I use content erase, but I don’t know if that counts. (It’s typically for small distractions of light reflecting off of something floating in the air or the odd stamping out of dust on my sensor)
As AI removal tools are something I use on a daily basis I find this new "feature" is total BS. Marking my professional business photography as AI will seriously damage my business, just because I used a faster way to remove unnecessary distractions from photos. They NEED to add a way for us to mark and prove that something is not fully generated with AI.
I get rid of cigarette butts and oil spots all the time in my automotive content, I don't want a "made with AI" if I just got rid of some trash on the ground 🫠
@@ShotByKorzy Linear and radial gradients that you use in lightroom is generally very accepted. It has existed since the film days in the darkroom. But back then it was known as dodging and burning.
I’m a wildlife photographer and I have in the past used AI to remove the odd distraction like branches and rocks and things and to also extend canvas if I got the shot but the bird was too close to the edge and that was the shot I wanted to use. I see it as a tool to assist us with our editing process but I agree that totally generated AI images are incredibly prevalent on social media now to the point where sometimes you can’t even tell. Some are so blindly obvious but the odd one I’ve seen has caught me out. It is a tricky place we are heading towards. Love your content Anthony . Keep up the good work
I personally think that over-editing should constitute as digital art instead of photography. I leave my edits light (unless I feel artistic) and it’s just color correction to not let them look like raw files. If your colors don’t look like it does in real life, then it less photo and more digital art. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with digital art or ai art. It’s all art and it’s all beautiful if the creator is trying their best to evoke emotion out of their audience
I do what I like. If other like it great, if others don't great. I like my colors wet and blur the lines of photography and art. When someone is paying me, I will do what they want. Every image ever taken has some kind of "edit". Sensors, film, lenses all have different characteristics to light and color. What you leave in and what you leave out is an edit.
You’re totally correct! I also feel like AI has particularly ruined the photography community. Especially for smaller photographers. I also feel like editing too much out of a photo is a little dishonest. I try to avoid editing too much. It’s great you notice this. I’m glad you talked about this subject. Keep up the great content ❤
I'm honestly so glad you talked about AI in Photoshop/Lightroom, because I had similar thoughts a few days ago when I was using Generative AI to remove distractions in my photo when I thought, well how much AI should I use? Is my photo then fake for using AI constantly to remove certain parts? where's the limit when it comes to making use of AI? Personally, I see Generative AI as a convenient tool for making our editing process easier, which I believe is nothing wrong with that, because in the end it does save time and make the job easier. If it acts as a better alternative to other tools in Photoshop like Content aware fill or remove tool, then I see little to no issue in that. But I think that's something we will think of for a while as AI continues to develop and expand in the future. Great video!
I think they should label images that have more content generated with AI than actual photo with "made with AI", and photos that have only lightly been edited with AI (remove spots, trash, etc) should be at the discretion of the photographer and have the option to be labelled as "edited with AI".
I'm a wildlife photographer. I color grade(I use RAW so I have to) and crop. I want to say that I don't use AI BUT I use the built-in denoizer in LrC to recover extreme ISO case like 2-3 times ever. I don't know if the built-in denoizer is AI powered.
We have photos that we have used the healing brush to fix fly away hairs and basic editing and Instagram flagged it as AI. Yet, we then have not used AI at all and still get flagged for AI. It is interesting what IG is determining what is AI.
I had a conversation recently about Creative AI Tools, and a good point was made (and something I agree with): I want AI tools that remove hassle from my creative process, that makes the process more seamless and productive, but I don't want AI to do the creative work FOR me. Where's the fun in that? So to me, AI tools like masking/select, organizational tools etc, all sound great. But generative fill, or removing things I don't like from a photo, all feels a bit more soulless. I have fun solving problems when taking my photos, doing the best I can to get the best shot I can get. It's part of the fun for me, so I won't use those type of generative tools. And fully making an entire image just feels even less interesting - as soon as I know the image is not "real" I lose all interest. But with that said, I've yet to see truly helpful AI tools that make the workflow easier. Meanwhile, there are so many tools that can do the entire thing for you, so it feels like that's the direction we're moving in. Though I hope there are others like me, who will still want to view and appreciate photos of real places and people, with minimal editing, to appreciate the art of photography... (for the record, I prefer the your Osaka photos with the people in there - they were really there that day, so it feels like they are part of the experience, for better or worse).
