As you know, the Weekly Group does not allow A.I. or other non-photographic images:
Only submit photographs—images created by light on film or an electronic sensor.
With A.I. improving so quickly, it’s becoming harder to tell computer-generated work from actual photography. In an effort to keep our rule enforceable, and remain fair and true to the group’s purpose, the Admins have decided to require EXIF and camera or scanner data on all submissions (see example below).
Most members already include this information. On average, only 3-4 images each week are missing it.
If you’re not sure how to add EXIF/camera data—or if your editing software strips it out—this guide can help:
www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404078521108-EXIF-d...
If, for some reason, you find it impossible to include EXIF and camera/lens data, please contact one of the Admins so we can work out a solution.
We won’t enforce this right away, as we'd like your feedback first. Please comment below. Thanks.
Only submit photographs—images created by light on film or an electronic sensor.
With A.I. improving so quickly, it’s becoming harder to tell computer-generated work from actual photography. In an effort to keep our rule enforceable, and remain fair and true to the group’s purpose, the Admins have decided to require EXIF and camera or scanner data on all submissions (see example below).
Most members already include this information. On average, only 3-4 images each week are missing it.
If you’re not sure how to add EXIF/camera data—or if your editing software strips it out—this guide can help:
www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404078521108-EXIF-d...
If, for some reason, you find it impossible to include EXIF and camera/lens data, please contact one of the Admins so we can work out a solution.
We won’t enforce this right away, as we'd like your feedback first. Please comment below. Thanks.
Stuart.67:
Roberto aka Nomadfoto:Anything we can do about AI generated reviews?
Please be careful with this particular. Your suspicion can easily lead you to wrong acusations as it is impossible to have proof that a review was generated by AI. Just because one may think so, it does not make it true. We've already suffered a loss of a new member after a false accusation.
Focus on content and disregard the source.
See if you find value in what's offered to you, and don't be judgamental.
Similarly, we critique an image for its content, the result.
We don't judge the photographer, we focus on the image.
ferlopez:If a person really wanted to, s/he could print out a purely AI produced image, then photograph and copyright it. The info is there in the EXIF. Easy!
Some people are prepared to go a long way when the greenbacks start flickering on the horizon, but I guess most people would not go to the bother to implement the mentioned measures. I certainly would not.
A couple of regular WEEKLY contributors are well-versed with AI – one adds 'AI' when used in their Photostream. And although I use an older PS which has no AI features, present versions do as explained here:
www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ai.html
Winter’s on the way in the northern hemisphere and those who shy the cold will happily get to work with the newest PS and similar software – ever more AI images are on the way !
John-Pa:Don't worry John, as any ad or PR agency owner will tell you, professional photographers are a dying breed – CGI started putting the lid on the coffin. Copywriters are in the a similar boat. Most photographers I know are struggling to find paid work – in the early 80s top professionals in Europe could command upwards of $2000 a day !
ferlopez:"But we're good and safe, we don't have a problem."
well... I would disagree. Both on the images and critiques front.
If AI content is, as you say, indistinguishable, than I hope we can agree that ruling out the fact that this did not already happen is an arbitrary statement.
Anyway, it does not matter, as we are talking about the future.. I hope this does not wait forever.
Roberto aka Nomadfoto:well... I would disagree. Both on the images and critiques front.
If AI content is, as you say, indistinguishable, than I hope we can agree that ruling out the fact that this did not already happen is an arbitrary statement.
Anyway, it does not matter, as we are talking about the future.. I hope this does not wait forever.
We are good and safe in WEEKLY because we have a very active and involved admin team who work tightly towards this end.
We don't have a problem because:
1- If AI content IS distinguishable, either the admin team can take action directly, or you and any member can report your suspicions to an admin (in private please) so we can act accordingly.
