Should AI edited photos be labelled?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/24/2025 at 9:09 AM, jaapv said:

I was not responding to you specifically but searching for the devising line. I do not believe in statements like “ that is not photography “ unless we are looking at something that has absolutely no relationship like completely AI generated images. I try to dissociate the input of reality from the intention of the result. The result, to me, is not necessarily linked to the input of reality, but an expression of the vision of the photographer. If that vision is to reproduce reality as faithfully as possible that is perfectly fine and it will obviously limit the method used and necessitate the explanation of areas where the reality was modified. If, however, the intention was to create something new from the original input, how can we object to the methods used? 

I can't now recall how I replied to this yesterday - just at the moment the server went down, losing my reply!

Today my response is: I don't object to the use of different methods, including addition and replacement of elements, composits, generative fill etc, whether or not driven by AI, but there are many photos where we have a reasonable expectation of seeing reality: selected by framing, adjusted lighting, denoise etc, but nevertheless implying that we should judge it on the basis of what is in the scene reflecting what was before the photographer. In the case of some of your own photography, how do we know that the fabulous image of a cheetah was shot by you in the wild rather than shot through a cage mesh, where the mesh (and possibly the zoo keeper and the food bucket) have been removed by AI? (FTAOD, I know you would say if this is the case).

I come back to what I would do (and everyone has their own standards): I will declare when I add or remove stuff, and I will mistrust any image without such a declaration, or when I know the photographer often adds or removes stuff.

Edit. I see @pgh has already said more or less exactly the same as I did in their last post but one!

Edited September 25 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But, as I argued before, it is something else than reality anyway, so it is just a matter of degree. 

You can give someone a push, thump them on the nose, kick them, stab them...... At precisely what stage is 'hurting someone' something you shouldn't do? Calling something a matter of degree is meaningless.

[pgh]

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But, as I argued before, it is something else than reality anyway, so it is just a matter of degree. 

I don't understand how you don't see that it's a matter of kind, and not of degree. But anyways, we disagree, and that's fine. I will walk away from this now.

For better or worse my impression of what is posted on this forum without context is altered though. 

[jaapv]

Why? Whenever generative editing is used, I will provide authentication, I do not see that as a problem. See a few posts ago. Anybody can do so. problem with "a matter of kind" is that there is not one kind of AI, or even  one kind of generative AI. You cannot dismiss the specific because of the general. Our disagreement is about the philosophical impact. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Why? Whenever generative editing is used, I will provide authentication, I do not see that as a problem. See a few posts ago. Anybody can do so. Our disagreement is about the philosophical impact. 

No - my disagreement is about openness/candour (or is that philosophical). If you tell us you are using generative fill, adding or removing objects, that's fine by me.

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

No - my disagreement is about openness/candour (or is that philosophical). If you tell us you are using generative fill, adding or removing objects, that's fine by me.

??? What more openness than official authentication do you want? 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

??? What more openness than official authentication do you want? 

What's 'official authentication' when it comes to posts on this forum? A brief comment about such edits is what I mean. If 'official authentication' is clearly visible alongside a posted image, then I have no problem with that. If you mean Content Credentials, I'm afraid that's for competition judges, news editors and fact checkers, not an amateur photo forum. I don't want to dig into metadata every time I look at an image.

Why are you upset about this? I have been careful to say throughout what my approach is, not what I think others should do. As with everything in this life, though, the behaviour and practices of others affects how I view what they tell me or show me.

Edited September 25 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Content Credentials is an open system , embedded in LR and PS, available to anybody, and the only standardised way to honestly show the process. It is nothing more than an informative signature. 

[LocalHero1953]

19 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Content Credentials is an open system , embedded in LR and PS, available to anybody, and the only standardised way to honestly show the process. It is nothing more than an informative signature. 

Yes - but not particularly useful on social media.

Edited September 25 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

It is already automatic on major sites like LinkedIn. Don’t worry, it will be adopted rapidly. In fact, just clicking on the pin suffices. 

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

It is already automatic on major sites like LinkedIn. Don’t worry, it will be adopted rapidly. In fact, just clicking on the pin suffices. 

What is automatic? And how does that work on the forum? What pin?

What does it tell you? That the photo has been edited? Or does it tell you that elements have been added and removed (and which elements), or that generative fill has been used? So many questions that could be answered by a note next to the image.

[jaapv]

It generates a digital watermark, lists the edits, the generative ones automatically, the rest if so desired. 

https://contentauthenticity.adobe.com/

[LocalHero1953]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

It generates a digital watermark, lists the edits, the generative ones automatically, the rest if so desired. 

https://contentauthenticity.adobe.com/

I tried to import several files to the site and just got error messages.
But this is a red herring, though great for forensic investigation of originality and protecting your work. It's dependent on the photographer using it, and most people will not. Far simpler and low tech just to say what significant edits (addition, removal, generative fill) have been used.
It's your choice though.

[jaapv]

Fine - that is why Instagram adopted it, I suppose.  People who are at all interested in my editing will have no problem.  

[LocalHero1953]

I've just noticed your new signature, which is useful.

I'll be interested to see how easy it is for viewers to use.

[jaapv]

Yes - but I do not necessarily see that as something bad. I do see that some people would like to be informed of the fact, reason to add authentication for me, although I admit that the invisible watermark is a strong incentive as well. 

[jaapv]

10 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I've just noticed your new signature, which is useful.

I'll be interested to see how easy it is for viewers to use.

Maybe Andreas will incorporate it in the site. Makes it more user-friendly, although strictly not needed. 

[01maciel]

The use of content credentials seems to me to be a possible approach, but it is implemented by a software manufacturer with whom you also have to be registered. And if there's one thing you can say, it's that it can be unpleasant to be dependent on just one manufacturer. As the website also states, use is ‘still’ free of charge. I think that's OK for a professional environment, but for social media it's more of a crutch.

In addition, there is always the issue of security measures. It is not a question of ‘if’ but when they will be cracked. Didn't I read recently that the Content Credential System from (I think) Fuji was hacked?

I think it's more practical for everyone to simply write that you've replaced the sky with a more beautiful one, put a smile on the faces of the people in the photo so that the grumpiness is no longer visible and the viewer is not upset, and set the mood of the image to a mild evening sun.

[Alberti]

On 9/17/2025 at 9:12 AM, jaapv said:

If what has been done and why?  
If an image is presented as an exact replica of reality yes, all edits, even the most minor ones, should be mentioned.  

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. 

Summing up all edits is a no-no. Example: a picture of a dress-up in the style of 1900 (Bell Époque) on the beach. There was one clear modern bather in bikini.

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!

I took her out. .  Is that necessary to say?  imho I think that is moot; the subject is the vintage clothing, so other aspects can be kept out, why bother to say?

When we talk about AI generation = adding an element, that could be different. . . but I would not even know how to do that.

• The question is if this second version is post-truth or not, you can ask, without that added information. No I am inclined not to add that verbatim detail. 

Sure, looking at it, yes I now also have the urge to clean up the horizon (the chimneys and cranes are in the harbour of Le Havre, France). . . 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Alberti]

On 9/25/2025 at 8:04 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

I've just noticed your new signature, which is useful.

I'll be interested to see how easy it is for viewers to use.

I thought content credentials have to do with 1) 'original ownership=authorship' and 2) use of photoshop; 3) 'owner of an M11' — so the latter leaves 90% of posters out of this game.

Edited September 26 by Alberti