Real iPhone Photo Disqualified from Photography Contest, Suspected of Being AI (theguardian.com) 104
An anonymous reader writes:
A genuine picture taken on an iPhone was thrown out of a photography competition after the judges suspected that it was generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
Suzi Dougherty had captured a striking photo of her son with two smartly-dressed mannequins in an intriguing pose while visiting a Gucci exhibition. Happy with her creation, she entered it into a photo competition.
Dougherty didn't think much more of it until a friend showed her an Instagram post declaring her photo ineligible because the competition's organizers suspected it to be an AI image.
"I wouldn't even know how to do an AI photo," Dougherty tells The Guardian. "I'm just getting my head around ChatGPT."
Suzi Dougherty had captured a striking photo of her son with two smartly-dressed mannequins in an intriguing pose while visiting a Gucci exhibition. Happy with her creation, she entered it into a photo competition.
Dougherty didn't think much more of it until a friend showed her an Instagram post declaring her photo ineligible because the competition's organizers suspected it to be an AI image.
"I wouldn't even know how to do an AI photo," Dougherty tells The Guardian. "I'm just getting my head around ChatGPT."
Every photo made by Iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
is somewhat IA generated
Re:Every photo made by Iphone (Score:5, Insightful)
This cannot be understated. I always (try to) point out fake points in "perfect" iphone photos. While it is not always possible, the photos you get from it are *not* the immediate result of what was in front of you. It applies some beautifying whether you like it or not.
Re:Every photo made by Iphone (Score:4, Interesting)
This cannot be understated. I always (try to) point out fake points in "perfect" iphone photos. While it is not always possible, the photos you get from it are *not* the immediate result of what was in front of you. It applies some beautifying whether you like it or not.
Do you endorse the Henri Cartier Bresson school of no manipulation or cropping is allowed? What was on the film or sensor is sacrosanct?
I always enjoy the HCB conversations. you end up getting into lenses F-Stops, focal lengths, circles of confusion. and other things that define a proper picture.
Not trying to be a smartass, they are fun conversations.
Re: Every photo made by Iphone (Score:4, Funny)
As long as it doesn't descend into audiophile levels of pedantry and woo you're completely ok.
"This wooden lens gives a warmer and richer feel than those sterile glass lenses."
Re: Every photo made by Iphone (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the connectors must be gold plated.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the connectors must be gold plated.
A guy tried to sell me some gold plated fuses a few years back. Said they'd really enrich the sound.
The only thing getting enriched was his wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I swear on bespoke copper-based USB cables for transferring photos from my DSLR to my computer. You can just tell the humanity in the meticulously handcrafted bits that these soulful cables deliver. The harmonious marriage of intimate colors and pure gamma adjustments resonate deeply with me. These cables are my sanctuary, they provide truly a transcendental, velvety experience reserved for only the most discerning eyes.
Be careful though! Unless your computer is sitting on hand polished photon control rocks, the images can become unbalanced and swashy. We never want swashy images, as the can destroy the feng shui of the room and dessicate your hard drive, or incorporate blanket bits in your SSD.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it doesn't descend into audiophile levels of pedantry and woo you're completely ok.
"This wooden lens gives a warmer and richer feel than those sterile glass lenses."
Apt if scary comparison! In the art world, there are some people that speak in the the same universe as the audiophiles.
Re: (Score:2)
I always enjoy the HCB conversations. you end up getting into lenses F-Stops, focal lengths, circles of confusion. and other things that define a proper picture.
These are all manipulation as well. You're using a piece of glass to artificially modify the image that is falling upon the sensor. It is an equal to an AI cropper working in real-time.
Re: (Score:2)
Since I don't own one, I can't say to what degree computational photography can be disabled on an iPhone. I am aware that my Android phone does a certain amount of sharpening and skin smoothing that I can't take out even when I shoot in manual mode and use camera raw data rather than let my phone process the image directly to a JPG. I am aware that some phones are worse offenders than others in that department.
