In my opinion, the most interesting thing about this whole AI thing is not whether it will effectively ruin the integrity of the online photography space, because I think that's absolutely inevitable at this point. It seems certain that it will improve to a point that spotting the differences will be extremely difficult. I think the most interesting thing will be to see how many photographers handle the reality that they need to start photographing only for themselves, and not for an online audience who may start to doubt whether the images are even real anymore. Of course, this excludes photographers whose jobs are to capture reality for others such as private event photographers.
@@kingkevinhectorAI can't produce images of specific places, it produces generic images such as a lighthouse in a storm etc. Landscape photography is safe for a while as, there are literally thousands of places to replicate. In my landscape work I have to specify the place it was taken and a description of the image. People could easily spot anomalies if I made it up.
@@stevenbamford5245 give it 1-3 years and professional landscape photography will be obsolete as well. If I was was a young photographer trying to make money, I'd be jumping all in on A.I. It's only going to advance from here.
@@KevinNordstrom I agree. I think that commercial photography will significantly decrease in areas where the authenticity of the image is less important. Areas I think will be less affected by AI are photojournalism, event photos, and portraits for professionals. That said, I think the last one will largely be replaced by the ever growing ability of computational photography to make cell phone pictures look way better than they actually are.
@@KevinNordstrom Nah... Sitting in front of a computer typing text will never replace actually being there, that will ware very thin very fast. There has been AI in various platforms for quite some time, I could create AI images right now but chose not to as it offers me nothing except the novelty factor. It's an empty experience with zero achievement. Moving forward there will be regulations to state if you created the image using AI I wonder what the client will chose ?
PHOTO-GRAPHY literally means LIGHT IMAGE. You need to capture light in order for an image to be called photography. I used to draw stick figures with magnifying glass when i was a kid, that's still fall under the term photography way more than AI generated Image.
Playing devil's advocate here, but any AI generated image could arguably still fall under your definition of photography. They're all based on real source images captured with real light. At the end of the day they're just very complicated composites of trillions of input images all blended together. Personally I wouldn't consider any composite image as a photo, but I think I'm in a minority with that these days. A composite image can still be a work of art, of course, but it's not photography to me. That's how I would categorise AI imagery too.
I think it's a mistake to call AI-generated "photos" photography. They're just 2D graphics that have been assembled to mimic the style of photographs the AI learned from. The images produced look like photographs, but they're exactly the same as the cartoon style AI images except for the language used to generate the image.
Inconsistent depth of field alternate interpretation: AI has mastered tilt-shift without us even knowing it. That's almost certainly wrong because there is probably little tilt-shift training data, but let's acknowledge that the plane of focus doesn't have to match that of the film/sensor
Most of these flaws could be tweak in "photoshop". Combine that with the fact that most "average"no photograph people watch a picture less than 3 seconds. Wonder how it will go in the futur.
Thanks so much, Tony, for your hints for now (April, 2023) and your warning about fakes to come. It kind of reminds me of how the fake Rolexes keep getting better and better and some fakes now are made better than real Rolexes of 20 or 30 years ago. Your and Chelsea's AI series have been top notch.
One more sign you didn't mention, but I noticed it happens a lot, including in some of the example images in this video, is the eyes! The iris is always perfectly circular, but AI doesn't know... yet...
Irises *tend* to look perfectly circular - in the absence of some diseases that affect the eye, and at ordinary scales. Irises look wildly different when magnified - see Suren Manvelyan's 'Your Beautiful Eyes' macro photos
Photography didn't kill painting, but rather allowed it to expand into places it hadn't gone before. A.I. won't kill photography, but will impact some of the things it is used for. A painted portrait is different than a photographic one, and an A.I. portrait will be different than either.
Interesting to hear the comment about Video AI still much harder. In 1966, Robert Heinlein published his novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Over 55 years ago, Heinlein had a character that was an AI becoming self-aware. At one point it created an avatar for itself for video calling that looked like a real person. The other characters were talking about how that would be impossible to do.
Interesting, almost makes you want to give up photography. Any image you produce will seem to be instantly questioned if it's real without much thought to question and research if it's Ai. As for me I will carry on though because I enjoy what I create even though I may be the only one to like what I produce.
If you look closely at the left eye vs the right eye, you will see issues typically with the left eye. Also, if you look closely at the jewelry chain lines around the neckline. Version 5 is improving but it still has trouble with these two areas.
This is a whole mess and even in its infancy the repercussions are already terrible. In 5 years, we'll be living in a world where we'll need forensics experts to tell us what's real. One thing that concerns me is that AI is entering photography's tools and we are giving it space in our workflow, allowing for unrealistic scenarios, nonsensical lighting, unrealistic human features to take over the audience's preference. For example, the AI denoise filters / programs - they create this waxy look to the images that is absolutely unreal yet I don't see a single photographer criticizing the technology. I fear that one day cameras will come with AI baked in to the system (as it already happens with smartphones - see Samsung's moon shots) and we will have to start using old gear if we want to photograph something real.
