Should AI edited photos be labelled?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/content-credentials.html

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

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.

This is Content Authentication, not Content Credentials - different but related. When exporting an image from Lightroom Classic, if you select the beta Content Authentication option, a summary of your edits is embedded in the metadata of your exported image. As Jaap noted, LinkedIn and Adobe Behance now include simple tools to reveal this info. I agree it would be useful if this forum did the same. I don't know if, at present, an image posted here then downloaded would reveal the info or if it is removed by the forum upload software.

As it's mainly an Adobe initiative at the moment, then its relevance is limited to those who use Lightroom or Photoshop. And perhaps it's limited to files that Adobe imported as raw - I haven't looked that far.

Edited September 26 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

DNG was an Adobe initiative...

[LocalHero1953]

This image has Content Authentication added to the metadata.
It was a Q3 43 raw file edited in LR Classic and exported with CA. If I drag it into the Adobe inspector, then the edit summary is revealed.

Edit. After downloading it from my original post, the Adobe inspector just gives an error message, so I assume the CA has been stripped. 
It would certainly be a lot simpler for each person posting an image to state the major edits - adding, removal, generative fill.

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!

Edited September 26 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

More.....

I added the Adobe Content Authenticity browser extension to Brave (it's a Chrome extension, and Brave is a Chrome derivative). It told me there were 'no Content Credentials found on this page'.

@jaapv - your new signature may therefore be misleading (unless CA checking works with embedded Flickr links etc).

Edited September 26 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

It is still in beta, it will develop and spread. For the time being I will mark images using Generative AI editing ( very rare) with GAI. 

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 26.9.2025 um 12:47 schrieb 01maciel:

Didn't I read recently that the Content Credential System from (I think) Fuji was hacked?

It wasn't Fuji, it was Nikon.

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Photo-news-Lessons-learnt-from-the-C2PA-debacle-10672949.html

 

[jaapv]

Correct - Nikon decided to go their own way with their own cloud, whilst Leica uses the system provided by Adobe. Obviously content credentials generated in the camera are more secure than the part out of camera, as encryption is applied at the source in that case. However Adobe does encrypt and tamper-proof as effectively as they can and is still working on the aspect to make it as secure as possible. Nikon's mistake was to take it too lightly, so it was possible to replace  the credentials from one NEF image by those of another. 
As it is, Nikon implemented in-camera certification for the Z6III only, now suspended. Likewise, Leica only certifies the M11, other new models will follow in the future, I am sure. This is a technology in the early stages of development. I think they are wise to follow Adobe, as they were with DNG. 

The Certification we are looking at in this thread, though, commences at the point where we take up post-processing, so this hack was in another part of the forest. 

[01maciel]

Yes, DNG has been a success story since its specification in 2004. However, this is only because the file format is open and not subject to any intellectual property or patent restrictions. It is also based on the equally open TIFF format with additional metadata-based features.
A lot of time has passed since 2004, and Adobe has also changed significantly in terms of its commercial goals. Their Content Credential system cannot be compared to DNG because it is not an open system. Other manufacturers can license it for themselves. It is “still” free for users. If I earned my living from photography, that would certainly be OK, but then I would probably have starved to death by now.
As I said, relying on one manufacturer and on their license-policy is risky. 

[jaapv]

Maybe, but the Adobe system has more chance of being adopted by the mainstream than a wholly brand-specific one like Nikon which even has its own closed Cloud. 

[jaapv]

I just updated my Photoshop from PS 26 to PS 27 and noticed that Adobe has integrated full generative AI. Their examples are exchanging sunglasses for lightly tinted metal framed ones, including visible eyes. And adding a snake on the shoulder of the model. A bridge too far for me.
I think that it becomes more and more necessary to disclose our workflow. Personally I find the one-click Content Credentials in Adobe a good tool for the purpose -provided that I remember to hit the blue button.  I attach the credentials to about all images I post by now, irrespective whether my workflow has used generative AI or not. I find it hard to distinguish ethically between removing a dust spot from the sky or a sign in front of an exhibit, for instance. The latter involves AI based selection and generative fill, the former more “classic “ pixel replacement. 