It is fair to say that smartphones are a lot closer to being AI-assisted output for pretty much al
What phone? My Galaxy S23 will shoot pure raw (Score:2)
The optional "Expert Raw" mode on the Galaxys will spit out a straight, completely un-computationally-twiddled raw image to drop into Lightroom. I usually just leave it in regular and let it do its thing, since I don't mind the enhanced imagery, but in that line of phones at least the feature is there.
Re: (Score:2)
The optional "Expert Raw" mode on the Galaxys will spit out a straight, completely un-computationally-twiddled raw image to drop into Lightroom. I usually just leave it in regular and let it do its thing, since I don't mind the enhanced imagery, but in that line of phones at least the feature is there.
I think as long as it doesn't muck with the image, it's no problem. There are still enough technical limitations with a smartphone that if I want a so called "real" image, with all the features of Depth of Field and total control of shutter speed and F-stop, I'll use my DSLR.
Smartphone cameras have indeed come a long way, and I use mine a lot. But technically they don't compare to a good DSLR.
Re: What phone? My Galaxy S23 will shoot pure raw (Score:2)
Yeah, for premeditated "real" photography I almost always use my DSLR or film, but "the best camera is the one you have on you" so it is nice to have the option with the phone. Then again, as I said I generally like the automatic output (big fan of Velvia and phones seem to strive for that look these days) so oftentimes I'm content just leaving it in Photo modeâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, for premeditated "real" photography I almost always use my DSLR or film, but "the best camera is the one you have on you" so it is nice to have the option with the phone. Then again, as I said I generally like the automatic output (big fan of Velvia and phones seem to strive for that look these days) so oftentimes I'm content just leaving it in Photo modeâ¦
Yes, the vividness is very good. Another advantage of the smartphone at least for me, is the lack of the S-Curve for the most part. Dealing with the S-curve of films can be a nuisance when trying to get something like HDR. I do occasionally force an S-Curve on digital imagery when I want to go for that look.
I've never used Velvia film, although the description sounds similar to the old Kodak 160 tungsten slide film, which had nice vibrant colors.
And indeed, sometimes the smartphone is what I have on h
Re: (Score:2)
Since I don't own one, I can't say to what degree computational photography can be disabled on an iPhone. I am aware that my Android phone does a certain amount of sharpening and skin smoothing that I can't take out even when I shoot in manual mode and use camera raw data rather than let my phone process the image directly to a JPG. I am aware that some phones are worse offenders than others in that department.
It is fair to say that smartphones are a lot closer to being AI-assisted output for pretty much all photographs, even if most end users aren't actually aware that AI is being used in the first place.
It is a little like the choice of film for a chemical based camera. Each film has different characteristics, and lenses as well. Some of them are really big differences, like Regular black and white and color or Infrared Black and white, or the Long gone Infrared color.
The person taking the image should look at these as the nature of the camera/medium rather than AI.
One of the side effects of the move to the digital world is that rather than use on-camera filters, you can do any manipulation you want i
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the sensors and lenses are still mostly garbage compared to a full size sensor and lens. It turns out, faking it looks nice and nobody cares.
Re: Every photo made by Iphone (Score:2)
Ansel Adams did a lot of dodging and burning while making his prints. A sort of manual version of HDR.
Ah ... HDR. A technology not available to Ansel Adams and creates images of superhuman perception.
Is it art?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say superhuman. It's a way of faking dynamic range on paper and screens that can't actually display that wide a range. But the human eye can when looking outside. We're only just now seeing very many HDR displays that can go beyond 8 bits per channel and actually present closer to reality to the human eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Ansel Adams did a lot of dodging and burning while making his prints. A sort of manual version of HDR.
Ah ... HDR. A technology not available to Ansel Adams and creates images of superhuman perception.
Is it art?
Adams also had an excellent method of putting the highlights and shadows where he wanted them. Determine the Exposure index to put the shadows where you wanted them, with a system of numerical levels, then adapt the processing time to achieve the contrast you want on the paper you want.