I use generative AI removing. Why bother healing or cloning if AI removes the marked spot more realistic? After all you took the photo with a camera not with a typewriter.
AI generated photos aren't photos, it was called 'photoshopped images' and now should be called ai generated images. Not photos. And why on earth are people suggesting photographers to use AI generative fill? It's ok to remove unneeded small objects, but if AI is used for creating sth not in the photo, that's no longer a photograph, and certainly not yours.
As far as anything in art, I've always said do what you want with your work. That said, be honest about it. The "made with AI" bothers me when people do minimal editing because it puts full text to phot and small cleanup in the same box. There should be two - made with AI and edited (or enhanced) with AI.
I fully agree with your authenticity point. Wanting a photo to be what's in front of the lens is really valid. I also think it's valid to want to edit a photo to capture a specific feel. As long as it's labeled as you say, I think it's very fair. I think generative AI has a few big problems though. Too much to cover in a single YT comment. (I left another comment regarding the energy and water crisis.) But I think there's just too many problems even unrelated to just the ethics of editing photos, that I don't think using generative AI is worth it.
I know someone that posted a photo that was 80% AI but was very explicit about that she was doing it for fun, but people still were hating on it. I think the Internet just doesn't like artists having fun
"I want Al to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for Al to do my art and writing so thát I can do my laundry and dishes." Joanna Maciejewska While artists (illustrators, painters etc) have been against Ai A lot of Photographers have embraced it.
Interestingly I am a painter before I was a photographer so my images do tend to look a little bit painted and I don't make any apologies for that in fact for a long time. I used to use a program on an iPad Pro where I could fill-in areas in the photo with the stylus pencil and I almost combine my two passions which were painting and Photography and I developed my own star but not once did I pretend that the photos were real? I didn't say that they were AI but I did say they were painted with Photography elements built-in now I did that for awhile because I enjoyed it. However I've gone back to traditional landscape photography where the editing process is much more refined and there's only minimal adjustments made to the editing of the photo. I just think if you're honest with people and you tell them what your photos are or what your art is that's okay if you are into AI that's okay I'm not but that's by all means up to you. I just wish people would be open and honest with what they are creating and not pretend that it's something else. I think that's what annoy people the most is the trickery
Regular reels are being flagges to. I know a lot of tattoo artist who just create reels with a couple of their videos, don't do any major edit on it appart from cropping and clipping... And once uploaded their videos are flagged as made with AI.
Is using generative fill any different to those that replace skies with better looking ones? The trouble comes as there (currently) no benchmark for what is a "photograph" vs a composite or something with more than a touch of editing?
Yeah I agree, I think when you do minor changes like getting rid of some trash that you could get rid of otherwise is still OK. I also used this tool to get rid of the car from well touristy places or people so that I get cleaner shot, and sometimes the AI does better job. But I don't think it should be labeled as AI shot :D
So as a creator, photographer, whatever I use AI way more sparingly. Like to remove garbage or blemishes or the occasional person I think is fine. But I’m not someone who’s really into fully AI generated images outside of like a fun test to see what kind of thing you can make. That said this whole “Made with AI” thing is a double edged sword. I like it because it keeps the viewer informed that in some cases these photos aren’t real. However I don’t think if I remove a ketchup stain or a soda can out of a frame that it should be given the same “made with AI” tag cause truthfully AI barely effected that image. I know there a lot of controversy between purists and stuff about editing as a whole and honestly I think editing is fine. Not every painting of a mountain is how it’s seen, some people may scale them or make other changes so that it fits the vision of what they want to convey and editing photos to me at least follows that same principle. If it helps what you are trying to convey go for it. It may not be for everyone but that’s ok. Lastly if you are someone doing massive composites, or huge edits and things or large uses of AI in your work just be transparent about it. So people don’t get the wrong idea.
