Should AI edited photos be labelled?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, pgh said:

It's not though - there are direct political implications if this technology is widely adopted and accepted amongst people looking at photorealistic images. It cannot be separated, and it is incumbent on viewers and photographers to come together to redefine the medium in the age of this technology - or, if not, no one trusts anything they see anymore, which leads to widespread cynicism which again, has direct political results as @hansvons notes. These things are not unrelated.  

Sorry, Forum policy - no politics. There are other places.  Admin decides. 

[pgh]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Summarizing my personal opinion: Only if a photograph has been deliberately been modified to misrepresent reality and intended as a “lie”  there is an obligation to make the viewer aware of the fact. 
Whether the method was traditional or the latest has no relevance. 
This was the case 100 years ago, from the beginning of digital photography and today. Nothing has changed but the methods used. The results are the same and the result is we call a photograph. 
 

https://serenademagazine.art/photo-manipulation-before-photoshop-the-art-of-darkroom-myths/

 

I actually generally agree with this.

Which is why I circle back to my point.

If we are speaking strictly to this forum and not the larger world - clarifying the definition of what a photograph is, is where the answer probably lies. 

Personally, I think in the broader context we need to revisit how the word "photograph" is used.

I have no issue with AI generated or aided art, per se. I do have an issue when it is improperly contextualized, and that is often by calling something a photograph that really isn't in the way most people would understand it. 

[LUF Admin]

16 minutes ago, pgh said:

It's not though - there are direct political implications if this technology is widely adopted and accepted amongst people looking at photorealistic images. It cannot be separated, and it is incumbent on viewers and photographers to come together to redefine the medium in the age of this technology - or, if not, no one trusts anything they see anymore, which leads to widespread cynicism which again, has direct political results as @hansvons notes. These things are not unrelated.  

I agree 100% that AI in general and AI generated images will have massive implications for society and politics.

We can try to discuss this topic in general terms. But as soon as it touches „real“ politics, we'll have to draw a red line.

I can’t tell you right now, where this red line exactly is, as we are talking about a wide spanning object while dancing in a mine field of controversial topics we are trying to avoid here in the forum.

I don't know where this red line is, but it’s definitely there. And we'll enforce it, as we have seen too many discussions out of bounds. Just as a reminder: We (the moderators and I) don't do that in order to promote our views but to keep this place for everyone.

Andreas

[Michael Geschlecht]

15 hours ago, LUF Admin said:

Some official remarks from the admin.

In this forum please leave out political discussions. They are important but this forum is not the right place. We tried this out, several times, always with the same result that political or other sensitive topics lead to conflicts. Please don’t.

AI Images are a bit more complicated.

For the Leica Forum I have these guidelines:

1. No AI generated images. As mentioned before, AI is no Leica product, so not allowed. But there are more reasons: If we allow or tolerate AI images this will lead to a general distrust if images are „real“ (= made in a photographic process). Such distrust can harm climate of discussion.
2. No problem with AI help in post production or enhancement. A lot of cameras have built in AI trained algorithms and most post processing software apps use AI  for denoising, sharpening and upscaling. Don't hesitate to use it.

Between these extremes we have a grey area:

• Removing objects via AI (or by Photoshop manual work). In my personal opinion (not as admin) OK.
• Adding objects with AI. Not OK. I had a similar discussion in one of my other discussion boards about a forest image. The photographer had added a small squirrel in the foreground. Only 0,5% of the image were affected – but the main subject was changed.

My suggestion would be not to allow such alterations.

Andreas

PS.: No politics. Not at all. Thanks.

Hello Andreas,

Wouldn't taking away the same squirrel in the same situation, in your "Removing objects via AI" make the same/a similar amount of change?

That adding that same squirrel in the same situation, in your "Adding objects with AI." would?

Best Regards,

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Again Everybody,

As a point of academic interest relevant to the subject under discussion:

One of the earliest photographic images created in the first 1/2 of the 19th Century is a photo of 2 people outside on a nice day. With a sidewalk near them. The photo was taken from a window above them & a distance away.

1 person is sitting in a chair with 1 foot sitting on a slightly raised stand.

The other person is at that person's foot polishing their shoe.

Even though there is a sidewalk near them. There are no other people in the photo.

In reality, it was a nice day & various people walked by. But: The speed of the emulsion capturing the image was so low: That the required exposure took a long time: Which meant that none of the people walking by registered as an image.

While the 2 people, who apparently did not move that much, were in the photo.

The "artificial intelligence" that manipulated the image in this situation was the slow emulsion speed.

Best Regards,

Michael

[lykaman]

Some cameras now have an AI setting, should those images if shown be marked?

