Interesting video, seems a pretty honest take:
Yup, agree; thanks for posting. In fact, I agree with virtually everything he puts forth in the video. Which means yeah, bad news for most commercial photogs and a lot of the auxiliary industries & professions.Interesting video, seems a pretty honest take:
That's an interesting take. So far, we've not really seen that happen society-wide, although on average we can state that in the labor we are left with is less physically demanding and physically safer. To an extent, it also proves to be possible for a select few to enjoy less work and higher levels of material wealth - although that's a can of worms in itself. But in the end, what your remark refers to is a pretty fundamental change in how we view the relationships between labor, income and well-being. As long as tools only affect the labor aspect, we'll for the most part just invent new jobs to keep us busy.While lots of people might lose their jobs, that's what tools do. We become more productive as humans, leaving more time for art and other personal endeavors.
It has gotten to the point where I cannot trust the validity or integrity of anything I see on the internet any more.
It has gotten to the point where I cannot trust the validity or integrity of anything I see on the internet any more.
It has gotten to the point where I cannot trust the validity or integrity of anything I see on the internet any more.
You underestimate the credulity of the average person. No one would know.Fabricate a photo of the front of your home for posting on a real estate ad...any departure from reality will not be acceptable to a potential buyer, you would be accused of fraudulent advertising.
There are a lot of applications of photographic reproduction of real objects, events, & people, for which one cannot substitute fabrications.
Yes, a lot of things can be fabricated, and AI will substitute for those works of FICTION. Reality cannot be fabricated, in general.
Fabricate a photo of the front of your home for posting on a real estate ad...any departure from reality will not be acceptable to a potential buyer, you would be accused of fraudulent advertising.
'Retouching' to eliminate objects like a signpost have been possible even pre-AI.
You underestimate the credulity of the average person. No one would know.
How hard could it be to make a negative from a doctored inkjet print? Maybe something like Leica's Content Authenticity is more reliable.I've been in contact with a few law firms in the past few years, people that I grew up with or are family friends. They're aware that I shoot and develop my own film. They're heading down the path of having a film photographer on staff who has their negatives or slides notarized to be used in court. Yes, it's not perfect as a negative or a slide can be doctored but its much more difficult. They're working out the ins and outs. It's an interesting development (Narf!) I've been following.
I've been in contact with a few law firms in the past few years, people that I grew up with or are family friends. They're aware that I shoot and develop my own film. They're heading down the path of having a film photographer on staff who has their negatives or slides notarized to be used in court. Yes, it's not perfect as a negative or a slide can be doctored but its much more difficult. They're working out the ins and outs. It's an interesting development (Narf!) I've been following.
AI gets old really fast. Like modern movies that use cgi, no interest to me. Of course there'll come a time when we can't tell the difference,
Yup, agree; thanks for posting. In fact, I agree with virtually everything he puts forth in the video. Which means yeah, bad news for most commercial photogs and a lot of the auxiliary industries & professions.
That's an interesting take. So far, we've not really seen that happen society-wide, although on average we can state that in the labor we are left with is less physically demanding and physically safer. To an extent, it also proves to be possible for a select few to enjoy less work and higher levels of material wealth - although that's a can of worms in itself. But in the end, what your remark refers to is a pretty fundamental change in how we view the relationships between labor, income and well-being. As long as tools only affect the labor aspect, we'll for the most part just invent new jobs to keep us busy.
And that's about as much as I'd say on the topic within the rules of this forum...
How hard could it be to make a negative from a doctored inkjet print? Maybe something like Leica's Content Authenticity is more reliable.
You can spend a lot of energy on this if you want, but it is much more appropriate to simply find someone who directly viewed the subject photographed, and have them provide evidence under oath to the effect that the photograph is an accurate representation of the subject photographed, as of the time that the photograph was taken.
Photography is, absent some special and/or legislative provisions - e.g. traffic cameras - usually not used in court as direct evidence, but rather as demonstrative evidence.
I've been in contact with a few law firms in the past few years, people that I grew up with or are family friends. They're aware that I shoot and develop my own film. They're heading down the path of having a film photographer on staff who has their negatives or slides notarized to be used in court. Yes, it's not perfect as a negative or a slide can be doctored but its much more difficult. They're working out the ins and outs. It's an interesting development (Narf!) I've been following.
A few years back, during a riot in an American city, a guy shot a number of people. He claimed self-defense. At one point, the prosecution had to supply the court with a cellphone digital video they obtained from one of the spectators. It wasn't clear enough to confirm the defendant's claim that the guy he shot grabbed for his gun and then he shot him fearing for his life that the gun would be turned on him if he grabbed it. Later during the trial, it came out that the prosecution submitted the video to the court and defense counsel with reduced resolution rather than the original one with full resolution. The full original video clearly showed the person shot grabbed for the gun. It confirmed the defendant's testimony. The judge was furious even threatening the prosecutor that he might throw out the case. As it turned out, the jury found the shooter innocent.You can spend a lot of energy on this if you want, but it is much more appropriate to simply find someone who directly viewed the subject photographed, and have them provide evidence under oath to the effect that the photograph is an accurate representation of the subject photographed, as of the time that the photograph was taken.
Photography is, absent some special and/or legislative provisions - e.g. traffic cameras - usually not used in court as direct evidence, but rather as demonstrative evidence.
Specifically for backing up estate documentation and damage assessment.
And yes, the photographer themselves would be present to assure chain of custody of the negatives. Once the negative/slide/print is notarized and authenticated it's used as a reference to compare digital copies or photographs of the same subject. Like a will, the will is photographed on film. The film is authenticated as the original copy and then a digital copy of the will is used. If questions come up in the future as to the authenticity of a digital copy it can be referenced to the original authenticated film negative of the document if the document is no longer available.
Specifically for backing up estate documentation and damage assessment.
And yes, the photographer themselves would be present to assure chain of custody of the negatives. Once the negative/slide/print is notarized and authenticated it's used as a reference to compare digital copies or photographs of the same subject. Like a will, the will is photographed on film. The film is authenticated as the original copy and then a digital copy of the will is used. If questions come up in the future as to the authenticity of a digital copy it can be referenced to the original authenticated film negative of the document if the document is no longer available.
A few years back, during a riot in an American city, a guy shot a number of people. He claimed self-defense. At one point, the prosecution had to supply the court with a cellphone digital video they obtained from one of the spectators. It wasn't clear enough to confirm the defendant's claim that the guy he shot grabbed for his gun and then he shot him fearing for his life that the gun would be turned on him if he grabbed it. Later during the trial, it came out that the prosecution submitted the video to the court and defense counsel with reduced resolution rather than the original one with full resolution. The full original video clearly showed the person shot grabbed for the gun. It confirmed the defendant's testimony. The judge was furious even threatening the prosecutor that he might throw out the case. As it turned out, the jury found the shooter innocent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?