Just used Light Room AI to remove some dirt particles on my shot that I didn't notice on my lens. Must say I was impressed at how well it works and how fast it processes. I'm now conflicted. I had a wedding shoot a few months ago that this could have saved some unsharable shots because something in the picture I couldn't edit out without it being obvious I did so. In that instance does the couple really care if I used AI to give them a perfect looking shot, I don't think so.
Do we need a tiered system for edits…no idea who the creator of this system is but you could have AI1 to AI5 type thing and each stage has its definition.
I think it's brilliant, might revive photography in it's true form. People that actually take time for the perfect shot, spend months or years for the perfect photo will be rewarded (hopefully). If you want to remove things and change the image then it makes sense that it must get a tag There needs to be more ai tags everywhere, let's keep art alive and in it's true form. Sound like people are more afraid of being exposed then anything else or that they'll have to take more time and do more work to get great photos
I've seen a post on instagram that has been mislabeled as being made with AI, although in fairness it was a picture that an algorithm would be more likely to get fooled by. For reference, it was a photo on Mad Mike Whiddett's account of his rotary-swapped Mclaren P1 GTR drift car on the dyno, spitting metre-long flames out of the exhaust
This large RUclips influencer the other day posted a video claiming that his picture on Instagram had been flagged as AI. I went to the image, it was not flagged as AI. Most astronomy pictures are heavily edited, AI probably can produce the same results but faster.
The fact”nail-in-camera” is so normalized makes me sad - not because I’m against photoshop/lightroom, but because post processing has completely blurred what we understand to be real and idealistic. I use photoshop and Lightroom quite lightly, but with instagram, it’s clear authenticity has become debatable with this new “made with AI” tag, and I don’t think it’s a bad move if it’s making people improve their media literacy.
I don't fully understand the situation, whether its instagram automatically flagging content as AI or us creators having to declare before we post. If its the first option then I am against it. Instagram shouldn't be the ones who dictate who labels things as AI-generated or not, it should be up the responsibility of the person posting. At the end of the day it is a platform for many different purposes, news sharing, a virtual gallery of sorts for people to share their work (be it photography or other image-based art like illustration), or even a personal diary. Of course news and maybe some types of photographic practices should be grounded more in reality, but for some artists, sometimes having that label of generated with AI could completely ruin the concept of their work. At the end of the day, artists are trying to fully curate an experience, not necessarily provide a realistic snapshot of life. Also what about the AI denoise in lightroom, will that be flagged? Is using that creating an artificial experience of reality or just overcoming the limitations of our technology? Whatever it is, I don't think instagram should be taking away the autonomy of its users and hindering them from wanting to present their image in a specific way.
Instagram has been slowly ruining photography for years. This labelling is just the next step. I think it will cost them in the end - who is going to pay to promote a post if they have labelled a lightly edited picture as "Made with AI"? If I use AI to clean up marks on a studio floor, does that make my studio shoot "Made with AI"? I'm sure the model/s would disagree. There's a a difference between using AI tools and creating with AI tools.
Is the answer having to post your final edit along with the “semi original” for a side by side spot the difference type situation 😂. The reason I put “semi original” is because you can do all your colour edits and whatever doesn’t rely on AI so the photo is the same… other than the AI portions…I hope that makes sense 🤔.
"Maybe It's my photographer ego, didn't want to use clone stamping and generative fill, I just wanted to get that photo inside of camera"... Well I guess I also have the same ego and it feels very authentic to me. Though I use AI for denoising, object removal and masking.
I use a combination of cloning, content-aware fill and the generative fill, depending on situation. All are for what I think are minor edits, like removing a piece of garbage. Generative fill does a better job than the content-aware fill in some cases, and speeds up my editing. It does annoy me when I see the 'made with AI' tag now, since it groups my photos with those images that are created out of text prompts and someone's imagination. I don't think that's fair, and as those completely AI-produced images become even more 'photo-like", it will lump the photographers in with the typists. I do not believe the completely AI-generated images can be called photos, as they are not created with a camera. That AI tag feels like a black mark when it appears on my photos. So no matter what the "purists" think, jI believe editing and post processing has always been part of photography and it's the tools to get there that are constantly changing. Restricting your end result to what the camera "saw" is called a snapshot. I make photographs.
