Guy rejects top photo prize after revealing snap was actually made using AI

A photographer selected as a category winner of this year's international Sony Photography Awards has rejected the prize, saying his entry was actually generated using AI. Last year, Boris Eldagsen began creating images for a collection he named Pseudomnesia, a combination of the old words pseudo and mnesia that essentially …

[Anonymous Coward]

C2PA

Readers might be interested in C2PA which intended to provide a digitally signed audit trail for digital images - the intention is they'll be signed in the camera, then modifications will include thumbnails or digests, and be signed too, so the whole thing can be traced back.

It's an Adobe initiative so is inevitably more complex than I think it should be, but it has buy-in from manufacturers and I believe is started to be included in newer hardware. Anon because I'm peripherally involved.

[cyber7]

Re: C2PA

How nice. I can then take a digitally signed picture of my projected screen showing my nifty iterative AI artwork.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: C2PA

I'm largely focused on implementing and haven't actually paid much attention to what is actually signed, as it makes no difference to me. But I'm pretty sure it includes EXIF metadata, which will include the focal length of the lens, the light level and so on. But sure, I take your point - it's not perfect. But it will catch this.

[CommonBloke]

Re: C2PA

I have a slight feeling that spoofing that info will be easy

[Nifty]

Re: C2PA

Just check the box 'Spoof EXIF data'.

[John Lilburne]

Re: C2PA

EXIF metadata is not only meaningless but also useless, once an image has been through any editing program. The EXIF on the last image I took, which hasn't been through any editing software [YET], says it was done at a focal length of 165mm I can assure it wasn't because it had a big fuck-off magnifying lens in front of the actual lens. The f-stop is meaningless if I've done any focus stacking. Any photomontage work and nothing in the EXIF is real.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: C2PA

That would invalidate the signature, so a signed image file would offer evidence¹ that the image had not been manipulated. A mechanism that let cameras sign the original image could provide some² scope for "original image" photographic contests. I'd find that rather refreshing, actually.

¹To some probability. I don't put much faith in the ability of manufacturers to keep private keys secure, since the physical device is in the hands of the user.

²See ¹.

[doublelayer]

Re: C2PA

This would work great for a contest that was for raw photos only, set up the shot, point the camera, and that's it. This contest is not that, nor are most others. Modifications of the photos later, as basic as cropping out unwanted parts but including more complex things, are typically allowed. Only if you use a system that always includes a chain of the previous images could you verify the authenticity of a picture in that way. That's not that likely to happen, and if the only benefit of doing it ends up being to avoid use of AI in AI-not-accepted contest rules, I don't think it's worth doing.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: C2PA

cos that'll work so well.....

[steviebuk]

Re: C2PA

If Adobe are involved I assume it will end up requiring a licence that will be thrown at the camera buyer and if you then don't buy the monthly sub you won't be able to take photos with your camera anymore. Not to mention it will prove fuck all if you use old cameras that don't have the tech. Or all comps will require said cameras as part of their rules, we'll then find they are all sponsored by Adobe.

[doublelayer]

Re: C2PA

A blog entry from someone who runs an online photo analysis system might interest you. This is one of a few entries on related topics, but it includes more commentary on C2PA. The short version is that, though he wasn't able to get technical details because the closed standards group wouldn't allow him to post any views, the general concept is weak and prone to problems. He has found many examples of a related algorithm being used with incorrect metadata, but signed anyway.

[_olli]

Re: C2PA

So they invented a technology to battle against AI-generated deep fakes and labeled it creatively as "C2PA", which every geek immediately connect to that silly chatty AI-robot C3PO of Star Wars.

[ChoHag]

> "We were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic and welcomed Boris' wish for dialogue by preparing questions for a dedicated Q&A with him for our website," a World Photography Organisation spokesperson told The Guardian.

> "As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him."

Anyone versed in bureaucratese will know this is not a polite dismissal.

"We wanted to talk to him about this but when he made it clear that he wanted to talk about this we decided he could fuck off." Somebody behind the competition got his nickers in a twist.

Artists being artsy? Who could have seen THAT coming?

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

The statement seems like a total cop-out

[Joe W]

This statement _is_ a total cop-out.

They are not interested in a meaningful discussion, at all. This is more like free advertisement (c'mon, the money and equipment is small change for Sony, it is indistinguishable from "nothing" compared to the regular advertising budget)....

[doublelayer]

"(c'mon, the money and equipment is small change for Sony, it is indistinguishable from "nothing" compared to the regular advertising budget)...."