In my college art classes, we even adapted his process to 35mm Black and white film. Using that method, you tended to shoot on 12 exposure rolls, because the process time had to be the same of course.
The final test for th
Re: (Score:2)
If the human makes the changes, it is art. If a computer makes the changes it is not. Art is part of the humanities, AI is not. What is it about this you don't understand.
If the changes are done in photoshop, lightroom, capture one, affinity, whatever, it is still done with a human's hand. On an iPhone, it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
If the human makes the changes, it is art. If a computer makes the changes it is not. Art is part of the humanities, AI is not. What is it about this you don't understand. If the changes are done in photoshop, lightroom, capture one, affinity, whatever, it is still done with a human's hand. On an iPhone, it is not.
Explain exactly how a image taken with an iPhone is artificial intelligence. For a really smart person, you at least don't think much of your opinion - hence the sissified Anonymous coward status. Good move.
I take images with my Nikon DSLR. I take images with my iPhone or my Samsung. I will use either as they come out, or work on them in photoshop.
You really don't know a whole lot about imagery. People have for years worked with things like soft focus lenses. A single convex lens which focuses differe
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but most photographers even don't know who Henri Cartier-Bresson is. I personally enjoy him because when he breaks the so-called 'rule of thirds' it's always highly instructive
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but most photographers even don't know who Henri Cartier-Bresson is. I personally enjoy him because when he breaks the so-called 'rule of thirds' it's always highly instructive
That's pretty sad re people not knowing about him. Some of his ideas fail a bit for me, since the camera itself is a cropping mechanism, and not a ridgid construct that you have to always adhere to. Cropping is cropping, be it in the camera, Darkroom, or Photoshop. I like a lot of his work, but the "clouds series doesn't do much for me even though I get what he was trying to do.
As my college photography professor noted - "It's really cool to break the rules, but you have to know the rules in order to br
Re: (Score:2)
My take is, if there is a photography contest, you have to enter photographs (can crop, rotate, correct exposure and such but no pixel pushing). If you want to submit something else, enter a digital art contest.
Re: (Score:2)
the photos you get from it are *not* the immediate result of what was in front of you
No digital photo is. The fact that sensors work by linear interpretation of light across an array of 4 pixels with colour filters mean you will always have some kind of computer processing to determine the final image.
The same technically applies for film too where the final image is not just dependent on what was exposed on the film, but how it was handled, what chemicals at what temperature and for how long it was developed with.
Re: (Score:2)
the photos you get from it are *not* the immediate result of what was in front of you
No digital photo is. The fact that sensors work by linear interpretation of light across an array of 4 pixels with colour filters mean you will always have some kind of computer processing to determine the final image.
Yeah, but modern cell phones take it to a whole new level, with things like artificial depth of field reduction (localized blur), stitching parts of multiple images from multiple cameras, and in some cases, even creating details where none exist using complex machine learning models [theverge.com].
At some point, it does start to seriously blur the line.
Re: (Score:2)
All the photos in these competitions, going back to the days of film, are manipulated. It used to be that you would fit colour filters to your lens, or adjust the developing process to give it a certain look. Airbrushing and combining multiple photos was possible with analogue methods too.
These days it's done in software, either on device or later on a computer.
Cameras are inherently different to the human eye, so every photo is either compromised by the limitations of the technology, or more commonly manip
Re: (Score:2)
If the manipulation is done by a human it is still art. Humans put filters on the camera to achieve an effect, they adjust the exposure settings to get an effect, they process the image to get an effect. The point is the human does the work. What is the point of a photo competition if all the work is done by a computer? Give your fucking head a shake.
Re: (Score:1)
That's no different than an analog optical camera. People still spend huge amounts of money for lenses which do the same thing as some fancy photoshop filters.
IMO there should be no argument that AI generated content isn't, still, art. You could generate an entire book with the assistance of AI and still say you wrote it, because you had to go in and edit to make it legible (or any number of other things). Nobody's ever said a person writing a book with a human editor was "not a real author".