Let's ask another question is using a flash or a external light is that AI? Because that light wasn't there? Where do we draw the line? There are so many things in Photography which are AI and using a whole bunch of speed lights and umbrellas and fill flash, I would argue that AI as well.
That is definitely not ai, that is analog. Ai is artifical intelligence, telling a computer to do something for you (prompting) and then it doing the work on your behalf.
All of my B/W analog photo's that I upload to Instagram get automatically flagged as "Made with AI". The thing is, the only thing I did to these photos, is put them on a white background inside of Photoshop. Nothing else. There isn't any way to remove the AI tag on Instagram myself. Trying to contact Instragram to do something about this problem also didn't result in anything, unfortunately...
Aaah, the Bamboo Forrest is awesome, did you ride the old school train to get there? The real test of generative AI fill would be to remove all the bamboo from the forrest ;)
I have used different tools in Lightroom over the years and I have about 5 1/2 thousand followers on my Instagram and I'm still posting away and I haven't been flagged yet. Should I be worried? Yeah I sometimes change the colour of something or I might use a mask here and there but nothing too over the top that any landscape photographer doesn't use. I'm just curious if they're targeting certain people or is it more AI that's actually then looking at the photo what's interesting though is if you analyse this the camera itself has a lot of AI tools in it in fact the modern Mirrorless camera that's being released today has more AI features than what Lightroom has think about it. There's a whole bunch of things in a modern Mirrorless camera, that actually have AI built into them. I mean auto eye tracking that's AI. Focus bracketing that's AI..... Festing that's AI..... White balance that's AI... JPEG profiles on a Fuji camera and the new lux on a Lumix camera that's AI.... So suddenly we are worried about AI in editing yet there's more AI built into the camera.....
You can do whatever you want! You are not a photojournalist. In that case, Ansel Adams is not a photographer. I think AI is a tool. The moment you take a pic, it's a lie automatically. That is just my opinion.
I think the wording needs to be changed to be more specific. “Created with AI” and “Edited with AI” and “Composited with AI” but then again I think those warning tags should exist even without the AI.
ai is good for fixing a picture that could not get otherwise. Example ai noise and sharpening. You king of need to edit a photo to make it look the way it does with the naked eye. You are supposed to capture what you see after all. But filling and erasing pulls from the realism. You want to capture what you see not what you want to see.
I think the biggest part of the conversation that is missing, is that using generative AI, has created an energy and water crisis. Cities that are hosting the servers these tools are running on, have problems getting enough water and electricity. All the water and electricity is being used to cool and run the servers. Ideally being able to use AI tools to select items better, and have what's essentially a more efficient clone stamp would be great. But, for these technologies to exist, it relies on these really destructive infrastructures. (And that's not touching the ethical concern of the datasets used to train the tools, and the general shady nature of the companies building them.)
Do you use AI tools when editing your photos? What are your thoughts on AI-generated content?
Yes!! But only for noise reduction purpose 😅
I use AI to help edit my photos but only for background blur for my portraits otherwise it just helps with masking 😅
I use content erase, but I don’t know if that counts. (It’s typically for small distractions of light reflecting off of something floating in the air or the odd stamping out of dust on my sensor)
As AI removal tools are something I use on a daily basis I find this new "feature" is total BS. Marking my professional business photography as AI will seriously damage my business, just because I used a faster way to remove unnecessary distractions from photos. They NEED to add a way for us to mark and prove that something is not fully generated with AI.
No... cause all AI generated images aren't called photos... those are images hahaha
i believe ai helps w selecting masking, but totally changing a picture is definitely not the move
It's definitely made selections MUCH easier!
Yeah. Agree 100%
I get rid of cigarette butts and oil spots all the time in my automotive content, I don't want a "made with AI" if I just got rid of some trash on the ground 🫠
@@AnthonyGugliotta once i learned linear gradients too, that helped out a ton as well!
@@ShotByKorzy Linear and radial gradients that you use in lightroom is generally very accepted. It has existed since the film days in the darkroom. But back then it was known as dodging and burning.