If the article is accurate, they repeatedly offered to give him the money and equipment and he repeatedly refused the prize. It's logical to find their response annoying, but it's weird to blame them for withholding a prize he was pretty clear he wouldn't accept.

[Potemkine!]

The World Photography Organisation looks like an organisation of spoiled brats whose ego was bruised. Very childish behaviour, or a way to dismiss the problem.

The question is nonetheless interesting, because when a picture is totally generated by a computer and indistinguishable from one "hand-made", it shakes the very basis of what this Organisation is for.

[John G Imrie]

The Law

It also means that any photo entered as evidence can now be challenged on the grounds that it's AI generated.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: The Law

Photographic, audio, and video evidence was already on very thin ice. Like eyewitness accounts, it's still allowed mostly because the Rule of Law depends on having some sort of empirical evidence, and there aren't any good alternatives. Forensic science doesn't fill the gap and is also pretty perilous, because of pseudoscience (e.g. bite identification), fraudulent behavior by labs, planting evidence, etc.

In practice the courts depend quite a lot on trust, prejudice, rhetoric, and other factors in a (rather dim) hope of arriving at an approximation of justice at least fairly often. It's terrible, but – assuming you believe in civil rights – it's the least-terrible alternative anyone's come up with so far.

[J. Cook]

Re: The Law

I seem to recall that back in the 70's and 80's, the polaroid instant cameras were used by a lot of insurance companies because they were difficult to alter. In this day and age? I got nuthin.

[rg287]

It's almost indistinguishable from the standard "we're the victim of a sophisticated cyber attack" plea from someone who left their S3 bucket public.

Yes, there was an attempt to mislead, and it is the responsibility of the organisers to weed out plagiarism and any other malfeasance. They failed to do so and are now burying their heads in the sand, refusing to discuss the matter publicly (except on their terms).

[tekHedd]

They're not upset that it's AI...

After reading the statement several times, it seems like they are more insulted that he rejected the prize than that it was AI. Looks like a disagreement. Maybe they're entirely prepared (ie have already put thought into this that he wasn't expecting) to give an award to someone creatively using new technology to make an image, whereas he's already convinced that AI has no place in "photography"...

Or... maybe he didn't want them involved in the discussion and hard disagrees with their standpoint, and out of pride they want it to sound like *they* refused to talk to *him* when it's the other way around.

Or maybe they're just hurt that he didn't want the prize.

We'll never know.

[HMcG]

"The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,"

I don't see how this was someone behind the competition getting his knickers in a twist. It was open to all forms of digital image manipulation.

It sounds more like the winning photographer thought he would get a reaction when he revealed it was an AI manipulated image, and when the organisers said "Cool, that's fine" he went off in a huff

[anonymous boring coward]

They don't want to admit that they don't understand the technology used, and don't have a clue how to prevent it form being used in future competitions.

Pretty lame.

[ExampleOne]

Given the origin of the term ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography#Etymology ), I am dubious about claims the AI images are any less photography than most camera captured, human developed and edited images are.

[TheMaskedMan]

That's a good point. I should imagine that quite a few painters with paint were somewhat disgruntled when all this painting with light malarkey got started. What comes around goes around, as the saying goes.

I'm partial to Terry Pratchett's definition of photography myself:

You know zat another term for an iconographer would be ‘photographer’? From the old word ‘photus’ in Latation, vhich means—”

“‘To prance around like an idiot ordering everyone about as if you owned the place,’” said William.

“Ah, you know it!"

Not sure it applies to AI, but it certainly sums up some of the photographers I know:)

[Citizen of Nowhere]

>I should imagine that quite a few painters with paint were somewhat disgruntled when all this painting with light malarkey got started. What comes around goes around

And in the end, painting didn't disappear, even if there is many a modern "painter" who I desperately wish would disappear ;-) Photography will survive generative AI. I have nothing against creating images with generative AI, but it is not photography. It is more akin to collage. Nobody claims painting and photography are the same activity. Why would someone generating images with AI want to claim that what they were doing is photography? Eldagsen, the artist involved in the current fracas, does not. Just as there is an obvious distinction between applying pigment to a canvas and capturing light on a light-sensitive medium, there is a fairly obvious difference between the latter and building an image using iterative passes of generative AI. In the end, I suspect that we will end up with competitions which accept any image regardless of method of production (there are already fine art competitions where paintings and photographs compete directly for the same rewards), competitions which are for photography only and others which are for AI-generated images only.

