Should AI edited photos be labelled?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not my favourite photographer - tastes differ.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Not my favourite photographer - tastes differ.

Has the forum been hacked? There's a post between mine and yours I can't report and is obviously spam

Edited Tuesday at 01:44 PM by LocalHero1953

[LUF Admin]

It’s was an advertisement…

Sorry for that, shouldn’t be visible to premium member.

[pippy]

On 9/17/2025 at 1:22 AM, jaapv said:

...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...

Yup.

Philip.

[Paulus]

This evening I was watching a famous dutch man, Jort Kelder who was cloned by Alexander Klöpping an AI nerd. He was in various Instagram shot, acting , as a clone. 
The shots generated 300.000 views each on insta. 
I realised that in 2 years, every digital picture and movie can be generated in hours without any real factual content at all!!

What will this do with movies, fake news on television, news reals ? 
 

The only way of making “ real “ pictures will be the proof of negatives out of my MP ? 
or even not? 

 

 

[Paulus]

Am 10.11.2025 um 16:11 schrieb 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. 

There’s nothing wrong with a snake on the shoulder of your daughter but people kept asking if it was AI,…picture was taken a decade ago:

 

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!

 

 

 

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

This evening I was watching a famous dutch man, Jort Kelder who was cloned by Alexander Klöpping an AI nerd. He was in various Instagram shot, acting , as a clone. 
The shots generated 300.000 views each on insta. 
I realised that in 2 years, every digital picture and movie can be generated in hours without any real factual content at all!!

What will this do with movies, fake news on television, news reals ? 
 

The only way of making “ real “ pictures will be the proof of negatives out of my MP ? 
or even not? 

A film negative is no guarantee that the image was not generated using AI. All that is needed is to first generate the AI image, then make a physical high resolution print of the image, then photograph the print with a film camera. In the end there is no way to distinguish between a photograph and fauxtograph. 

In the early days of the Barnack Challenge the rules said that the only permitted digital manipulations of the submitted scans were things that could have been done in the darkroom when the cameras were new, i.e., up to the late 1950's. That is the approach I have taken with my hybrid photography. I do save my negatives and unmodified copies of my raw scans but only to keep myself honest.