I’m a wildlife photographer and I have in the past used AI to remove the odd distraction like branches and rocks and things and to also extend canvas if I got the shot but the bird was too close to the edge and that was the shot I wanted to use. I see it as a tool to assist us with our editing process but I agree that totally generated AI images are incredibly prevalent on social media now to the point where sometimes you can’t even tell. Some are so blindly obvious but the odd one I’ve seen has caught me out. It is a tricky place we are heading towards.
Love your content Anthony . Keep up the good work
AI can be a cool tool, but when it's a fully-AI image that really sucks!
The only A.I. I use is Denoise, object removal, and masking
And lens blur - very helpful while using kit lenses… which are the only lenses that I have 😂
I personally think that over-editing should constitute as digital art instead of photography. I leave my edits light (unless I feel artistic) and it’s just color correction to not let them look like raw files. If your colors don’t look like it does in real life, then it less photo and more digital art.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with digital art or ai art. It’s all art and it’s all beautiful if the creator is trying their best to evoke emotion out of their audience
I do what I like. If other like it great, if others don't great. I like my colors wet and blur the lines of photography and art. When someone is paying me, I will do what they want. Every image ever taken has some kind of "edit". Sensors, film, lenses all have different characteristics to light and color. What you leave in and what you leave out is an edit.
I think you have fantastic points and I agree with you 100% on all of them! The sound from the new mic is killer!
bro made ad unskippable, genius
And kinda enjoyable
thats the best way to get ad revenue my man, unskippable ads is the new 5 min ads
RUclips now sets the ad type automatically for all new uploads, and I have no way to control it!
Lol I think he is talking about the Rode mic. @AnthonyGugliotta
@@rhlsharma900Rode kit galore
What we experienced in Iceland was truly unreal! Will never experience something like that ever again!
You’re totally correct! I also feel like AI has particularly ruined the photography community. Especially for smaller photographers. I also feel like editing too much out of a photo is a little dishonest. I try to avoid editing too much. It’s great you notice this.
I’m glad you talked about this subject.
Keep up the great content ❤
I'm honestly so glad you talked about AI in Photoshop/Lightroom, because I had similar thoughts a few days ago when I was using Generative AI to remove distractions in my photo when I thought, well how much AI should I use? Is my photo then fake for using AI constantly to remove certain parts? where's the limit when it comes to making use of AI? Personally, I see Generative AI as a convenient tool for making our editing process easier, which I believe is nothing wrong with that, because in the end it does save time and make the job easier. If it acts as a better alternative to other tools in Photoshop like Content aware fill or remove tool, then I see little to no issue in that. But I think that's something we will think of for a while as AI continues to develop and expand in the future. Great video!
I think they should label images that have more content generated with AI than actual photo with "made with AI", and photos that have only lightly been edited with AI (remove spots, trash, etc) should be at the discretion of the photographer and have the option to be labelled as "edited with AI".
I'm a wildlife photographer. I color grade(I use RAW so I have to) and crop. I want to say that I don't use AI BUT I use the built-in denoizer in LrC to recover extreme ISO case like 2-3 times ever.
I don't know if the built-in denoizer is AI powered.
The new noise removal tool I believe uses some AI to produce a cleaner looking result. The old luminance tool does not!
@@AnthonyGugliotta thank you for the info :)
Just do a carussel with the AI edited photo and the original one without AI 😂
We have photos that we have used the healing brush to fix fly away hairs and basic editing and Instagram flagged it as AI. Yet, we then have not used AI at all and still get flagged for AI. It is interesting what IG is determining what is AI.
I had a conversation recently about Creative AI Tools, and a good point was made (and something I agree with): I want AI tools that remove hassle from my creative process, that makes the process more seamless and productive, but I don't want AI to do the creative work FOR me. Where's the fun in that? So to me, AI tools like masking/select, organizational tools etc, all sound great. But generative fill, or removing things I don't like from a photo, all feels a bit more soulless. I have fun solving problems when taking my photos, doing the best I can to get the best shot I can get. It's part of the fun for me, so I won't use those type of generative tools. And fully making an entire image just feels even less interesting - as soon as I know the image is not "real" I lose all interest.