I’m a special effects enthusiast for movies 25+ years of training my eyes whats digital or practical. Really scary how easily people are tricked. Thanks for sharing.
Just me, or do all of these issues seem like they could be fixed with updates by next month 😂 Videos and photos alone are not going to be good evidence in the near future it seems
I’m surprised that with ai being an issue in photography now that the submissions require the raw photo also be supplied . I’m just curious if you put an ai photo in photoshop that there are certain tells as well .
I think I will just give up on images. I don't want to go through every single image and make sure it isn't AI generated. So screw it, I will just asume they're all fake for now.
Thanks for sharing Tony! Wow, it's kind of unbelievable how much the world has changed since I picked up my first photography book written by Tony & Chelsea...these are strange times... I'm glad Tony and Chelsea are still actively putting out so much good content, thank you both and wish you all the best!
At this stage, this is more forensic science. I think we should just get at peace with the fact that this new disruptive technology is/will be part of the art scene. Unless it's for journalistic purposes I don't see it feasible to zoom and do a microscopic analysis of pictures especially since those models are being trained now on hands... and will definitely iron out these defects. For photography contests, they should simply start asking for the RAW files as part of the submission.
It is amazing to see how many people miss the 7 fingers and crazy feet. AI also often goes wrong with teeth (too many, too few), but I know of few people counting teeth. Check out eyes. Often the iris is oval, but no one notices. Imperfections don't really matter unless you need to produce professional images. AI provides a new really. It is fine to have 6 toes and very few will ever notice. Most likely this "problem" will be fixed in a few months and we will need prompts to purposely generate photos with imperfections.
I hadn't really thought about how to spot AI images. Some are blatantly obvious, but it appears that many are much harder to discern. Lol, thanks Tony, for the AI video challenge! Coming soon I am sure.
Great guide on how to spot AI generated images today. But let's not forget that a little over a year ago most people would have said this kind of technology isn't possible. It's going to improve and it's going to improve rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if in a year even experts wouldn't be able to tell if an image was AI generated. Hopefully by then we'd have accurate neural nets for detecting AI generated images. BTW: There are AI video generators. The best known one at the moment is probably Google's Imagen Video. The results are especially convincing at the moment but it's only going to get better.
It really hurts everyone, not just pro photographers cause fakes are incredibly easy to create and fool people with, the amount of misinfo will only keep increasing. The absolute post truth era is upon us, can't trust anything you see anymore. Not even seemingly innocent photographers cause I'm sure it's incredibly tempting to sneak a few generated images to pad up portfolios. It's good that people are critical of these things nowadays but I have to really hate what this tech does to overall health of all forms of media. The cons greatly outweigh the pros imo.
AI is getting outta hand! LOL! (Pun on purpose). Anyway, I think that AI is in its infancy and is incredibly good for what it does do. In another year it could destroy many creative/photography/writing jobs. I think there will be other jobs too that are going to suffer. For example, the music industry just got sucker punched by the 'Heart on my sleeve' Drake song. Other artists are going to get mimicked by AI and 'new' songs will come out by them that people will enjoy. We are being sucked in to the machine and do not even care because we enjoy the product. I'm not even sure what I'd do other than photography because I can do only that one thing well, and AI is starting to look better than what I am capable of in a short amount of time and for free.
I don’t know what I’d do other than photography and I’m not even that good. I’ve just started to get the hang of it and the robots have come to steal my thunder!
I share your pessimism. For me, part of the joy of photography is being able to share your work with others so that they can admire it too, but now there's always going to be that seed of doubt in people's minds: is it a real image or is it AI-generated? At some point in time people will want to return to photographs of actual places that real people took with their own cameras, but for now no one can tell the difference and (sadly) people may not care.
@@MrsGypsumFantastic Hang in there ... there will always be people who want to look at real photographs taken by real people, even with all their flaws.
My 87-year-old mother furthered the idea of cryptographic verification. She says pros also need photo composite verification. For example, a digital photo that is composed can store (hidden but accessible with software) some limited number of original, "signed" photos used for the composition. This would allow artists--possibly with AI--the ability to do limited edits, sell artistic compositions, but still "prove" how real they are. A photo of the moon over a bay? Well, double click it to see the verified moon photo and verified bay photo. Meanwhile, normal generative AI systems could not begin to include all of the photos in their training set.
Thanks for this, Tony! Really appreciate you keeping us in the loop with the breakneck pace of progress with AI image generation and more importantly, how it's being used all around us. Please keep doing this as the technology advances.
Painters don't think digital painting is art, digital painters don't think film photography is art, film photographers don't think digital photography is art, and digital photographers don't think Photoshop is art. When do the insecurities and hate stop? This world will continue to evolve regardless of your fears and opinions. I'm so grateful for the diversity of thinkers in the world. If the world’s future was in the hands of the minds of this comment section, we would probably still be making fires with sticks because nobody likes the idea of creating fire from a lighter.