However ,that A
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, while they MIGHT have the same end result, the road there is totally different. The difference between using a lens that for example gives a short depth of field or certain bokeh, and using a photoshop filter is that the first is done in the moment of exposure and subject to the laws of physics. The second one is done in post-processing and only subject to the imagination and skill of the digital artist.
Also, there are a LOT of things you can do with post-processing, especially digital, that is not poss
Re: (Score:3)
No, while they MIGHT have the same end result, the road there is totally different. [...] But, sure, if you ONLY care about end results and nothing else, "there is no difference". That is not how most people view something, especially in competitions.
The end result is all that matters.
Nobody cares about your "road". Your background, your story, your gender and pronouns are irrelevant. The modern world has moved past it.
Work from home -measure only results, right?
Creative types are not special. HOW you create doesn't matter. Only WHAT you create matters.
Same as the rest of us.
Re: Every photo made by Iphone (Score:2)
The end result is all that matters
If that were true, steroids wouldn't be banned from athletic competitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Every photo made by Iphone (Score:2)
The dumbest comment here. Of course the how is important. The how determines the what. Handwork vs machine work, bespoke vs. Mass produced, grass-fed vs grain fed beef, print vs paint, glued vs stitchedâ¦.the outcome is rarely judged on a single dimension. When you examine the outcome across multiple qualitative and quantitative dimensions, you invariably get into factors that are derived from the how.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, these days the backstory is what adds much of the value to art. If all you want is a pretty picture or a portrait of your family, there are plenty of people who can do that. Hand carved unique figures can be ordered to spec from China.
What makes art valuable is the history, the story behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm generally on the same side as you on it not mattering, but any value of art after its production is in the eye of the beholder. If the person looking at the picture thinks it matters how it was created, it does. If not, then not.
There are many kinds of pictures where the process is more important than the end result. Historical documents and pictures as examples of certain processes are some obvious examples. For competitions of certain mediums I see disqualifying pictures created in a different medium
Re: (Score:2)
Are you fucking retarded? This is about a photo competition, of photos taken by humans not computers.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody cares about your "road". Your background, your story, your gender and pronouns are irrelevant. The modern world has moved past it. Work from home -measure only results, right? Creative types are not special. HOW you create doesn't matter. Only WHAT you create matters.
That's quite the non-sequitur, snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the part where beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's say you used to shoot photos back in the film days and you have an emotional connection to the medium. Maybe you have fond memories of certain cameras, lenses, films. The picture is the end result of engaging in the hobby, not necessarily the goal. You might even be offended by attempts to replicate the pictures without using the tools and processes if that's the part you liked more than the end result.
I think it's similar to some ret
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the same could be said about a Canon R6 or pretty much any digital camera.
In many ways this reminds me of the controversy in sports. What do we consider cheating and what do we consider legitimate enhancements? Things change, and suddenly things like photography competitions and baseball don't make any sense. In photography our technology has given mediocre photographers the ability to do what the very best did just a few decades ago. In baseball the physical abilities of the players have far excee
Re: (Score:2)
The older the digital camera, the less processing they even offered. The goal was to get something as accurate as possible, and only try to avoid sensor noise and dust, and usually at a very low price point. This whole trend of being able to get low power processors with a lot of MIPS (or whatever you want to measure with) for cheap is very new. I interviewed once with a company that made a digital camera based on a MicroSPARC processor, almost 30 years ago now. That was an unusually powerful device, and it
Re: (Score:2)
is somewhat IA generated
No, generated is not the same as altered. Generated normally means de novo.
It would have to like, add fingers or something like that to begin to qualify as generated.
I Smell Lawyers Coming. (Score:2)
Scenes from an old Piranha movie with the boiling like water infested and swarming in them come to mind.
Rplace judges with AI (Score:2)
There have been several cases where humans judge AI to be more human than humans. As humans are poor judges, only solution is to replace judges with AI.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been several cases where humans judge AI to be more human than humans
Isn't that what Tyrell Corp was aiming for?