2- If AI content IS NOT distinguishable, its effect on the reason and purpose of the WEEKLY group is irrelevant. (speaking for mylef here, other admis may think differently but I think they'll agree)
I am not ruling out a fact... because as far as I know, there is no fact in existence since this thread was created. There's been suspicions and accusations but no proof, and without proof there is no fact. Unless you have solid proof, this suspicions and accusations should be addressed to an admin in private, otherwise you risk offending an active member which is an unhealthy and disruptive behavior I know you wouldn't intend. (this has already happened)
I am not ruling out the possibility of a fact either... reason why this thread exists and we're having this conversation. But without facts, we're only discussing possible outcomes that may never happen... so we're not talking about the future either... we're talking about a possible future.
There are two facts though... and very important indeed
1- You have the freedom to choose which image you'd like to critique, and which you'd like to skip because you think it might be AI generated.
2- You have the freedom to accept the received critiques you find valuable, and ignore those you think might have been AI generated.
Please remember...
- We critique the image.
- We do not criticize the author.
- We provide honest feedback that we welcome as such.
- We don't judge this honesty... we agree to accept it as such, or ignoring it otherwise.
????
perhaps we should consider adding:
- We agree to accept submissions as photographic photographs by humans, or ignore them otherwise...
- We agree to accept critiques as human feedback, or ignore it otherwise.
ferlopez:2- If AI content IS NOT distinguishable, its effect on the reason and purpose of the WEEKLY group is irrelevant. (speaking for mylef here, other admis may think differently but I think they'll agree)
I could not disagree more. The reason and purpose of the group is squarely centered on photography. Spending time and energy commenting and critiquing AI-generated images flies in the face of that dictum. Whether an AI image is distinguishable or not misses the larger point: this group exists to engage with the art, craft, and practice of making photographs.
ski 9:Thank you for the clarification, I shouldn't have said "reason and purpose of the group", which you state accurately.
I'll try in simpler terms,
When I study a submission to provide feedback, I either see what seems to be a photograph or I don't. If it looks like a photograph I asume it is a photograph and the author a photographer, then I study the image, think and articulate a meaningful feedback, and hopefully learn something new in the process.
Heavy treated, hiperrealistic HDR images for example, originate from merged photographic captures but become something that I no longer consider a photograph (digital art maybe), therefore I skip them and move on to something more interesting and valuable to me.
If AI content IS NOT distinguishable, it will look like a photograph, it may even contain fake camera data and exif information to pass inspection, and we will never know it is really not a photograph. It will end up being treated and critiqued as a photograph, therefore its practical effect is imho inconsecuential.
I do acknowledge though... this is not true long term... as the aesthetics and caracteristics of what's considered a photograph will get distorted over time, same as digital changed the aesthetics of film but both endured and coexist today. What's coming is hiperrealism and hiper-perfection and that will be the aesthetic of some digitally treated photographic captures, not just AI generated images. The old will remain, safe and sound.
That said, now as admin, our commitment is to protect photography as a whole and we'll do our best to detect and remove all not-photographic content.
ferlopez:If AI content IS NOT distinguishable, it will look like a photograph, it may even contain fake camera data and exif information to pass inspection, and we will never know it is really not a photograph. It will end up being treated and critiqued as a photograph, therefore its practical effect imho inconsecuential.
If I end up critiquing an AI-generated image that I believe to be a photograph, I’ve wasted my time—especially if I’ve gone to great lengths to offer suggestions for improvement from a photographic perspective. I only have so many hours on this earth and, if at all possible, I’d rather not spend them critiquing counterfeits ;-)
ferlopez:You will never know you've wasted your time because the AI image IS NOT distinguishable.
Just because I may not be aware of it, does not mean my time was not wasted. That’s the "argument from ignorance fallacy".
Premise 1: If event X occurred, I may or may not be aware of it.
Premise 2: I am not aware of event X.
Invalid Conclusion: Therefore, event X did not occur.
Corrected Logical Form
Premise 1: If event X occurred, I may or may not be aware of it.
Premise 2: I am not aware of event X.
Correct Conclusion: My lack of awareness does not determine whether event X occurred. In other words, just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Awareness and occurrence are independent.
Andrius Kirkliauskas:Regarding EXIF, please take a look at this AI image into which I've inserted my camera data, and it's displayed beautifully on Flickr.