Good treatise of this Hot Topic, Tony! Indeed, we need non-repudiation of origin checks and proofs (i.e. integrity) using asymmetric encryption. The concepts exist ever since a longtime, now. It’s time gear manufacturers integrate this into their hardware. Just like you said in an earlier video.
It would be so easy to get around any of the suggestions for verifications, Tony, it's just the reality of digital products that such things could be faked, falsified or worked around... such as super high definition prints of AI created image then captured by a standard issue DSLR (off the top of my head, or a metadata editor program written by ai, "CHATGPT - Write me a program that edits the metadata on a .jpg")... but like, yeah... AI image generation is exciting + terrifying to anyone who makes a living with a camera. (and AI in general should be terrifying to most people who make a living... period... since it is rolling out every where).
Tony, all of your points are valid from an ethical and legal standpoint. i enjoy photography as hobby, but continue the need to point out AI photos. I use photography to leave a positive legacy for my nieces and neph. A historical record. Many human questions will need to be answered as AI develops. You should go on Dr. Phil. Keep up the good work.
There's one last thing: the image size. If the image is fairly large then it's probably real. Midjourney doesn't do images above a certain size. So if it's an 18 MP image then it's almost certainly real.
8:34 The depth of field thing - I think the woman on the left looks to be in a different focal plane than the woman on the right, but both of their faces are in focus despite the depth of field being very shallow. Also, the woman on the right's earrings don't really make sense. Nonetheless, it's still very convincing, I'm not sure I'd be able to spot the AI-generate image if I didn't already know.
Now I will be watching 👀 Just sad about how many times I saw an image and felt insecure about it. Maybe most of them are AI generated and I didn’t know it 😢
Hi. Great reviews. I want to change the camera, I have old canon lenses, I like sony a7r 5, but canon p5 lenses are expensive, the canon case is more convenient. Should I choose Sony a7r 5?
Fake AI images are just one part of the AI advancements. This week there was the release of a new music album by Aisis(Oasis AI band), the release of an AI generated song by Drake featuring The Weekend. Soon we will be able to create new songs from an artist without even needing them! Im a software engineer, but theses things are blowing up my mind!
Problems like fingers are already completely fixed in the current versions of image generators. Strategies to detect it with your eyes will not work longer than maybe a month or two. Progress is just happening too fast.
Man I'm pretty frightened by this. I have already stopped taking pictures because I feel discouraged now like the photos I take have less meaning when they could just be generated by an A.I. This really sucks.
I threw out my film camera when digital arrived, thinking it was all over for me. It took me 10 years to get back on the horse, and now love digital photography. You just have to think from first principles what it is that you're doing.
At the end of the day, though there will always be photographers better than me. I’m sure that if Tony or Chelsea took a landscape photograph and I took the same one, theirs would be substantially better. On the other hand, though I would still want mine. I’m taking the photograph of something that was meaningful to me at that time. When I go to a national park, there’s going to be professional photographs taken of the same thing that I’m taking a picture of that are way better. While I can appreciate the professional photographs, I’m there to capture my experience of the day. I always want to get better and improve what I’m doing, but it doesn’t change the fact that I want to capture the image. I think the same could be said for AI. No matter how good AI gets at creating the image, the computer did it. You didn’t. Don’t let the fact that AI is “better“ to discourage you from taking pictures that you want to take.
Back in art school my teacher came in to look at our life drawings and give us critiques. He had not seen the model yet, she was on a break. But he looked at my drawing and said "This arm doesn't look right, and that seems a bit ...." and then the model walked back in, disrobed and resumed the pose. The teacher was still sitting in my chair and looked at her. Then he turned to me and said, "yeah, forget everything I just told you." What LOOKS REAL is not always what IS REAL. Most of the tips mentioned here are far from definitive. Except the hands/fingers thing.
Among all the recent discussions of AI overall (visual and language), the Why Is This Happening podcast episode, “AI: An ExponentialDisruption” with Kate Crawford (4/18/2023), is perhaps the most informative, including providing a perspective going back over fifty years. We are on the verge of replacing everything from legal brief creation (including all the AI-generated errors, since the systems are simply language probability based) to computer programming (since coding can be done via common language). The human based training of AI systems is largely based on utilizing large numbers of $2/hour workers overseas, and AI results will increasingly reflect AI-generated material itself, scraped from the Web. I think the biggest near-term threat is to the upcoming elections, with the possibility of high quality false still images and video released on the eve of elections. No single country can legislate its way out of this, and I think we will need innovative technology to assist in distinguishing human created content from machine generated content.
I will be less worried about deepfakes, as such technology has been available for years, to the point that there is a whole business on adult videos with celebrities deepfakes. I will be more worried about actual bots answering in a natural language. Imagine the classical Nigerian scam but run by these bots.
