And so it begins

[Alan Edward Klein]

One could interpret the picture as a mom with severe arthritis in the hand holding on to her daughter for protection and assistance.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's what the BBC article says
"The image in question showed a haunting black-and-white portrait of two women from different generations.
But as Eldagsen pointed out: "Something about this doesn't feel right, does it?" That something, of course, being the fact that it's not a real photograph at all - but a synthetically-produced image."

If we were not aware from Eldagsen as we now are, that "something about it doesn't feel right" or doesn't feel right to the originator of the picture who as the originator knows that it isn't right, then what is it about the picture that tells the rest of us?

Let's assume for this purpose of spotting "a fake" that we had all seen it in the Photrio Gallery. and the wellknown Photrio member X had said he had found this amongst some old family photographs. In that scenario what it is that indicates it's a "fake" or AI produced?

I am unsure what makes it AI as compared to just Photoshopped i.e exactly what did AI do here that involves no human intervention at all or have I misunderstood what AI is?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cowanw]

Real photo or not, the judges knew it was AI and chose it anyway. Perhaps they just liked the 1930's look; perhaps a rejection of the digital aesthetic that they have been seeing at the Awards Competition for a long time now.

So that everybody can get on the same page; the judges knew it was AI!
From the BBC
A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation, the photography strand of art events organisers Creo, said that during their discussions with the artist, before he was announced as the winner, he had confirmed the piece was a "co-creation" of his image using AI.
"The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image-making, from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices," they added.
"As such, following our correspondence with Boris [Eldagsen] and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.
"Additionally, 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."

 

[pentaxuser]

Real photo or not, the judges knew it was AI and chose it anyway. Perhaps they just liked the 1930's look; perhaps a rejection of the digital aesthetic that they have been seeing at the Awards Competition for a long time now.

So that everybody can get on the same page; the judges knew it was AI!
From the BBC
A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation, the photography strand of art events organisers Creo, said that during their discussions with the artist, before he was announced as the winner, he had confirmed the piece was a "co-creation" of his image using AI.
"The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image-making, from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices," they added.
"As such, following our correspondence with Boris [Eldagsen] and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.
"Additionally, 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."

Thanks for that. The wording in the link in the opening post suggested to me that the judges were unaware of it being AI until he decided after the award that he should "come clean and confess

Here's the sentences in the link that made me think that way;
The winner of a major photography award has refused his prize after revealing his work was created using AI.

Organisers of the award told BBC News Eldagsen had misled them about the extent of AI that would be involved.
In a statement shared on his website, Eldagsen admitted he had been a "cheeky monkey", thanking the judges for "selecting my image and making this a historic moment", while questioning if any of them "knew or suspected that it was AI-generated".

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

So that everybody can get on the same page; the judges knew it was AI!

Not from the photographer's statement. Here are the relevant excerpts:

“MY STATEMENT 14.3.23
WHEN THE SELECTION OF MY IMAGE WAS ANNOUNCED BY SWPA
(without them communicating it was AI-generated or properly answering press inquiries)...

and from

“MY STATEMENT 13.4.23
REFUSAL OF THE PRIZE of the Sony World Photography Awards, Open Competition / Creative Category at the London Award ceremony:
Thank you for selecting my image and making this a historic moment, as it is the first AI generated image to win in a prestigous international PHOTOGRAPHY competition.
How many of you knew or suspected that it was AI generated? Something about this doesn’t feel right, does it?
AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.
I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not.

– Boris Eldagsen

 

[cowanw]

Yes the artist and the organization are telling different stories now. I kind of think the thumb on the wrong side of the hand on the right image side shoulder would make the judges story a bit more credible now, but it seems that all are trying to make themselves good guys.

 

[Rrrgcy]

…

If we were not aware from Eldagsen as we now are, that "something about it doesn't feel right" or doesn't feel right to the originator of the picture who as the originator knows that it isn't right, then what is it about the picture that tells the rest of us?

… what it is that indicates it's a "fake" or AI produced?

I am unsure what makes it AI as compared to just Photoshopped i.e exactly what did AI do here that involves no human intervention at all or have I misunderstood what AI is?

Thanks

pentaxuser

First, what appears to be unnaturally mangled fingers with what looks like 32 joints in her fingers (I exaggerate but c’mon). Unnatural fingernails/fingertips. And maybe the square-ish rectilinear shaped eye irises should caution. There isn’t anything humanly creative in the typical use of AI in typical result. The method of crafting this artist’s image using a technique beyond AI is probably untypical and a question for the artist (who i think said he augmented or used AI to contribute). Beyond the stereotypical text entry, press enter, select from six images which you want to be the selected result, I’m unsure what he did. maybe first an AI generated image, then digitally manipulated or photographed developed etc it further to change its appearance.

