used even for LLM's or anything of that nature. 

And then if we can free ourselves of this almost now meaningless term, we could actually discuss what sorts of tools feel acceptable for the realm of documentary photography that Leica seems to align themselves with. 

there is no real Ai for normal people outside of military testing, its all basically "machine learning" > tonnes of data, most of it stolen legally and sometimes illegally from the net and peoples phones, and then it chooses combinations based on user inputs.

[frame-it]

52 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And why just AI and not other digital manipulation? 

lets stick to the topic, of only AI as the OP posted.

subtle ai enhancements like object removal are fine, but changing whole backgrounds and skies and hair , dress etc might fundamentally change the entire photo, and should be labelled as such...on samsung phones if one uses the ai tools even for small object removal, it adds a tiny watermark

[pgh]

28 minutes ago, frame-it said:

subtle ai enhancements like object removal are fine

I don’t agree, and therein lies the issue with how to legislate this. An object removal is a creative choice, but it also is no less misleading. So we have to define what it is we’re after here. If it’s any sort of transparency with regards to what we’re seeing, this is unacceptable. 

[pgh]

What does “photography” mean? Is this a photography forum or a computer image forum? 
A photograph is a recording made with light, yes? How far can that get pushed before the image is better called something else? 
for me, omitting an object to make the frame more pleasing but to distort the record, the image is a hybrid. A digital image with a photographic foundation but not rightfully called a photograph.

I'm sure others will disagree. And I get it. 

[frame-it]

18 minutes ago, pgh said:

I don’t agree, and therein lies the issue with how to legislate this. An object removal is a creative choice, but it also is no less misleading. So we have to define what it is we’re after here. If it’s any sort of transparency with regards to what we’re seeing, this is unacceptable. 

i meant all adjustments big or small should be labelled 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

lets stick to the topic, of only AI as the OP posted.

subtle ai enhancements like object removal are fine, but changing whole backgrounds and skies and hair , dress etc might fundamentally change the entire photo, and should be labelled as such...on samsung phones if one uses the ai tools even for small object removal, it adds a tiny watermark

Yes, I totally understand that. But most  of that can be done using classic Photoshop techniques, even in the darkroom. So I don’t see what difference a buzzword like  AI makes. Nor do I see how (for instance) noise removal by AI is more objectionable than the blurring method. I that case AI adds nothing, but its superior data integration defines the noise more precisely, preserving the original image better. I see no objection at all there. The only thing one can do is compare to the original DNG conversion, as long as the DNG converter remain non-AI. That may well be not very far in the future. And then? King Canute…

We may as well accept that photography is a technological process that will always alter reality. 

In the end, being restricted in my editing tools by this forum would stop me posting images altogether and I fail to see how I as a moderator could and would implement such restrictions. 

[pgh]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

We may as well accept that photography is a technological process that will always alter reality. 

No one disputes that. 

But you’re on a dangerous slope to equate it all to the same thing and to neglect the meanings that result from the process. As I’ve mentioned before. 

Just collectively throwing up our hands and accepting things because we feel it is inevitable has helped usher in such problems as authoritarian governments, man made climate change, and soon, a complete and total distrust of every image we see, a total discrediting of the idea of the photograph and therefore no more reason to make them without a computer, while helping to further separate people from inhabiting a shared reality, therefore freeing them from caring about anything that they choose not to believe. no matter how real it  looks.
 

It’s true though, it’s already been happening, I guess we should just get ahead of it and toss our cameras out and get familiar with writing better prompts. 

Edited September 17 by pgh

[jaapv]

But tell me the difference between the sky replacement that has been around for ages in PS and an AI version that is only a bit more refined?Yes, I fully understand the objections to the process as such, but why reject on basis of the method? 
I refuse to be hyped by a kind of AI panic. 

It depends on whether one regards a photograph as true to reality in the first place. I never did. It is always a manipulation, if only by the choice of lens,  point of view and exclusion and inclusion, developing to a mood, and any technique from the earliest darkroom to the computer now. 

As for introducing foreign elements, we could replace an object by a fantasy background in Photoshop 25 years ago, now it becomes ever more sophisticated and simple, but what has changed in the essence from then to now to mandate a disclosure (which was ever so for PJ work, competition, etc. of course)?

I can easily sympathize with the interaction between method and creator; I feel so myself, but for the viewer it has no interest. When I see an impressive statue, do I care whether the sculptor used a hammer and chisel or a power tool? 

[jaapv]

44 minutes ago, pgh said:

such problems as authoritarian governments, man made climate change

With all due respect, this is whataboutism. 

[frame-it]

55 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But tell me the difference between the sky replacement that has been around for ages in PS and an AI version that is only a bit more refined?

if its done it should be mentioned in some way

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sandokan]

I was going to say no, but this thread made me think, a little. 

Image manipulation and object removal/insertion has always existed, and USSR had the best. AI just makes it easier. I think it is at the point to make "revenge porn" obsolete. Ex-boyfriend threatens to send photos of you to the world - tell him to go ahead as you will denounce it as fake AI generated. 

Therefore, no need to say anything - I just assume that if there has been only contrast adjustment, exposure compensation, eye enhancement, dodging, burning; AI was used. Has something been added or removed or sky swapped? If I can detect it (eg sun angle different on landscape than sky, blurry edges etc), then the photo is a fail as an image and I ignore it. 

What if the photo is used to embarrass someone? Put their face onto that of a porn picture, etc. Then a few pixels used to denote image manipulation would help courts decide.