[J. Cook]

even if there is many a modern "painter" who I desperately wish would disappear ;-)

Would one of them happen to have an exclusive license for a specific shade of black and has a history of being antagonistic to other artists that have criticized him over it? :)

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here is that it's easy to tell the difference between a painting and a photograph. No-one is going to confuse the two. However, as generative AI gets better and better, it's going to become next to impossible to tell the difference between it and a photo.

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: a painting and a photograph. No-one is going to confuse the two

Using HDR techniques - take three or more shots at different speeds and stitch them together using a consistent algorithm for the whole photo - it is easily possible to make a photo look like a painting.

I use Photomatix.

[Potemkine!]

In a camera, the light makes the picture by acting physically on a support or a sensor. Photons make the picture. This is not the case when the picture is computed from data... at least until a pure photonic computer exists ^^

[Michael Wojcik]

Shrug. The electromagnetic field is the electromagnetic field.

[nautica]

These people could be script writers for most any politician, or Boring individual...

"...We were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic and welcomed Boris' wish for dialogue by preparing questions for a dedicated Q&A with him for our website," a World Photography Organisation spokesperson told The Guardian.

"As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him." ®

Translation: "Our hands are lily-white. HE'S the lying sack of shit."

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: These people could be script writers for most any politician, or Boring individual...

So, they were okay with deliberate attempts to mislead (they didn't need him to repeat it to figure that part out) as long as he did the dedicated Q&A? Sounds like it was about them wanting to control and/or monetize the conversation, and since Boris doesn't agree to that, he's not useful.

[Jedit]

"Our hands are lily-white. HE'S the lying sack of shit."

I think the more accurate translation is "he made us look like idiots".

[Ciaran McHale]

Re: "Our hands are lily-white. HE'S the lying sack of shit."

I Agree they are saying "he made us look like idiots". However, I disagree that he did. It is how they chose to react to what he did that makes them look like idiots. An entirely self-inflicted wound.

[Snowy]

Re: "Our hands are lily-white. HE'S the lying sack of shit."

Agree he did not make them looks like idiots but their response to him sure did make themselves look foolish.

[lglethal]

The easy short term solution would be to add an AI generated Image section to Photography competitions.

And then make clear that submitting an AI generated image to another section would lead to a life-time ban from the competition.

People compete against people, AIs compete against AIs.

Long term some way to determine what is AI generated and what not, will need to be developed, but short term such a thing would hopefully prevent the vast majority of problems...

[John Lilburne]

The problem is that all AI images are some form of derivative. Getty and Corbis have found AI generated images trained on their database to output morphed versions of their logos.

[Felonmarmer]

That's hardly surprising if the training data was limited to their database of images. It's like complaining that a chef who learned his craft at Mr Egg without any other experience tends to make egg based dishes.

[HMcG]

"The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,"

Cutting edge digital practices. The catagory was open to any form of digitally manipulated image. That's what AI image generators are. I don't see how a additional special catagory for AI is required.

[Neil Barnes]

Thumbnails...

And did no-one notice that the hand on the foremost person's left shoulder (viewers right) appears to have the thumb at the wrong side (bottom of the image). In fact, it looks as if the rearmost person has two right hands (a trick not replicated since the cover art for Jim Steinman's album Bad For Good).

[DwarfPants]

Re: Thumbnails...

This image is cropped in the article, the original has a third hand on the right hand side, suggesting the hands on the right are from a third person. However, its still a bit weird down that side.

Probability of hands in photo of person 80% -> add more. Probability of hands looking correct 10% judging by the images in this collection (though that could just be art).

[Dave559]

Re: Thumbnails...

There surely must be a little bit more to the story than we are being told.

In the cropped version of the photo image, the woman in front looks fairly convincing at first (which is still quite an achievement in itself), unless you look closely at the base of her nose/right nostril, that her right eye looks a little bit too elongated, that the reflections in her eyes don't seem to be in quite the right places (they don't quite match up), and that her ear lobe doesn't look quite natural, but the facial features of the woman behind immediately look inhumanly angular and far too much as though she is related to Herman Munster (and her hands too sausagey and rubbery), which surely must have been an instant give-away?

The uncropped image is even more obviously unreal: the left arm of the woman behind seems to be emerging from within the woman in front's body, rather than alongside it, and the woman in front's left arm (or whoever's arm it is, given its almost physically impossible strange angle) looks like some sort of rubber monster glove and substantially less realistic.

