4 ms·

Hasn't this crossed over into being a philosophical question? You want to attest to reality or provenance. But then you start making lists of "acceptable" chang

by jamienk 15d ago

Hasn't this crossed over into being a philosophical question? You want to attest to reality or provenance. But then you start making lists of "acceptable" changes: file format; compression; color-correction; size; taking "medium" into account... It then slowly slides into "average human perceptibility"; "irrelevant details"; keeping the "spirit" of the image intact; judging the intention or motive of the user or of the viewer; aligning the image with "values"; appropriate/legal use... etc. Not sure what the end-game is? We are trying to make images in the AI era be as reliable as they were pre-AI? But they were not reliable pre-AI, it was just more difficult to intentionally doctor them.

another-dave 15d ago
I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.
- Gigachad 15d ago
  That's pretty much how the Apple one works. The raw sensor data is signed. But you have to process it because raw sensor data is unviewable. Provide the raw original, and the exact processing steps used to get the presentable one.
- 112233 15d ago
  ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper. Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case... You cannot replace honesty with tech.
- goodmythical 14d ago
  Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors? "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed" Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!" Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous. Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance. Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing. Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
  - jamienk 14d ago
    Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted. Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...
iririririr 15d ago
no no no you need to buy a new phone! /s
afavour 15d ago
I feel like we were already in a weird gray area. Cellphone cameras use all kinds of programmatic tricks to make their output better than the exact information the lens captures. I think people just didn’t realize how much their phones were doing. Is that “fake”?
- imagetic 14d ago
  Yes.
- goodmythical 14d ago
  Any capturing device is only every going to offer a symbol of the light that traversed it's aperture. Even a camera obscura with a strip of film inside contains some adjustment to the "actual" image. If I expose the film for longer/shorter or during differing weather conditions, or near a train, etc, the developed film is going to have an appearance that may tinge the viewers perception of the subject. A short exposure, slightly off tilt, during a partially cloudy day, and a 'proper' exposure, rightly aligned, during full sun at noon, both of the same subject, both taken as soon as the photographer could to meet the deadline, both published on the front page of a newpaper, will give readers wildly different tastes for the subject. Even two different b/w films will have different brightness/contrast etc, and the color films vary even more, with some punching various red/blue/green levels. That's all without necessary deliberate intervention of the photographer. Once you get in to artistic license, you've got an even wider range. Taken from a low angle to add gravitas, taken from a high angle to minimize chin and highlight chest, with special lights to deepen shadows, with/without normal/stage makeup to add anything from regality to poverty. Taken in one's very nicest clothing, with family that is never around, while everyone has a congenial expression. (Aww, look at this lovely family)(look at the grand barren desert monument off in the wild dunes that is clearly not littered with tourists and a short walk from downtown cairo) This is easily noticeable if you've seen both a wedding and it's final professional photos. The lights didn't look like that. Where'd the audience around their first dance go? Holy shit, she looked good, but not that good. Many have often taken photography as if it offers a genuine view of a thing at a time. We even sometimes call historical representations "snapshots". But it's never been the case. Not sure I'd really call any photo a fake per se, they're all just representations. I suppose the fakeness comes from outside the image: the framing. If one edits a picture of a park and says "come to Always Sunny Perfect Awesomeville Where it Never Rains and is Always Full of Butterflies", then one has lied as it definitely rains there and there's certainly not always butterflies. One producing a deepfake is doing the same: capturing something they'd like captured. If it is represented as a photograph, then, sure, there's a lie; there was no photograph. But both the image with the clothes on (with lighting, editting, and makeup) and without are the same "here's what I thought it should look like" rather than "here's an exact transcript of the actual arrangement of this particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum that would have met my eye at the time"

by jamienk 15d ago

another-dave 15d ago

I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.

Gigachad 15d ago
That's pretty much how the Apple one works. The raw sensor data is signed. But you have to process it because raw sensor data is unviewable. Provide the raw original, and the exact processing steps used to get the presentable one.
112233 15d ago
ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper. Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case... You cannot replace honesty with tech.
goodmythical 14d ago
Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors? "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed" Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!" Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous. Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance. Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing. Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
- jamienk 14d ago
  Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted. Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...

iririririr 15d ago

no no no you need to buy a new phone! /s

afavour 15d ago

I feel like we were already in a weird gray area. Cellphone cameras use all kinds of programmatic tricks to make their output better than the exact information the lens captures. I think people just didn’t realize how much their phones were doing. Is that “fake”?

imagetic 14d ago
Yes.
goodmythical 14d ago
Any capturing device is only every going to offer a symbol of the light that traversed it's aperture. Even a camera obscura with a strip of film inside contains some adjustment to the "actual" image. If I expose the film for longer/shorter or during differing weather conditions, or near a train, etc, the developed film is going to have an appearance that may tinge the viewers perception of the subject. A short exposure, slightly off tilt, during a partially cloudy day, and a 'proper' exposure, rightly aligned, during full sun at noon, both of the same subject, both taken as soon as the photographer could to meet the deadline, both published on the front page of a newpaper, will give readers wildly different tastes for the subject. Even two different b/w films will have different brightness/contrast etc, and the color films vary even more, with some punching various red/blue/green levels. That's all without necessary deliberate intervention of the photographer. Once you get in to artistic license, you've got an even wider range. Taken from a low angle to add gravitas, taken from a high angle to minimize chin and highlight chest, with special lights to deepen shadows, with/without normal/stage makeup to add anything from regality to poverty. Taken in one's very nicest clothing, with family that is never around, while everyone has a congenial expression. (Aww, look at this lovely family)(look at the grand barren desert monument off in the wild dunes that is clearly not littered with tourists and a short walk from downtown cairo) This is easily noticeable if you've seen both a wedding and it's final professional photos. The lights didn't look like that. Where'd the audience around their first dance go? Holy shit, she looked good, but not that good. Many have often taken photography as if it offers a genuine view of a thing at a time. We even sometimes call historical representations "snapshots". But it's never been the case. Not sure I'd really call any photo a fake per se, they're all just representations. I suppose the fakeness comes from outside the image: the framing. If one edits a picture of a park and says "come to Always Sunny Perfect Awesomeville Where it Never Rains and is Always Full of Butterflies", then one has lied as it definitely rains there and there's certainly not always butterflies. One producing a deepfake is doing the same: capturing something they'd like captured. If it is represented as a photograph, then, sure, there's a lie; there was no photograph. But both the image with the clothes on (with lighting, editting, and makeup) and without are the same "here's what I thought it should look like" rather than "here's an exact transcript of the actual arrangement of this particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum that would have met my eye at the time"