Depending on the program, there must be all manner of methodology used for AI generation to sample and combine/produce an AI generated image, each program crafting a different style and signature “tell“ to the program used.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes the artist and the organization are telling different stories now. I kind of think the thumb on the wrong side of the hand on the right image side shoulder would make the judges story a bit more credible now, but it seems that all are trying to make themselves good guys.

Everything I have read leads to the judges being clueless. The photo made it to the finals, and was published as a finalist. It was not until the photographer won that he refused the awards and pulled the image, informing the organization that the image had been created using AI. He wanted to make a point that AI should not be judged alongside photography.

 

[Pieter12]

First, what appears to be unnaturally mangled fingers with what looks like 32 joints in her fingers (I exaggerate but c’mon). And maybe the square shaped eye irises should caution. Friends of mine occasionally send me photos of facsimiles of “myself“ in various states and conditions related to recent imagined or fantasy scenarios etc, and each seem to have some tell it’s AI and not photoshopped. But there isn’t anything humanly creative in the result. For Pentaxuser, AI in its simplest is the human author (“creator”) enters text into a query box, press Enter, and the AI generator curates/selects the output from its search and melding of a combination of internet-sourced images (including photographs) to suit the request. The author chooses the best image of say, six, which were generated. That’s his AI image. If it’s AI assisted, I’m unsure what that means how far the artist uses or augments AI to originate or post-manipulate the image and then adds a human artistic element to the result and renders a new image with which he she contributed. The method is a question for this artist.

AI will master hands soon enough. They are difficult to draw for humans, who have them attached in plain sight to the ends of their arms.

 

[bjorke]

"Art is Whatever You Can Get Away With" -- McLuhan, or John Cage, probably Caravaggio & Jean Louis Davide and Henry Rankin-Poore just to pry the coffin open a little more

Y'all do understand the the purpose of the Sony awards is to sell cameras, right? It's not the freaking Ministry of Culture.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

"Art is Whatever You Can Get Away With" -- McLuhan, or John Cage, probably Caravaggio & Jean Louis Davide and Henry Rankin-Poore just to pry the coffin open a little more

View attachment 336603

Y'all do understand the the purpose of the Sony awards is to sell cameras, right? It's not the freaking Ministry of Culture.

Photos sell cameras not AI.

 

[bjorke]

"Art is Whatever You Can Get Away With" -- McLuhan, or John Cage, probably Caravaggio & Jean Louis Davide and Henry Rankin-Poore just to pry the coffin open a little more

View attachment 336603

Photos sell cameras not AI.

If the goal of photography is no more than to sell the products of the electronics industry, good riddance to it.

 

[Pieter12]

"Art is Whatever You Can Get Away With" -- McLuhan, or John Cage, probably Caravaggio & Jean Louis Davide and Henry Rankin-Poore just to pry the coffin open a little more

View attachment 336603

Y'all do understand the the purpose of the Sony awards is to sell cameras, right? It's not the freaking Ministry of Culture.

The purpose of all awards shows/contests is to make money. Entry fees, hanging fees, gals dinner tickets, book purchases and free publicity For the sponsors.

 

[MattKing]

The purpose of all awards shows/contests is to make money. Entry fees, hanging fees, gals dinner tickets, book purchases and free publicity For the sponsors.

Depends.
My Darkroom Group ran a print show and competition for several years prior to the pandemic. It brought entries and people from all around the Province. The entry fees and admission fees meant it was self funding, with a little cushion built in as both security against the unexpected and, at the end of things, a few dollars to help us stage it again the next year. Lots of volunteer labour made it affordable.

 

[Pieter12]

Depends.
My Darkroom Group ran a print show and competition for several years prior to the pandemic. It brought entries and people from all around the Province. The entry fees and admission fees meant it was self funding, with a little cushion built in as both security against the unexpected and, at the end of things, a few dollars to help us stage it again the next year. Lots of volunteer labour made it affordable.

Let me rephrase that: Most big photo contests are run as businesses to make money. Not all succeed, and some (like the Sony-sponsored World Photography Awards) have so many categories there can be hundreds and hundreds of winners (meaning thousands and thousands of entry fees!) that they essentially become meaningless. Peer group award shows seem the most balanced in my opinion.

 

[MattKing]

Let me rephrase that: Most big photo contests are run as businesses to make money. Not all succeed, and some (like the Sony-sponsored World Photography Awards) have so many categories there can be hundreds and hundreds of winners (meaning thousands and thousands of entry fees!) that they essentially become meaningless. Peer group award shows seem the most balanced in my opinion.

I totally agree.