I just do eyes (Score:2)
There have been several cases where humans judge AI to be more human than humans
Isn't that what Tyrell Corp was aiming for?
Yeah but they never were able to fix that problem with the red pupil reflex. The owl, Rachel, and of course Deckard.
"Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your AIs."
Nice /s (Score:4, Interesting)
Dougherty didn't think much more of it until a friend showed her an Instagram post declaring her photo ineligible because the competition's organizers suspected it to be an AI image.
So, it was simply disqualified w/o any research/followup on those suspicions?
Reminds me of getting marked down on a paper in a college English class with a note that I didn't provide a citation for something I included - when it was actually something original by me. Guess I should have been flattered that the professor thought it could only have been from someone else / more notable. To her credit, though, she amended my grade after I spoke to her about it. Too bad this person didn't have the opportunity to clear things up like that.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Dougherty didn't think much more of it until a friend showed her an Instagram post declaring her photo ineligible because the competition's organizers suspected it to be an AI image.
So, it was simply disqualified w/o any research/followup on those suspicions?
Reminds me of getting marked down on a paper in a college English class with a note that I didn't provide a citation for something I included - when it was actually something original by me. Guess I should have been flattered that the professor thought it could only have been from someone else / more notable. To her credit, though, she amended my grade after I spoke to her about it. Too bad this person didn't have the opportunity to clear things up like that.
Cool story, bro.
But: Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I Often Quote Myself. It Adds Spice To My Conversation." --George Bernard Shaw
(note: it's uncertain if he *really* said this, but it is attributed to him. [quoteinvestigator.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they demonstrated they don't know WTF they are talking about
Re: Nice /s (Score:2)
I once won an art contest... (Score:3)
In 4th grade. Some kid bumped my arm and turned some random geometrical shapes into an eye with a tear coming out. After I was all growed up, my parents told me they had no idea how I won. Neither did I.
Re: (Score:2)
I did the same kind of thing as a kid once. I was looking at the wall not paying attention with a pen in my hand, that pen was resting on paper. I drew the most amazing owl on a tree branch totally at random. It was just a few lines but it was impressive. I can't draw at all.
It's not AI. (Score:1)
Large language models are not AI. They are a synthesis of that already written by others. Anytime you see "AI" feel free to look up and sigh. It's not anything intelligent.
These large language models have been trained on the output produced by as much as possible. Because of that they claim the US Cnnstitution, the Bible, and many other things are AI generated, because they know it 100% verbatim.. because they were trained on it.
Apple, iPhone, fanbois, whatever, please... let's not get into a semantics
Re: (Score:2)
AI is a term with a specific meaning, whether you like it or not. Your brain is also a "synthesis of that already written by others".
Re: (Score:1)
What is the specific meaning of the term then?
As far as I can tell the definition has changed several times in my lifetime to match whatever product needs to be hyped to generate revenue at that moment, going all the way back to sci-fi books. What people call AI today has little relation to the common understanding of the phrase 30-40 years ago or as recent as a 5-10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell the definition has changed several times in my lifetime
The definition, not that it's ever been all that formal, has been the same since the term was coined in 1956: the use of machines to simulate human intelligence. In John McCarthy's own words: "The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."
This is why AI deals with things like classification, grouping, certain kinds of games, and natural language pr
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine has convinced me to change the meaning I use for the AI contraction to "Apparent Intelligence". It fits much better the nature of AI. I invite everybody to do the same, so we can help demystify the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. It is next to impossible to change an accepted term that has stuck with us for ~60 years. However, if it can get some people to separate Skynet, The Singularity and other Sci-Fi themes from the real advances in AI, I'll be very happy to have nudged the world in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine has convinced me to change the meaning I use for the AI contraction to "Apparent Intelligence". It fits much better the nature of AI. I invite everybody to do the same, so we can help demystify the concept.