[LUF Admin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Wouldn't taking away the same squirrel in the same situation, in your "Removing objects via AI" make the same/a similar amount of change?

That adding that same squirrel in the same situation, in your "Adding objects with AI." would?

Two remarks in advance:

1. This kind of question is a topic to be discussed, here in the forum and as a society (or in many societies as we are an international community). As I pointed out before, there is a grey area – and the boundaries between „the real photo™“ and AI images is not a sharp one.
2. In this topic I'm posting as a member with an opinion, not as admin setting the rules.

Regarding the topic itself…

The point is: It’s not the same squirrel.

• The squirrel you edit out existed in the real world 
• The AI generated squirrel was never there

I'm aware that photography isn't always objective reproduction of the reality. But perhaps we can agree, that generating new elements into an image crosses a border.

Andreas

[LUF Admin]

3 hours ago, lykaman said:

Some cameras now have an AI setting, should those images if shown be marked?

Speaking as admin:

No. You don't have to.

AI assisted functions in cameras and standard image editing (denoising, sharpening, upscaling) don't have to be marked or mentioned.

Andreas

[lykaman]

6 minutes ago, LUF Admin said:

Speaking as admin:

No. You don't have to.

AI assisted functions in cameras and standard image editing (denoising, sharpening, upscaling) don't have to be marked or mentioned.

Andreas

👍🏻🍷

[pgh]

14 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Again Everybody,

As a point of academic interest relevant to the subject under discussion:

One of the earliest photographic images created in the first 1/2 of the 19th Century is a photo of 2 people outside on a nice day. With a sidewalk near them. The photo was taken from a window above them & a distance away.

1 person is sitting in a chair with 1 foot sitting on a slightly raised stand.

The other person is at that person's foot polishing their shoe.

Even though there is a sidewalk near them. There are no other people in the photo.

In reality, it was a nice day & various people walked by. But: The speed of the emulsion capturing the image was so low: That the required exposure took a long time: Which meant that none of the people walking by registered as an image.

While the 2 people, who apparently did not move that much, were in the photo.

The "artificial intelligence" that manipulated the image in this situation was the slow emulsion speed.

Best Regards,

Michael

This is different in kind.

The people really existed.

The various capture mediums have always had flaws, presented distortions, etc.

Double exposures, long exposures, selective lighting etc are all visually deceptive but at the same time present an actual record of something that really existed in some way.

This is not merely an academic difference in my opinion, but it’s also another illustration of why I think that visual literacy is about as important to teach as reading now. That’s not a job for this forum, but there should be some way for us to be clear about what we’re looking at, no?

 

Edited September 18 by pgh

[pgh]

10 hours ago, LUF Admin said:

The point is: It’s not the same squirrel.

• The squirrel you edit out existed in the real world 
• The AI generated squirrel was never there

The squirrel is replaced by something, though. Whatever it is replaced with is some form of fill that is something that was never there, right? Grass, leaves, tree bark - whatever. It might not be as noticeable as a squirrel - but it was also never there. When you clone something out you always add something else. I never see it just erased with a white spot where something was. Just my opinion but I don’t see this as any more acceptable or less deceptive on principle than adding a squirrel. Yes, it might be more subtle but if there is a line to cross, for me it is somewhere before either of these manipulations. Again, if we’re talking about a certain idea of what photography is. In one sense I don’t mind any of it - but the context it is presented in is what matters. 

Edited September 18 by pgh

[01maciel]

Apologies, I didn't mean to open a can of worms and start a trench warfare here. Thank you for your opinions. AI is an emotional topic, even though it's really just statistics behind it.

Basically, everything has been said on the subject. I'll just add this for myself: if I ever use AI tools in a software to develop a raw file in order to post it here , I'll write that under the jpg so everyone can make up their own mind. It doesn't matter if I'm ‘just’ using AI noise reduction or making whole objects disappear. My personal understanding of photo honesty but as always: ymmv.

So, I'd be happy if we could just drop this topic and everyone can do what they want 😊

[LocalHero1953]

One of the first lessons I learned on this forum is that you don’t own a thread you start, and you can’t stop people posting there.😊

I have found the discussion interesting and thought provoking. Since I don’t think we have ‘solved’ everything, I would be happy to hear other people’s further opinions. 

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, 01maciel said:

Apologies, I didn't mean to open a can of worms and start a trench warfare here. Thank you for your opinions. AI is an emotional topic, even though it's really just statistics behind it.

Basically, everything has been said on the subject. I'll just add this for myself: if I ever use AI tools in a software to develop a raw file in order to post it here , I'll write that under the jpg so everyone can make up their own mind. It doesn't matter if I'm ‘just’ using AI noise reduction or making whole objects disappear. My personal understanding of photo honesty but as always: ymmv.