But with that said, I've yet to see truly helpful AI tools that make the workflow easier. Meanwhile, there are so many tools that can do the entire thing for you, so it feels like that's the direction we're moving in. Though I hope there are others like me, who will still want to view and appreciate photos of real places and people, with minimal editing, to appreciate the art of photography... (for the record, I prefer the your Osaka photos with the people in there - they were really there that day, so it feels like they are part of the experience, for better or worse).
I use generative AI removing. Why bother healing or cloning if AI removes the marked spot more realistic? After all you took the photo with a camera not with a typewriter.
AI generated photos aren't photos, it was called 'photoshopped images' and now should be called ai generated images. Not photos.
And why on earth are people suggesting photographers to use AI generative fill? It's ok to remove unneeded small objects, but if AI is used for creating sth not in the photo, that's no longer a photograph, and certainly not yours.
As far as anything in art, I've always said do what you want with your work. That said, be honest about it. The "made with AI" bothers me when people do minimal editing because it puts full text to phot and small cleanup in the same box. There should be two - made with AI and edited (or enhanced) with AI.
I fully agree with your authenticity point. Wanting a photo to be what's in front of the lens is really valid. I also think it's valid to want to edit a photo to capture a specific feel. As long as it's labeled as you say, I think it's very fair. I think generative AI has a few big problems though. Too much to cover in a single YT comment. (I left another comment regarding the energy and water crisis.) But I think there's just too many problems even unrelated to just the ethics of editing photos, that I don't think using generative AI is worth it.
I know someone that posted a photo that was 80% AI but was very explicit about that she was doing it for fun, but people still were hating on it. I think the Internet just doesn't like artists having fun
"I want Al to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for Al to do my art and writing so thát I can do my laundry and dishes." Joanna Maciejewska
While artists (illustrators, painters etc) have been against Ai
A lot of Photographers have embraced it.
Interestingly I am a painter before I was a photographer so my images do tend to look a little bit painted and I don't make any apologies for that in fact for a long time. I used to use a program on an iPad Pro where I could fill-in areas in the photo with the stylus pencil and I almost combine my two passions which were painting and Photography and I developed my own star but not once did I pretend that the photos were real? I didn't say that they were AI but I did say they were painted with Photography elements built-in now I did that for awhile because I enjoyed it. However I've gone back to traditional landscape photography where the editing process is much more refined and there's only minimal adjustments made to the editing of the photo. I just think if you're honest with people and you tell them what your photos are or what your art is that's okay if you are into AI that's okay I'm not but that's by all means up to you. I just wish people would be open and honest with what they are creating and not pretend that it's something else. I think that's what annoy people the most is the trickery
If Instagram is your validation as a photographer then something is wrong.
Regular reels are being flagges to. I know a lot of tattoo artist who just create reels with a couple of their videos, don't do any major edit on it appart from cropping and clipping... And once uploaded their videos are flagged as made with AI.
Is using generative fill any different to those that replace skies with better looking ones? The trouble comes as there (currently) no benchmark for what is a "photograph" vs a composite or something with more than a touch of editing?
Yeah I agree, I think when you do minor changes like getting rid of some trash that you could get rid of otherwise is still OK. I also used this tool to get rid of the car from well touristy places or people so that I get cleaner shot, and sometimes the AI does better job. But I don't think it should be labeled as AI shot :D
So as a creator, photographer, whatever I use AI way more sparingly. Like to remove garbage or blemishes or the occasional person I think is fine. But I’m not someone who’s really into fully AI generated images outside of like a fun test to see what kind of thing you can make.
That said this whole “Made with AI” thing is a double edged sword. I like it because it keeps the viewer informed that in some cases these photos aren’t real. However I don’t think if I remove a ketchup stain or a soda can out of a frame that it should be given the same “made with AI” tag cause truthfully AI barely effected that image.
I know there a lot of controversy between purists and stuff about editing as a whole and honestly I think editing is fine. Not every painting of a mountain is how it’s seen, some people may scale them or make other changes so that it fits the vision of what they want to convey and editing photos to me at least follows that same principle. If it helps what you are trying to convey go for it. It may not be for everyone but that’s ok.