Thanks, but, looking around, I think that usage would be more appropriate for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much your term would help. "Artificial" means "not real" where as "apparent" means "clearly visible" or "obvious".
Besides, it's been nearly 70 years and pop culture has been absolutely saturated with it for almost as long. We're stuck with it.
Re: It's not AI. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it's clear that things like diffusion & LLM's etc... can create new things, so not sure why you're stuck on "they're just rehashing things".
Secondly, how is that different from us, what do you think growing up is except for observing your surroundings & 'rehashing' all your observations to become a human being the way it's indicated it should be. You end up speaking the language (and accent) of where you live, why would that be? If the AI did that, you'd complain it's just rehashing wh
Re: (Score:2)
It's also interesting to see how the measure for AI having intelligence just slides & slides over time. [...] And so the goalposts moved back a bit further.
It gets a lot less interesting when you think about it for just a few seconds. Ask yourself this: who is doing the "measuring" and who is "moving the goalposts"?
The answer is the same for both: armchair philosophers with no formal background in AI. Just like the people on the other side claiming that these things really are "intelligent", whatever that's supposed to me.
First of all, it's clear that things like diffusion & LLM's etc... can create new things
That is very obviously not true.
Consider a simple n-gram model for generating monophonic music. Our training data consists of sequences
Re: (Score:2)
>Consider a simple n-gram model for generating monophonic music. Our training data consists of sequences of notes, so our model encodes the probability that one note follows some sequence of notes, depending on the size of n. Our model captures some, but not all, of the information in the training data along with some amount of error. Now, try training a new n-gram model on the output from the first. What do you think will happen?
>The model will degrade, of course! The new model will encode some of th
Re: (Score:2)
If something that simple causes your model to collapse in one or two iterations, you had a bad dataset to begin with.
Model collapse isn't a singular dramatic event like a building collapsing. How you came to that conclusion, I'll never know. The term just describes information loss / increasing homogeneity caused by training on generated content, as I've already explained.
The quality of the initial training data obviously doesn't matter at all. Your model will degrade as I've described because it will necessarily lose information.
This isn't speculation. It's a well-understood phenomenon. [arxiv.org] The term might be new, but we'
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, how is that different from us
You should be able to answer this for yourself by now.
Yeah, if you leave people completely alone, letting them just stuck in cycles with their own thoughts, those thoughts just become clearer & clearer and.... oh wait ... no, that's how people go insane.
Modern smartphone photos are AI doctored (Score:3)
This has been the case for well over 5 years already. Smartphone photos are already automatically edited and have filters applied. Many photo effects that are only possible with certain lens combinations like bokeh/depth-of-field effects are basically generated in software on a smartphone. Apple and Google have put significant effort into making the pictures taken with their products by people with no real skills extremely professional looking.
The pictures you take with a smartphone are not good because you are good photographer. It was also the thousands of software engineers building algorithms that automatically fix your crappy photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about photography.
"Many photo effects that are only possible with certain lens combinations like bokeh/depth-of-field effects are basically generated in software on a smartphone."
But not with AI. and would not exhibit the issues present in this photo.
"Apple and Google have put significant effort into making the pictures taken with their products by people with no real skills extremely professional looking."
Yes, but irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
There is an emotional response from photo effects. Things like bokeh, contrast, lighting, over/under exposure, over/under saturated, etc all produce an emotional response from people. The phone automatically picks out elements of the composition using machine learning (aka AI) to detect how many people are in the photo, skin tones, etc. Using this information, the photo is adjusted to maximize the emotional impact.
My point is that while some photos might actually look like an accidental renaissance, but
Re: (Score:2)
You better check again, they use computer vision AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge is very outdated. It's well known that modern cellphones use all kinds of AI's to improve your photo. The simplest example (that was also reported on slashdot): The phones that recognize you're taking a picture of the moon, and when they recognize the moon, they'll upscale it to give the impression the phone has insane zooming capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
The pictures you take with a smartphone are not good because you are good photographer.