I suspect that steganography could be used to embed a digital signature in each image. It would need the camera manufacturers to embed a private key and public key certificate (with the certificate signed by the camera manufacturer) in each camera, and an agreed set of algorithms (for the signature and the embedding). The business case for that should be clear though - the use of AI to generate realistic images surely poses a direct risk to their future retail sales ...
Hey guys. Y’all need to gatekeep this knowledge. I’m padding my resume with “AI Forensic Analysis” and “Prompt Engineering.” We can’t have this out in the wild and devaluing my well honed skills of counting fingers. 😂😂😂
I've played with the imagine app on my phone, which isn't generally as good as midjourney, but it's doing a really good job on skin texture, and occasionally gets hands right too! Maybe journalists will have to switch back to film, not too easy to fake a negative or Polaroid!
Most of the issues you're pointing out here haven't been an issue for months with freely available Stable Diffusion models. There are other things in these AI-generated photos that are much more telling, but you need to be well-versed in AI image generation to catch it. For example... that second sparkler...
@@TonyAndChelsea I think it would be especially helpful if you cleared up any confusion about whether or not Adobe ethically sourced their AI's training info. I have heard conflicting reports.
The AI photos look plastic and have weird eyes and skin. Confusion is when certain photographers process their photos so much that they look fake, like AI creations. Someone like Peter Mckinnon does that to his photos 🤣
I get the concepts that AI is doing with pictures. I was about to get envious of a photo. Until I seen it here and realized it was fake. Eagle with that fish. Im glad it was AI. Those are images a nature photographer dreams of capturing. Its the thrill and journey that makes up part of photography. I won't let AI discourage me again. I will see AI for some creative ideas to attempt with my photography.
The winner of the AI photo contest was perhaps an "AI thief?" and it is good that he declined the win, especially if he claimed the image as his own. Why? The AI prompt program either "stole or borrowed" photos from an existing database of images made by real photographers, then reworks the images. So unless the images are license free (because the photographer released their rights to their images) and the contest "allows AI photos or images" then maybe it is fair use. The exception might also include computer-generated video game type bodies which are built from 3D wireframes of bodies, provided the program is licensed to use these and also the author is licensed to use them.
AI will be the new Normal Tony, everyone will be a photographer and just run their photos through AI software. Us traditional photographers will be without a job or a extremally small customer base. Photographers will have to give up their day jobs and become influencers like some already have. You can't change the future, you can only embrace the suck.
Great video, their AI really nails the lighting. kahma is perfect for dating profile photos.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing about this whole AI thing is not whether it will effectively ruin the integrity of the online photography space, because I think that's absolutely inevitable at this point. It seems certain that it will improve to a point that spotting the differences will be extremely difficult. I think the most interesting thing will be to see how many photographers handle the reality that they need to start photographing only for themselves, and not for an online audience who may start to doubt whether the images are even real anymore. Of course, this excludes photographers whose jobs are to capture reality for others such as private event photographers.
Not good news if you're in the business of selling prints of your landscape photographs.
@@kingkevinhectorAI can't produce images of specific places, it produces generic images such as a lighthouse in a storm etc.
Landscape photography is safe for a while as, there are literally thousands of places to replicate.
In my landscape work I have to specify the place it was taken and a description of the image.
People could easily spot anomalies if I made it up.
@@stevenbamford5245 give it 1-3 years and professional landscape photography will be obsolete as well. If I was was a young photographer trying to make money, I'd be jumping all in on A.I.
It's only going to advance from here.
@@KevinNordstrom I agree. I think that commercial photography will significantly decrease in areas where the authenticity of the image is less important. Areas I think will be less affected by AI are photojournalism, event photos, and portraits for professionals. That said, I think the last one will largely be replaced by the ever growing ability of computational photography to make cell phone pictures look way better than they actually are.
@@KevinNordstrom Nah... Sitting in front of a computer typing text will never replace actually being there, that will ware very thin very fast.
There has been AI in various platforms for quite some time, I could create AI images right now but chose not to as it offers me nothing except the novelty factor. It's an empty experience with zero achievement.
Moving forward there will be regulations to state if you created the image using AI I wonder what the client will chose ?
Alternative title "How to identify AI photos for the coming few months"
Yeah so true. Soon the only way to identify AI will be to ask it what it would do if it found a tortoise on its back in the desert.
PHOTO-GRAPHY literally means LIGHT IMAGE. You need to capture light in order for an image to be called photography. I used to draw stick figures with magnifying glass when i was a kid, that's still fall under the term photography way more than AI generated Image.
Words👍🏻
Playing devil's advocate here, but any AI generated image could arguably still fall under your definition of photography. They're all based on real source images captured with real light. At the end of the day they're just very complicated composites of trillions of input images all blended together. Personally I wouldn't consider any composite image as a photo, but I think I'm in a minority with that these days. A composite image can still be a work of art, of course, but it's not photography to me. That's how I would categorise AI imagery too.
