4 ms·
Guess what? They were never real. From day one. I am sure Wired can do better than posting clickbaits.
by gchokov 3y ago
Guess what? They were never real. From day one. I am sure Wired can do better than posting clickbaits.
- vehemenz 3y ago"The New Pixel Phone Allows Laymen to Easily Alter Photos With Generative 'AI' Functions" didn't have quite the same ring to it.
- sublinear 3y agoLiterally the definition of an image: "An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror."
- baal80spam 3y agoThis depends on the definition of what is "real". I consider photos before the era of AI quite real.
- carapace 3y ago> A notable incident of controversial photo manipulation occurred over a photograph that was altered to fit the vertical orientation of a 1982 National Geographic magazine cover. The altered image made two Egyptian pyramids appear closer together than they actually were in the original photograph.[30] The incident triggered a debate about the appropriateness of falsifying an image,[31] and raised questions regarding the magazine's credibility. Shortly after the incident, Tom Kennedy, director of photography for National Geographic stated, "We no longer use that technology to manipulate elements in a photo simply to achieve a more compelling graphic effect. We regarded that afterward as a mistake, and we wouldn't repeat that mistake today."[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_manipulation#Use_in_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_manipulation#Use_in... the camera lies