• Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think every touch up besides color correction and cropping should be labeled as “photoshopped”. And any usage of AI should be labeled as “Made with AI” because it cannot show which parts are real and which are not.

    Besides, this is totally a skill issue. Removing this metadata is trivial.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Some of the more advanced color correction tools can drastically change an image. There’s a lot of gray in that line as well.

      • BigPotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        DOD Imagery guidelines state that only color correction can be applied to “make the image appear the same as it was when it was captured” otherwise it must be labeled “DOD illustration” instead of “DOD Imagery”

      • IIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure But you could also achieve a similar effect in-camera by zooming in or moving closer to the subject

      • hperrin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        A lot of photographers will take a photo with the intention of cropping it. Cropping isn’t photoshopping.

          • hperrin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            30 days ago

            You don’t have to open photoshop to do it. Any basic editing software will include a cropping tool.

              • hperrin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                Yes. I think the question was should it be labeled as “photoshopped” (or probably “manipulated”). I don’t think it should. I think those labels would be meaningless if you can’t event change the aspect ratio of a photo without it being called “photoshopped”.

              • hperrin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                30 days ago

                There are absolutely different levels of image editing. Color correction, cropping, scale, and rotation are basic enough that I would say they don’t even count as alterations. They’re just correcting what the camera didn’t, and often available in the camera’s built in software. (Fun fact, what the sensor sees is not what it presents you in a jpeg.) Then there are more deceptive levels of editing, like removing or adding objects, altering someone’s appearance, swapping faces from different shots. Those are definitely image alterations, and what most people mean when they say an image is “photoshopped” (and you know that, don’t lie). Then there’s AI, where you’re just generating new information to put into the image. That’s extreme image alteration.

                These all can be done with or without any sort of nefarious intent.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Film too, any trickery in the darkroom should be labeled because it cannot show which parts are real and which are not.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      30 days ago

      Why label it if it is trivial to avoid the label?

      Doesn’t that mean that bad actors will have additional cover for misise of AI?

  • Hawke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    Better title: “Photographers complain when their use of AI is identified as such”

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      “It was just a so little itsy bitsy teeny weeny AI edit!!”

      Please don’t flag AI please!

    • CabbageRelish@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      People are complaining that an advanced fill tool that’s mostly used to remove a smudge or something is automatically marking a full image as an AI creation. As-is if someone actually wants to bypass this “check” all they have to do is strip the image’s metadata before uploading it.

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Right? I thought I went crazy when I got to “I just used Generative Fill!” Like, he didn’t just auto adjust the exposure and black levels! C’mon!

    • Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      30 days ago

      I totally agree with a streamlined identification of images generated by an AI prompt. But, to label an image with “made with AI” metadata when the image is original, taken by a human, and simply used AI tools to edit is absolutely misleading and the language can create confusion. It is not fair to the individual who has created the original work without the use if generative AI. I simply propose revising the language to create distinction.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        Where I live, is very difficult to get permits to knock down an old building and build a new one. So, builders will “renovate” by knocking down everything but a single wall and then building a new structure around it.

        I can imagine people using that to get around the “made with ai” label. I just touched it up!

        • parody@lemmings.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          29 days ago

          It’s like they’re ignoring the pixel I captured in the bottom left!

          Really interesting analogy.

          Also I imagine most anybody who gets a photo labeled will find a trick before making their next post. Copy the final image to a new PSD… print and scan for the less technically inclined… heh

        • Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          Or generated with AI like midjourney, therefore, made with AI.

          There a huge difference between the two, yet, no clear distinction when all lumped into the label of “made with AI”

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      yeah, i use Lightroom ai de-noise all the time now. it’s just a better version of a tool that already existed. and once that every phone does by default anyway.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      30 days ago

      And I use AI to determine the right brightness level for my phone screen (that was a feature added several android versions ago)

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Artists in 2023: “There should be labels on AI modified art!!”

    Artists in 2024: “Wait, not like that…”

      • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        no, they just replaced the normal tools with ai-enhanced versions and are labeling everything like that now.

        ai noise reduction should not get this tag.

        • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          I don’t know where you got they from, but this post literally talks about tools such as the gen fill (select a region, type what you want in it, AI image generation makes it and places it in)

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    No - I don’t agree that they’re completely different.

    “Made by AI” would be completely different.

    “Made with AI” actually means pretty much the exact same thing as “AI was used in this image” - it’s just that the former lays it out baldly and the latter softens the impact by using indirect language.

    I can certainly see how “photographers” who use AI in their images would tend to prefer the latter, but bluntly, fuck 'em. If they can’t handle the shame of the fact that they did so they should stop doing it - get up off their asses and invest some time and effort into doing it all themselves. And if they can’t manage that, they should stop pretending to be artists.

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think it is a bit of an unclear wording personally. “Made with”, despite technically meaning what you’re saying, is often colloquially used to mean “fully created by”. I don’t mind the AI tag, but I do see the photographers point about it implying wholesale generation instead of touchups.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    The label is accurate. Quit using AI if you don’t want your images labeled as such.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    or… don’t use generative fill. if all you did was remove something, regular methods do more than enough. with generative fill you can just select a part and say now add a polar bear. there’s no way of knowing how much has changed.

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      there’s a lot more than generative fill.

      ai denoise, ai masking, ai image recognition and sorting.

      hell, every phone is using some kind of “ai enhanced” noise reduction by default these days. these are just better versions of existing tools than have been used for decades.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    This would be more suited for asklemmy, this community isn’t for opinion discussions

  • IIII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can’t wait for people to deliberately add the metadata to their image as a meme, such that a legit photograph without any AI used gets the unremovable made with ai tag

  • Thavron
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    That’s the difference between “by” and “with”.

  • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why many word when few good?

    Seriously though, “AI” itself is misleading but if they want to be ignorant and whiny about it, then they should be labeled just as they are.

    What they really seem to want is an automatic metadata tag that is more along the lines of “a human took this picture and then used ‘AI’ tools to modify it.”

    That may not work because by using Adobe products, the original metadata is being overwritten so Thotagram doesn’t know that a photographer took the original.

    A photographer could actually just type a little explanation (“I took this picture and then used Gen Fill only”) in a plain text document, save it to their desktop, and copy & paste it in.

    But then everyone would know that the image had been modified - which is what they’re trying to avoid. They want everyone to believe that the picture they’re posting is 100% their work.

  • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    We’ve been able to do this for years, way before the fill tool utilized AI. I don’t see why it should be slapped with a label that makes it sound like the whole image was generated by AI.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    This isn’t really Facebook. This is Adobe not drawing a distinction between smart pattern recognition for backgrounds/textures and real image generation of primary content.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      30 days ago

      I don’t think that’s fair. AI wont turn a bad photograph into a good one. It’s a tool that quickly and automatically does something we’ve been doing by hand untill now. That’s kind of like saying a photoshopped picture isn’t “good” or “real”. They’re all photoshopped. Not a single serious photographer releases unedited photos except perhaps the ones shooting on film.

      • Zelaf@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        Even finns photographers touch up their photos, either during development by adjusting how long they sit in one or the chemical processes or by using different methods of shaking/mixing processes and techniques.

        If they enlarge their negatives on photo paper they often have tools to add lightness and darkness to different areas of the paper to help with exposure, contrast and subject highlighting. AKA. Dodging and burning which is also available in most photo editing software today.

        There are loads of things to do to improve developed photos and been something that has always been something that photographers/developers do. People who still go with the “Don’t edit photos” BS are usually not very well informed about photo history and techniques of their photography inspirations.