@@dan_ with that mental gymnastics, you could win a gold 🏅
I think it's a mistake to call AI-generated "photos" photography. They're just 2D graphics that have been assembled to mimic the style of photographs the AI learned from. The images produced look like photographs, but they're exactly the same as the cartoon style AI images except for the language used to generate the image.
Actually, the word "photography" comes from the two Greek words for light and writing/drawing. (Photos and graphos) Συγγνώμη που είμαι έξυπνος!
Inconsistent depth of field alternate interpretation: AI has mastered tilt-shift without us even knowing it. That's almost certainly wrong because there is probably little tilt-shift training data, but let's acknowledge that the plane of focus doesn't have to match that of the film/sensor
Most of these flaws could be tweak in "photoshop". Combine that with the fact that most "average"no photograph people watch a picture less than 3 seconds.
Wonder how it will go in the futur.
Thanks so much, Tony, for your hints for now (April, 2023) and your warning about fakes to come. It kind of reminds me of how the fake Rolexes keep getting better and better and some fakes now are made better than real Rolexes of 20 or 30 years ago. Your and Chelsea's AI series have been top notch.
One more sign you didn't mention, but I noticed it happens a lot, including in some of the example images in this video, is the eyes! The iris is always perfectly circular, but AI doesn't know... yet...
ah, interesting.
Irises *tend* to look perfectly circular - in the absence of some diseases that affect the eye, and at ordinary scales.
Irises look wildly different when magnified - see Suren Manvelyan's 'Your Beautiful Eyes' macro photos
It’s so depressing. It’s already nearly impossible to tease out fact from fiction - this is going to make it even harder.
Photography didn't kill painting, but rather allowed it to expand into places it hadn't gone before. A.I. won't kill photography, but will impact some of the things it is used for. A painted portrait is different than a photographic one, and an A.I. portrait will be different than either.
Interesting to hear the comment about Video AI still much harder. In 1966, Robert Heinlein published his novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Over 55 years ago, Heinlein had a character that was an AI becoming self-aware. At one point it created an avatar for itself for video calling that looked like a real person. The other characters were talking about how that would be impossible to do.
Yeah, one of Heinlein's better books. Was thinking about 'Mike/Adam Selene' the other day in re: AI atm
Unless its an artsy-fartsy contest that doesn't matter, I believe ALL photo entries need to have the meta data proven.
Judges of photo contest should be familiar with AI ....
Interesting, almost makes you want to give up photography. Any image you produce will seem to be instantly questioned if it's real without much thought to question and research if it's Ai.
As for me I will carry on though because I enjoy what I create even though I may be the only one to like what I produce.
I think the lesson that will be hard to learn is for photographers who have created an online presence and were confident in its monetization.
If you look closely at the left eye vs the right eye, you will see issues typically with the left eye. Also, if you look closely at the jewelry chain lines around the neckline. Version 5 is improving but it still has trouble with these two areas.
This is a whole mess and even in its infancy the repercussions are already terrible. In 5 years, we'll be living in a world where we'll need forensics experts to tell us what's real.
One thing that concerns me is that AI is entering photography's tools and we are giving it space in our workflow, allowing for unrealistic scenarios, nonsensical lighting, unrealistic human features to take over the audience's preference. For example, the AI denoise filters / programs - they create this waxy look to the images that is absolutely unreal yet I don't see a single photographer criticizing the technology. I fear that one day cameras will come with AI baked in to the system (as it already happens with smartphones - see Samsung's moon shots) and we will have to start using old gear if we want to photograph something real.
This is one of the most interesting photography videos I’ve seen in a long time. Love it!
00:38 EXACTLY. Well said. We have never, EVER spotted Tony's toupee. Just kidding, haaah! 😅
I’m a special effects enthusiast for movies 25+ years of training my eyes whats digital or practical. Really scary how easily people are tricked. Thanks for sharing.
IKR, specially the image for the contest. The author has been experimenting with photocomposition for years.
Just me, or do all of these issues seem like they could be fixed with updates by next month 😂
Videos and photos alone are not going to be good evidence in the near future it seems
All updates on AI need to self-destruct in one week :)
@@PrideSwim 😂😅🤣
I’m surprised that with ai being an issue in photography now that the submissions require the raw photo also be supplied . I’m just curious if you put an ai photo in photoshop that there are certain tells as well .
I think I will just give up on images. I don't want to go through every single image and make sure it isn't AI generated. So screw it, I will just asume they're all fake for now.
Thanks for sharing Tony! Wow, it's kind of unbelievable how much the world has changed since I picked up my first photography book written by Tony & Chelsea...these are strange times...
I'm glad Tony and Chelsea are still actively putting out so much good content, thank you both and wish you all the best!