I just can't believe that any judges who would have looked at the image for more than a few seconds would be convinced that it was a real photo? Or were they in on the stunt all along, which might explain why they got particularly huffy when he pulled out of the Q&A session, if that had in fact been part of the whole plan/stunt all along?

[doublelayer]

Re: Thumbnails...

"I just can't believe that any judges who would have looked at the image for more than a few seconds would be convinced that it was a real photo?"

From the article, they made it clear that AI was allowed, as was basically anything you wanted to use, so there was no requirement for it to be a real photo. The judges could easily have known it wasn't an original photo and accepted it anyway.

[Citizen of Nowhere]

Re: Thumbnails...

>The judges

The judge. The open competition, of which Eldagsen won the creative category, is judged by a single judge. Only the professional competition is deemed worthy of an actual multi-member jury.

[lowwall]

Re: Thumbnails...

The ears are off as well. This should have been easy to spot as hands and ears are known weak points of the current crop of AI image generators. Teeth are also a big problem so, like here, most people avoid them by specifying a closed mouth.

I suspect this got through because it was supposed to look like a manipulated image (this was entered in the creative open category which allows this), so the blurring and oddness around the periphery of the faces could be seen as deliberate. Much as the first winners of Turing contests were presented as having traits that covered their failures, ranging from PARRY from 1972, presented as a paranoid schizophrenic, through the joking Jabberwacky of 2005 to Eugene from 2014, presented as a 13-year-old boy who was not a native English speaker.

[Dan 55]

Should be easy to find, the creepy AI woman should be in the photo somewhere

Meet Loab, the AI Art Woman Haunting the Internet

Twitter thread of creepy AI woman photos

[hammarbtyp]

Lets get back to basics

Since most photo editing software leans on some manner of A.I technology I welcome the new wet plate collodion category next year

[Ken Moorhouse]

Re: I welcome the new wet plate collodion category next year

I appreciate the intent of your comment, but must remind that the image as interpreted by the camera could be AI generated.

In much the same way that a focal-plane shutter within a camera can deceive when taking an action photo of a golfer swinging his/her club can make it look as if it is bending.

[Anonymous Coward]

AI is generally not good at generating hand images, and even in this picture the order of the fingers on the left hand is reversed. But I can say that because I know this image is AI-generated, and if this were mixed in with many other images, I might miss it.

[DryBones]

Storm in a Teacup

If the rules said, "Any Device" and not "Any Camera", then either an organizer screwed up royally or this lad is just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

A photography competition should involve taken photographs. There should be nothing that comes out in that photo that did not go into the camera. Multiple exposure tricks count. Adjusting coloration and balance is fine. Painting in an AI generated skyline is a ban, because it did not go through the camera ostensibly used to take the photos. Skylum is trying to slip this kind of thing into Luminar, and I do not approve of it at all.

It's really so much simpler than Mr Look At Me was trying to make it seem.

[Felonmarmer]

And yet this photo in the same category was considered OK and an unmanipulated single photograph?

https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/winners-galleries/2023/open/winners/creative-2023-open-competition#&gid=1&pid=7

[Citizen of Nowhere]

>And yet this photo in the same category was considered OK and an unmanipulated single photograph?

In a word, no. It was considered OK.

"Can I submit manipulated images? Images can be manipulated, however the manipulation must be clearly outlined within the image description."

https://www.worldphoto.org/help

[DenTheMan]

Ok if you can afford to reject the money

...

But it has to be said,

Many, if not most prize winners now seem to use sophisticated filter applications.

AI just jakes it a little murkier. Not a lot, A little.

[jgarbo]

ALL images are "manipulated".

If they want to how, tell them. Back in the old "days" I shot Fujichrome 200 at 400 ASA then "cooked" it to get that "bite" you see in National Geographic. We rated Tri-X (400) at 800 or even 1600 for night work then cooked it. Brilliant! This was before infra-red. Then the dark room...Now the Gimp...raw images, unless taken by God, need help.

[Plest]

Where's the RAWs?

Most decent competitions I've entered shortlist you and then demand you supply copies of the RAWs, essentially the digital negatives. If you don't have the RAW files or you don't shoot in RAW then you don't get to enter decent competitins, especially when prize money can be in the thousands or prizes to the value of hundreds. So if these AI images were simply dumped TIFFs without the original negatives or RAWs, then they shouldn't have been accepted in something that calls itself a photography competion.

However if this is one of those nonense full digital manipulation sections they sometimes host, then you're not a photographer you're a digital artist and to me those sections are completely lawless and you're on your own if you enter those as anything goes!