Lastly if you are someone doing massive composites, or huge edits and things or large uses of AI in your work just be transparent about it. So people don’t get the wrong idea.
Just used Light Room AI to remove some dirt particles on my shot that I didn't notice on my lens. Must say I was impressed at how well it works and how fast it processes. I'm now conflicted. I had a wedding shoot a few months ago that this could have saved some unsharable shots because something in the picture I couldn't edit out without it being obvious I did so. In that instance does the couple really care if I used AI to give them a perfect looking shot, I don't think so.
Do we need a tiered system for edits…no idea who the creator of this system is but you could have AI1 to AI5 type thing and each stage has its definition.
I think it's brilliant, might revive photography in it's true form.
People that actually take time for the perfect shot, spend months or years for the perfect photo will be rewarded (hopefully). If you want to remove things and change the image then it makes sense that it must get a tag
There needs to be more ai tags everywhere, let's keep art alive and in it's true form.
Sound like people are more afraid of being exposed then anything else or that they'll have to take more time and do more work to get great photos
I've seen a post on instagram that has been mislabeled as being made with AI, although in fairness it was a picture that an algorithm would be more likely to get fooled by. For reference, it was a photo on Mad Mike Whiddett's account of his rotary-swapped Mclaren P1 GTR drift car on the dyno, spitting metre-long flames out of the exhaust
This large RUclips influencer the other day posted a video claiming that his picture on Instagram had been flagged as AI. I went to the image, it was not flagged as AI. Most astronomy pictures are heavily edited, AI probably can produce the same results but faster.
Good point about Astro. Also, I believe you can submit a complain if your image is falsely flagged. So maybe that's what this person did?
The fact”nail-in-camera” is so normalized makes me sad - not because I’m against photoshop/lightroom, but because post processing has completely blurred what we understand to be real and idealistic. I use photoshop and Lightroom quite lightly, but with instagram, it’s clear authenticity has become debatable with this new “made with AI” tag, and I don’t think it’s a bad move if it’s making people improve their media literacy.
I don't fully understand the situation, whether its instagram automatically flagging content as AI or us creators having to declare before we post.
If its the first option then I am against it. Instagram shouldn't be the ones who dictate who labels things as AI-generated or not, it should be up the responsibility of the person posting. At the end of the day it is a platform for many different purposes, news sharing, a virtual gallery of sorts for people to share their work (be it photography or other image-based art like illustration), or even a personal diary. Of course news and maybe some types of photographic practices should be grounded more in reality, but for some artists, sometimes having that label of generated with AI could completely ruin the concept of their work. At the end of the day, artists are trying to fully curate an experience, not necessarily provide a realistic snapshot of life.
Also what about the AI denoise in lightroom, will that be flagged? Is using that creating an artificial experience of reality or just overcoming the limitations of our technology? Whatever it is, I don't think instagram should be taking away the autonomy of its users and hindering them from wanting to present their image in a specific way.
Instagram has been slowly ruining photography for years. This labelling is just the next step. I think it will cost them in the end - who is going to pay to promote a post if they have labelled a lightly edited picture as "Made with AI"? If I use AI to clean up marks on a studio floor, does that make my studio shoot "Made with AI"? I'm sure the model/s would disagree. There's a a difference between using AI tools and creating with AI tools.
Agreed. There are far worse offenders than photographers looking to clean up a bit of their image!
Is the answer having to post your final edit along with the “semi original” for a side by side spot the difference type situation 😂. The reason I put “semi original” is because you can do all your colour edits and whatever doesn’t rely on AI so the photo is the same… other than the AI portions…I hope that makes sense 🤔.
"Maybe It's my photographer ego, didn't want to use clone stamping and generative fill, I just wanted to get that photo inside of camera"... Well I guess I also have the same ego and it feels very authentic to me. Though I use AI for denoising, object removal and masking.
What buget mic do you recomend for vloging? I dont realy have 80$ for it :D
That mic is nice!