9:16 also look at the left wheel on the right picture. it looks totally weird and doesn't fit into perspective at all.
Useful and a great presentation.
Next month it will likely be impossible to identify AI stuff
I can't help to think as I watch this... Thanks Tony for teaching A.I. how to fool us better!...LOL
I dub that thumbnail "Nightmare Tony"
At this stage, this is more forensic science. I think we should just get at peace with the fact that this new disruptive technology is/will be part of the art scene. Unless it's for journalistic purposes I don't see it feasible to zoom and do a microscopic analysis of pictures especially since those models are being trained now on hands... and will definitely iron out these defects. For photography contests, they should simply start asking for the RAW files as part of the submission.
Great video Tony. First of a kind 👍👍👍
It is amazing to see how many people miss the 7 fingers and crazy feet. AI also often goes wrong with teeth (too many, too few), but I know of few people counting teeth. Check out eyes. Often the iris is oval, but no one notices. Imperfections don't really matter unless you need to produce professional images. AI provides a new really. It is fine to have 6 toes and very few will ever notice. Most likely this "problem" will be fixed in a few months and we will need prompts to purposely generate photos with imperfections.
I hadn't really thought about how to spot AI images. Some are blatantly obvious, but it appears that many are much harder to discern. Lol, thanks Tony, for the AI video challenge! Coming soon I am sure.
Great guide on how to spot AI generated images today. But let's not forget that a little over a year ago most people would have said this kind of technology isn't possible. It's going to improve and it's going to improve rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if in a year even experts wouldn't be able to tell if an image was AI generated. Hopefully by then we'd have accurate neural nets for detecting AI generated images.
BTW: There are AI video generators. The best known one at the moment is probably Google's Imagen Video. The results are especially convincing at the moment but it's only going to get better.
Great video Tony. I like critical videos like this.
It really hurts everyone, not just pro photographers cause fakes are incredibly easy to create and fool people with, the amount of misinfo will only keep increasing. The absolute post truth era is upon us, can't trust anything you see anymore. Not even seemingly innocent photographers cause I'm sure it's incredibly tempting to sneak a few generated images to pad up portfolios. It's good that people are critical of these things nowadays but I have to really hate what this tech does to overall health of all forms of media. The cons greatly outweigh the pros imo.
AI is getting outta hand! LOL! (Pun on purpose). Anyway, I think that AI is in its infancy and is incredibly good for what it does do. In another year it could destroy many creative/photography/writing jobs. I think there will be other jobs too that are going to suffer. For example, the music industry just got sucker punched by the 'Heart on my sleeve' Drake song. Other artists are going to get mimicked by AI and 'new' songs will come out by them that people will enjoy. We are being sucked in to the machine and do not even care because we enjoy the product. I'm not even sure what I'd do other than photography because I can do only that one thing well, and AI is starting to look better than what I am capable of in a short amount of time and for free.
I don’t know what I’d do other than photography and I’m not even that good. I’ve just started to get the hang of it and the robots have come to steal my thunder!
I share your pessimism. For me, part of the joy of photography is being able to share your work with others so that they can admire it too, but now there's always going to be that seed of doubt in people's minds: is it a real image or is it AI-generated? At some point in time people will want to return to photographs of actual places that real people took with their own cameras, but for now no one can tell the difference and (sadly) people may not care.
@@MrsGypsumFantastic Hang in there ... there will always be people who want to look at real photographs taken by real people, even with all their flaws.
My 87-year-old mother furthered the idea of cryptographic verification. She says pros also need photo composite verification. For example, a digital photo that is composed can store (hidden but accessible with software) some limited number of original, "signed" photos used for the composition. This would allow artists--possibly with AI--the ability to do limited edits, sell artistic compositions, but still "prove" how real they are. A photo of the moon over a bay? Well, double click it to see the verified moon photo and verified bay photo. Meanwhile, normal generative AI systems could not begin to include all of the photos in their training set.
Thanks for this, Tony! Really appreciate you keeping us in the loop with the breakneck pace of progress with AI image generation and more importantly, how it's being used all around us. Please keep doing this as the technology advances.
Painters don't think digital painting is art, digital painters don't think film photography is art, film photographers don't think digital photography is art, and digital photographers don't think Photoshop is art. When do the insecurities and hate stop? This world will continue to evolve regardless of your fears and opinions. I'm so grateful for the diversity of thinkers in the world. If the world’s future was in the hands of the minds of this comment section, we would probably still be making fires with sticks because nobody likes the idea of creating fire from a lighter.
"You will own NOTHING -- and be
HAPPY" 😳🥺😱
Good treatise of this Hot Topic, Tony!
Indeed, we need non-repudiation of origin checks and proofs (i.e. integrity) using asymmetric encryption.
The concepts exist ever since a longtime, now. It’s time gear manufacturers integrate this into their hardware.
Just like you said in an earlier video.