So, I'd be happy if we could just drop this topic and everyone can do what they want 😊

And what are you going to do about the AI tools baked into the camera and postprocessing software? You'll be using them without even knowing. Take it from me, in a few years' time it will be quite impossible to do any editing without involving AI. The only thing you have to declare is introducing foreign elements into your image, with or without AI. Declaring the use of Neural Filters would be nice as well, most members using them are already doing so anyway.
See the post by Admin for guidance.

[SrMi]

On 9/18/2025 at 7:53 PM, 01maciel said:

It doesn't matter if I'm ‘just’ using AI noise reduction or making whole objects disappear.

Most competitions and photo buyers strongly differentiate between the two (acceptable and unacceptable).

The famous Rhein II by Andreas Gursky utilized Photoshop to remove numerous elements. I do not see a difference whether you use AI or not to remove elements. The essential information is whether elements were removed or not. 

[01maciel]

Am 19.9.2025 um 02:36 schrieb jaapv:

See the post by Admin for guidance.

Of course, I am familiar with the forum guidelines. That was not the intention of my initial question. I believe I did not phrase the question clearly. The guidelines are not the issue. Rather: if AI tools are actively used deliberately and knowingly, whether they are internal camera tools or software that the photographer uses by intention, and for what purpose whatsoever is rather secondary - should this approach be mentioned with a short side note to the image? You may now ask, why would anyone do that? Perhaps for reasons of transparency for other viewers, honesty, a loose understanding and acceptance of a code of contuct, etc. Of course, there is no way to 'control' the use of AI - but this is not the point.

From what I have read in the comments, there is no consensus on this. I reckon that if technological development continues at this pace, there will be a race in the future for the best AI tools that work in the background, server-based, performing miracles on photos. And in my opinion, this point is not only new, but also unique and cannot be compared to previous software and analogue darkrooms in the last 100 years.

As I write this, I am reminded of the Ring of Power. The book describes how the more one desired it or used it, the more one became enslaved to it and was harnessed for its purposes   Perhaps a slight exaggeration. Of course, this does not apply to AI Tools.

[jaapv]

I understood. I divide AI tools in two group. The ones that use AI to refine their algorithms and the ones that add foreign data to the image. The former do not need to be named IMO as the are no different from former tools, just better (eg boise reduction, sharpening, etc. The latter which generate content gathered from outside sources should be declared again IMO, and about the ones that use data from the image to generate content, like content-aware technology, I don’t know as they are non-AI as 

The purpose is of essence too. If it is a PJ shot or similar any manipulation is out of bounds, AI or not. If it is just intended to produce a pleasing, or artful,  image, I do not see any reason to mention the method. After all, what portrait painting bears the label “ I removed a few warts using a special fine brush” ? A painter might let it be known that it is a phantasy landscape, if it is not clear from the painting. And if it is real, who cares that he did not paint in litter. Or turned the sky into a sunset? 
Did you ever see such stuff on paintings by Magic Realists?

In the end that kind of honesty -when required- is the thing that counts whether it is AI or HI. I refuse to be tied down by labels, especially mushy and ill-defined ones like AI. 

[jaapv]

Here is a recent example:

Original:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

End Result:

 

 

What did I do?

Slight exposure and colour tweaks, Topaz Photo AI plugin for noise and sharpness control, cropped, used AI Select and Mask in PS  on the lefthand top corner and used AI Generative Fill to remove the lady. Have I any idea where the shelves come from? No. Is it of any relevance for the image? No. Does it claim to be an exact as possible representation of reality? No. Did I alter relevant content? No. Does anybody care? No. So why should I "disclose" that I used AI during processing? 

And the Olifantsberg wines were outstanding 🙃

SL2S, Sigma 28-70

[LocalHero1953]

By my standards, yes, you should disclose that the bookshelves are AI-generated. 

YMMV

 

Edit. It is not relevant where the bookshelves came from, but is relevant that they were not there. It is relevant that you have removed a major distraction from the image. You don't say what your 'claim' is for the image. Where did you / do you intend to post it? If viewers are only interested in the people at the table and the wine, then why worry about the distracting person. If you are trying to make it a pleasing looking image showing your photographic competence, then you are misleading them (that's not a criticism of your skills - I get plenty of distractions in my images).

Edited September 21 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

I disagree, they do not alter the content of the image in any relevant way, nor does the photograph pretend to be other than a casual snapshot, not evidence in court. If I had used old-fashioned cloning techniques to remove the lady (for instance using another photograph from the same series), should I have declared it then?  I have rarely seen anybody doing the latter, and only with significant alterations.