Sorry but that's horseshit. All the effects, bokeh, and wonderful technology in the world count about 1% to the impact of the final image. This image here was disqualified because of idiot judges talking about effects. It's a good image because of framing and the subjects and elements in that image, something that your iPhone doesn't magically fake. The iPhone can't make a crap image good, it just sprinkles some salt on your shit sandwich. It's up to the photographer to choose an ingredient other than shit
There's a bigger question (Score:2)
How did this lady get a picture of her son in the men's bathroom?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, she took him him at his hand and guided him into the bathroom, and when he/they were finished with his business, they took the photo?
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look at the photo - we're not talking about a little kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on other articles about the same museum... it's a unisex bathroom, and the bathroom itself is part of the Gucci exhibition.
I agree with the judges (Score:2)
This image is quite suspicious. I cannot figure out the light sources that could possibly explain the crazy, splotchy fluorescent green on the pants of the mannequin without illuminating EVERYTHING else that would clearly be hit by such a light source and FLOODING the mannequin's back with similar green light and not hitting the female mannequin at all. There is no explanation for the crazy green in the image other than it was added in post, if there was ever an exposure at all.
Also, photo competitions wo
Re: (Score:3)
Judges make judgements, they are often subjective and there is no recourse.
Judges make judgements but need to be qualified to be able to make judgements that are credible and fair. They also need to be able to support their decisions with concrete arguments, especially since the decision is in regards of a matter of fact, not a subjective matter.
Those judges are likely not qualified to evaluate whether a picture is generated by AI or not, as they basically openly admit in the article they don't know enough about AI in the first place. They also did not provide any concrete argumen
Re: I agree with the judges (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the judges looked at the odd looking man and the woman in the photo and decided they looked artificial, like the people in that terrifying AI generated pizza commercial. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, this is a photo of a real exhibit at Sydney's Powerhouse museum. You can find any number of other pictures of the same exhibit by Googling "Powerhouse Museum Gucci Garden Archetypes". The mannequin's suite is green.
Some examples:
https://thewhereto.com/2022/11... [thewhereto.com]
https://mensfolio.vn/wp-conten... [mensfolio.vn]
https://vein.es/wp-content/upl... [vein.es]
2 questions (Score:1)
1) for the editor: why the FUCK would you post such a story without taking the trivial extra moment to Google and provide a link, y'know, to the IMAGE?
2) if this was just a cute photo she took of her son....why was she in what appears to be a public bathroom with him? Why was he there with 2 mannikins?
Re: (Score:1)
I *did* read the article, and that's where I realized that the article themselves was just linking from SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Which means that rather than handing revenue to the middleman, they could have easily linked the direct picture on Instagram, you know, like this: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cu... [instagram.com]
Pretty fucking hard, I know! /AC toughguy lol
Re: (Score:2)
1) for the editor: why the FUCK would you post such a story without taking the trivial extra moment to Google and provide a link, y'know, to the IMAGE?
2) if this was just a cute photo she took of her son....why was she in what appears to be a public bathroom with him? Why was he there with 2 mannikins?
Hey, Don't Judge!
Unless it's a contest.
Where are the mannequin shadows? (Score:2)
Digital signatures (Score:4, Interesting)
there's a mirror (Score:2)
Isn't it crazy difficult for AI image generators to create an image with a correct mirror image in it?
It's a pity the article doesn't mention why these four judges thought it was AI generated.
Failed the Turing test (Score:2)
I'm suspecting the jury isn't human but AI, and just failed the Turing test.
"I wouldn't even know how to do an AI photo" (Score:1)
"I wouldn't even know how to do an AI photo," Dougherty tells The Guardian. "I'm just getting my head around ChatGPT."
This is a great defense, as we all know, it's a very difficult task to google "create AI photo" and then type a description of the image you want to create into the website's prompt. It takes an EXTREME level of knowledge to figure all that out.
Take more pictures (Score:2)
I guess the lesson here is if you are shooting for a competition take a bunch of pictures at different angles so you can show the process if they question it.