By "manufacturers" do you mean who, exactly? I can run Stable Diffusion at home and not having any metadata passed on shared images.
Love the informative details of your videos.
It would be so easy to get around any of the suggestions for verifications, Tony, it's just the reality of digital products that such things could be faked, falsified or worked around... such as super high definition prints of AI created image then captured by a standard issue DSLR (off the top of my head, or a metadata editor program written by ai, "CHATGPT - Write me a program that edits the metadata on a .jpg")... but like, yeah... AI image generation is exciting + terrifying to anyone who makes a living with a camera. (and AI in general should be terrifying to most people who make a living... period... since it is rolling out every where).
Great video with many good tips and examples. Thanks for this explainer. I just sent it to my parents, who I know will benefit.
If AI was anywhere near where the hype is, it would be comparatively trivial to have AI identify AI created images. And that would actually be useful.
We can only hope 🥺
Images/Video should no longer be allowed in Investigations or Court Cases
Tony, all of your points are valid from an ethical and legal standpoint. i enjoy photography as hobby, but continue the need to point out AI photos. I use photography to leave a positive legacy for my nieces and neph. A historical record. Many human questions will need to be answered as AI develops. You should go on Dr. Phil. Keep up the good work.
Excellent video and found it quite informative. Look forward to your next update in June/August
There's one last thing: the image size. If the image is fairly large then it's probably real. Midjourney doesn't do images above a certain size. So if it's an 18 MP image then it's almost certainly real.
Thanks. This is a good video. “The way around this is to act like a journalist” is-for now at least-a solid piece of advice in my opinion.
A.I training engineers are taking notes ✍️👀
2030: Wanted: Photo Competition Judges, must be Forensic Investigators
8:34 The depth of field thing - I think the woman on the left looks to be in a different focal plane than the woman on the right, but both of their faces are in focus despite the depth of field being very shallow.
Also, the woman on the right's earrings don't really make sense.
Nonetheless, it's still very convincing, I'm not sure I'd be able to spot the AI-generate image if I didn't already know.
This AI stuff is creepy and getting outta Hand.
What do you think about apps like Topaz DeNoise for editing?
Now I will be watching 👀
Just sad about how many times I saw an image and felt insecure about it. Maybe most of them are AI generated and I didn’t know it 😢
And what's the issue?
Hi. Great reviews. I want to change the camera, I have old canon lenses, I like sony a7r 5, but canon p5 lenses are expensive, the canon case is more convenient. Should I choose Sony a7r 5?
these are great - where are folks generating these?
Fake AI images are just one part of the AI advancements. This week there was the release of a new music album by Aisis(Oasis AI band), the release of an AI generated song by Drake featuring The Weekend. Soon we will be able to create new songs from an artist without even needing them!
Im a software engineer, but theses things are blowing up my mind!
Problems like fingers are already completely fixed in the current versions of image generators. Strategies to detect it with your eyes will not work longer than maybe a month or two. Progress is just happening too fast.
Wow that’s great formation. Thanks.
Great insights. Thanks, Tony !!
@6:34 Is that Jordan from @DPReviewTV?
I agree, there needs to be some kind of image validation. I wish I could filter out all the AI generated images.
6:40 oh I remember that scene he just lit that lantern before heading into the cave
Integrity validation! Excellent suggestion!
Man I'm pretty frightened by this. I have already stopped taking pictures because I feel discouraged now like the photos I take have less meaning when they could just be generated by an A.I. This really sucks.
Imagine how us painters feel 😂😂
I threw out my film camera when digital arrived, thinking it was all over for me. It took me 10 years to get back on the horse, and now love digital photography. You just have to think from first principles what it is that you're doing.
@@sararargides4713 I can imagine. I suppose none of this matters if you do it for therapeutic reasons.
At the end of the day, though there will always be photographers better than me. I’m sure that if Tony or Chelsea took a landscape photograph and I took the same one, theirs would be substantially better. On the other hand, though I would still want mine. I’m taking the photograph of something that was meaningful to me at that time. When I go to a national park, there’s going to be professional photographs taken of the same thing that I’m taking a picture of that are way better. While I can appreciate the professional photographs, I’m there to capture my experience of the day. I always want to get better and improve what I’m doing, but it doesn’t change the fact that I want to capture the image. I think the same could be said for AI. No matter how good AI gets at creating the image, the computer did it. You didn’t. Don’t let the fact that AI is “better“ to discourage you from taking pictures that you want to take.
@@AndrewOzete-ui5fs YES 😳👍
Back in art school my teacher came in to look at our life drawings and give us critiques. He had not seen the model yet, she was on a break. But he looked at my drawing and said "This arm doesn't look right, and that seems a bit ...." and then the model walked back in, disrobed and resumed the pose. The teacher was still sitting in my chair and looked at her. Then he turned to me and said, "yeah, forget everything I just told you." What LOOKS REAL is not always what IS REAL. Most of the tips mentioned here are far from definitive. Except the hands/fingers thing.