I use a combination of cloning, content-aware fill and the generative fill, depending on situation. All are for what I think are minor edits, like removing a piece of garbage. Generative fill does a better job than the content-aware fill in some cases, and speeds up my editing. It does annoy me when I see the 'made with AI' tag now, since it groups my photos with those images that are created out of text prompts and someone's imagination. I don't think that's fair, and as those completely AI-produced images become even more 'photo-like", it will lump the photographers in with the typists. I do not believe the completely AI-generated images can be called photos, as they are not created with a camera. That AI tag feels like a black mark when it appears on my photos. So no matter what the "purists" think, jI believe editing and post processing has always been part of photography and it's the tools to get there that are constantly changing. Restricting your end result to what the camera "saw" is called a snapshot. I make photographs.
Let's ask another question is using a flash or a external light is that AI? Because that light wasn't there? Where do we draw the line? There are so many things in Photography which are AI and using a whole bunch of speed lights and umbrellas and fill flash, I would argue that AI as well.
That is definitely not ai, that is analog.
Ai is artifical intelligence, telling a computer to do something for you (prompting) and then it doing the work on your behalf.
All of my B/W analog photo's that I upload to Instagram get automatically flagged as "Made with AI".
The thing is, the only thing I did to these photos, is put them on a white background inside of Photoshop. Nothing else.
There isn't any way to remove the AI tag on Instagram myself. Trying to contact Instragram to do something about this problem also didn't result in anything, unfortunately...
when does it come out in instagram?
Aaah, the Bamboo Forrest is awesome, did you ride the old school train to get there? The real test of generative AI fill would be to remove all the bamboo from the forrest ;)
Instagram already ruined photography. Pushing Reels is dumb
Instagram definitely need to fix their AI detection
I have used different tools in Lightroom over the years and I have about 5 1/2 thousand followers on my Instagram and I'm still posting away and I haven't been flagged yet. Should I be worried? Yeah I sometimes change the colour of something or I might use a mask here and there but nothing too over the top that any landscape photographer doesn't use. I'm just curious if they're targeting certain people or is it more AI that's actually then looking at the photo what's interesting though is if you analyse this the camera itself has a lot of AI tools in it in fact the modern Mirrorless camera that's being released today has more AI features than what Lightroom has think about it. There's a whole bunch of things in a modern Mirrorless camera, that actually have AI built into them. I mean auto eye tracking that's AI. Focus bracketing that's AI..... Festing that's AI..... White balance that's AI... JPEG profiles on a Fuji camera and the new lux on a Lumix camera that's AI.... So suddenly we are worried about AI in editing yet there's more AI built into the camera.....
You can do whatever you want! You are not a photojournalist. In that case, Ansel Adams is not a photographer. I think AI is a tool. The moment you take a pic, it's a lie automatically. That is just my opinion.
7.10 true man❤
I think the wording needs to be changed to be more specific. “Created with AI” and “Edited with AI” and “Composited with AI” but then again I think those warning tags should exist even without the AI.
If think it is helpful when watching your video for you to be opening boxes… it is not.
It’s kinda his ‘shtick’… how he transitions and whatnot… I also think it adds little, but meh. 🤷🏼
My Sony A7RV uses AI for auto focus...do all my photos need a "Made with AI" tag now? 🤔
ai is good for fixing a picture that could not get otherwise. Example ai noise and sharpening. You king of need to edit a photo to make it look the way it does with the naked eye. You are supposed to capture what you see after all. But filling and erasing pulls from the realism. You want to capture what you see not what you want to see.
Never used AI and will never do.
I think the biggest part of the conversation that is missing, is that using generative AI, has created an energy and water crisis. Cities that are hosting the servers these tools are running on, have problems getting enough water and electricity. All the water and electricity is being used to cool and run the servers. Ideally being able to use AI tools to select items better, and have what's essentially a more efficient clone stamp would be great. But, for these technologies to exist, it relies on these really destructive infrastructures. (And that's not touching the ethical concern of the datasets used to train the tools, and the general shady nature of the companies building them.)
I generally like your cotent but found all the unboxing very distracting.
konzentriere dich bitte auf EINE Sache. Auspacken oder über ein Thema sprechen.
RUclipsrs - I think they ruined photography. Too much hype has made everything more expensive and unavailable.
I have to AI your face everytime I take photos of you 😨🫨
😶🌫