[SrMi]

What about the reflection removal tool? What about manually cloning out elements in PS or LrC.

AI makes it easier; most things it does can be done manually, but require more skills.

I feel that anything that changes the content—not only the meaning of an image—should/could be labeled as such, regardless of whether AI was used. Also, such a modified image is no less worthy on its own. The result is what counts.

"Ethics" should be applied in competitions and photojournalism, but not in art photography.

[LocalHero1953]

Everyone has their personal limits of acceptable AI. I also use the Content Credentials/Authenticity tools whenever possible, so others (if they are curious) can see a summary of what I've done.

For my photography of drama and other performance, I am happy to remove a power socket, a green exit sign or a red fire extinguisher if I find them distracting. I'm not trying to win awards, just depict the performance. I may also remove body parts protruding into the frame, but less often.

For portraits (headshots for publicity, or photos for social media profiles) my normal practice is to remove anything temporary (pimples) but leave the permanent (birthmarks). And since the high res digital camera can show us skin texture in finest detail, even though we might not notice it when we're looking at a living, breathing, talking human being, I often soften the skin. The camera may show us reality, but it's not the same reality we see ourselves.

Edited November 10 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

29 minutes ago, SrMi said:

What about the reflection removal tool? What about manually cloning out elements in PS or LrC.

AI makes it easier; most things it does can be done manually, but require more skills.

I feel that anything that changes the content—not only the meaning of an image—should/could be labeled as such, regardless of whether AI was used. Also, such a modified image is no less worthy on its own. The result is what counts.

"Ethics" should be applied in competitions and photojournalism, but not in art photography.

Ethics are personal and not dependent on circumstances for me. I have no problem with AI tools as such but I do think that a photograph should be something like a photograph and not a virtual creation  without labeling it as such. The difficult bit is where to draw the line between the two. Which is why my workflow is completely transparent to anybody who can be bothered to view the credentials 

BTW I find it presumptuous to label my photographs “art”. Craft would be more accurate. 

[SrMi]

I want to repeat my question: why single out AI-based image modifications but skip over manually made modifications? Is it because the latter requires more skills? Is it because AI bashing is in vogue?

The fact that AI makes many tasks easier (not necessarily better) will increase the prevalence of modified images. But that does not make them less "honest" than manually modified images.

[jaapv]

Which I do not. I thought that was clear from my post. I find it hard to separate the two. Thus the credentials to make it transparent. 

[LocalHero1953]

9 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I want to repeat my question: why single out AI-based image modifications but skip over manually made modifications? Is it because the latter requires more skills? Is it because AI bashing is in vogue?

The fact that AI makes many tasks easier (not necessarily better) will increase the prevalence of modified images. But that does not make them less "honest" than manually modified images.

It's the increasing prevalence, ease and quality of modifications, which happen to be facilitated by AI, that determine my choices - it's not the AI in itself. I want to know if and how an image has been significantly altered, and I want to provide that information to others. 'Significantly' is also a subjective choice.

[SrMi]

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Ethics are personal and not dependent on circumstances for me.

As I mentioned, ethics or rules are clearly defined in competitions (e.g., WPY) and journalism. Breaking them has consequences.

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I have no problem with AI tools as such but I do think that a photograph should be something like a photograph and not a virtual creation  without labeling it as such.

I follow the recommendation of a well-known nature photographer: it is my image and I can do whatever I want with it. The outcome is what counts.

I really like Rhein II, which is considered a photograph (it contains many cloned-out elements).

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

BTW I find it presumptuous to label my photographs “art”. Craft would be more accurate. 

Yeah, I follow that, but I certainly think some photographs are art and some are not.

I believe that craft is necessary for good art, but craft is about skills, while art is about imagination. That was significantly simplified. 😁

[jaapv]

Rules are laid down by others. Ethics are personal. 
And I am one of those who simply don’t get Rhein Ii. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

There was a Gursky exhibition in London a few years ago. Rhein II didn't look like a photograph. I quite liked some of his others e.g. 'Amazon' and '99 cent II', but not enough to hang on my wall. A one trick pony.