Among all the recent discussions of AI overall (visual and language), the Why Is This Happening podcast episode, “AI: An ExponentialDisruption” with Kate Crawford (4/18/2023), is perhaps the most informative, including providing a perspective going back over fifty years. We are on the verge of replacing everything from legal brief creation (including all the AI-generated errors, since the systems are simply language probability based) to computer programming (since coding can be done via common language). The human based training of AI systems is largely based on utilizing large numbers of $2/hour workers overseas, and AI results will increasingly reflect AI-generated material itself, scraped from the Web. I think the biggest near-term threat is to the upcoming elections, with the possibility of high quality false still images and video released on the eve of elections. No single country can legislate its way out of this, and I think we will need innovative technology to assist in distinguishing human created content from machine generated content.
I will be less worried about deepfakes, as such technology has been available for years, to the point that there is a whole business on adult videos with celebrities deepfakes.
I will be more worried about actual bots answering in a natural language. Imagine the classical Nigerian scam but run by these bots.
have you done a local install of stable diffusion yet?
7:35 my man on camera right looking uncanny valleyed
i dont want to be a part of this ai world. nothing is ever going to be the same again..
I suspect that steganography could be used to embed a digital signature in each image. It would need the camera manufacturers to embed a private key and public key certificate (with the certificate signed by the camera manufacturer) in each camera, and an agreed set of algorithms (for the signature and the embedding). The business case for that should be clear though - the use of AI to generate realistic images surely poses a direct risk to their future retail sales ...
All those Highlights Magazines in dentist offices are preparing us for the AI future :D
Omg this is the freakiest episode 😮
These tips are handy, karma AI portraits seem very realistic.
We're going to have to have political ads with candidates holding up their hands now!
For a while 😳🥺😱
Some really helpful advice here. I was pleased with the AI portraits I got from karma for my profile.
Excellent video!
The tech is evolving so fast that the info in this video will be useless in about 3 days time.
Hey guys. Y’all need to gatekeep this knowledge.
I’m padding my resume with “AI Forensic Analysis” and “Prompt Engineering.” We can’t have this out in the wild and devaluing my well honed skills of counting fingers. 😂😂😂
Very instructive. Thank you.
That thumbnail though,Lol,the fingers.
I've played with the imagine app on my phone, which isn't generally as good as midjourney, but it's doing a really good job on skin texture, and occasionally gets hands right too! Maybe journalists will have to switch back to film, not too easy to fake a negative or Polaroid!
Most of the issues you're pointing out here haven't been an issue for months with freely available Stable Diffusion models. There are other things in these AI-generated photos that are much more telling, but you need to be well-versed in AI image generation to catch it. For example... that second sparkler...
Could you review the recent lightroom update? Especially the AI Noise reduction.
Yes working on it
@@TonyAndChelsea Thanks!
@@TonyAndChelsea I think it would be especially helpful if you cleared up any confusion about whether or not Adobe ethically sourced their AI's training info. I have heard conflicting reports.
The AI photos look plastic and have weird eyes and skin. Confusion is when certain photographers process their photos so much that they look fake, like AI creations. Someone like Peter Mckinnon does that to his photos 🤣
Im just here to tell that the thumbnail will follow me into my nightmares
So once AI gets to be able to do these things right, will it stop advancing? It can only advance to natural looking.
is your hair fake tony? its too good!
this is at the top of your best work.
Aliens don't always have symmetrical features or the "normal" number of fingers or toes.Valar Morghulis
I saw some AI photos that had weird characteristics on a website where the people had seven fingers, demonic facial features etc. Very creepy
I get the concepts that AI is doing with pictures. I was about to get envious of a photo. Until I seen it here and realized it was fake. Eagle with that fish. Im glad it was AI. Those are images a nature photographer dreams of capturing. Its the thrill and journey that makes up part of photography. I won't let AI discourage me again. I will see AI for some creative ideas to attempt with my photography.
What is AI for anyway???...
LYING 🤥
The winner of the AI photo contest was perhaps an "AI thief?" and it is good that he declined the win, especially if he claimed the image as his own. Why? The AI prompt program either "stole or borrowed" photos from an existing database of images made by real photographers, then reworks the images. So unless the images are license free (because the photographer released their rights to their images) and the contest "allows AI photos or images" then maybe it is fair use. The exception might also include computer-generated video game type bodies which are built from 3D wireframes of bodies, provided the program is licensed to use these and also the author is licensed to use them.
How about composite photos?
Thanks Tony.
AI will be the new Normal Tony, everyone will be a photographer and just run their photos through AI software. Us traditional photographers will be without a job or a extremally small customer base. Photographers will have to give up their day jobs and become influencers like some already have. You can't change the future, you can only embrace the suck.
Great video!
Tony's hair is AI generated....did you notice not a single hair moved while he was gesticulating 😋😁