It wasn't difficult for me at all. I won't reveal the method, lest someone unscrupulous try to exploit it.
I'll delete this AI image the day after tomorrow.
www.flickr.com/photos/138641841@N03/54818344758/in/datepo...
thank you for this Andrius
Andrius Kirkliauskas: Yes, we understand that anything (including EXIF and camera data) can be faked on the internet. If some unscrupulous people want to go to the lengths of counterfeiting photographs through AI and listing false EXIF and camera data......from a practical standpoint, there is little to nothing the Admins can do about it. Though I'm not sure why someone would go to that trouble. That said, we have always had a rule banning the submission of non-photographic images to the group. This requirement is merely a logical extension of that rule....spelling out in plainer terms the group's requirement.
If we were really out to catch cheaters, we would not allow people to simply post their camera/lens data in the description below the title of the image, in lieu of integrated EXIF and camera data. Nothing could be easier than that.
The goal is clarity, nothing more.
--------------------------------
RE: your PS - does it have the old "export to web " function? If so, you should be able to include the EXIF and camera data in your files. If not, just post the camera/lens data in the description field below the title of the image. That will help other members understand your shooting parameters.
ski 9:Just because I may not be aware of it, does not mean my time was not wasted. That’s the "argument from ignorance fallacy".
Premise 1: If event X occurred, I may or may not be aware of it.
Premise 2: I am not aware of event X.
Invalid Conclusion: Therefore, event X did not occur.
This IS NOT what I said
ski 9:Correct Conclusion: My lack of awareness does not determine whether event X occurred. In other words, just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Awareness and occurrence are independent.
This IS exactly what I said
Yet you are avoiding the point. I am talking about the consequences of the occurrence when awareness was not feasible. I never denied occurrence, AI is a fact.
While knowing you've been tricked certainly pisses you off, and you (we) want to do everything in your (our) power to prevent it from happening... aka... rasing awareness... reduce occurrence... the practical effect of the occurrence is, to me, as a Weekly member, inconsecuential.
But I respect you feel different and you're certainly not the only one feeling this way so I celebrate the exchange and conversation.
ski 9:Thank you! The problem is that when I save my work using the "Save As" function, the brightness often changes and the shadows are lost. This method does preserve the Exif data, though.
I now use the "Export As" function, but when saving this way, the Exif data isn't written to the file.
I'll work on this issue; maybe I can fix it.
In my future group posts, if the Exif data isn't written automatically, I'll definitely include it in the description.
I also have a number of images that are important to me to share in the group, but the originals for them have been lost. I'll be sure to include the camera and lens used to take them in the description.
, and anyone else using Photoshop that may have difficulty exporting EXIF and camera data with their files. Here is a good method, using the "Save for Web" export function:Menu:
File
Export
Save for Web
Once the Save for Web box opens, you will find file options, including:
file format
file size
metadata
Select "all" in the metadata box and you should be able to export your file with all metadata intact. PS will then ask you to "save" your file before you close it, as the export selections you made in the Save for Web box are NOT related to your save file settings.
See the two files below and let us know if you have any questions.
www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/78ovurusiziaj45w0xzxk/Screenshot-2...
www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ee7iwbp0hrgtdidpapxdd/Screenshot-2...
Andrius Kirkliauskas:Using the Save for Web option limits the size of a saveable file: if a window shows with
'The image size exceeds the size Save for Web & Devices was designed for. .......................'
simply reduce the resolution under Image Size.
Alternatively, depending on which version of PS you have,
under File, click Save for Web & Devices and you will see similar options to what ski mentioned.
ski 9:Хотя я не понимаю, зачем кому-то это нужно.
I knew a woman who took photos of other people's photographs, as well as stills from her computer screen, and then posted them in photo groups under her own name. When asked if these weren't her photos, she replied, "I took them, these are mine, I'm the author of them." Attempts to convince her that this was wrong were futile.
People are capable of great things for likes, recognition, and positive comments.
And they don't care that their methods are wrong and dishonest.