Fakeography

I was recently offered a time limited version of Adobe Firefly, as far as I can see its AI special effects software with actions prompted simply by typing in what you want. The first image here is my original, the second was achieved simply by typing in 'make into night'. All very impressive but 100% fake. It will add shadows and vibrance to make a dull day picture look as if it was taken in sunshine. Personally I'm not into what I call fakeography but there will be those who are. It really isn't the way photography should be going in my opinion as future generations won't be able to look at any picture with confidence that its a genuine record.
Needless to say I will not be subscribing to Firefly

 

Colourisation, with AI, of a 1950s photograph of a train about to pass through Broadway from the North.
What did AI get wrong?

 

Although I like your original, the fake is stunning to me, although perhaps more like an excellent painting than a photograph.

 

It is but it means anyone can now sit at home and convert a picture Ito what they like and pass it off as genuine

 

Which I guess is what I do for everyone of those images of mine I turn into monochrome if the mood takes me. This just takes it way further, and the genie is out of the bottle now.

 

Possibly, but at what point does the image cease to be your work? Can you really sit back and think, "I did a good job there,", or must it become "The computer did a good job there." I got some satisfaction from my photos, even some of the ones which went a bit awry, and I admit that was most of them. Would I get that from a AI generated but optically perfect piece of fiction?

 

The problem is you can no longer believe what you see. Which is particularly an issue if people are relying on photos as a source of historical truth. For example, taken at face value, @Johnb has changed a tour that happened during the day to one that happened at night. It's a short step from there to people asserting as true things that didn't happen "because look, here's the photo evidence".

Tom

 

I recently saw a great picture of a train taken during the eclipse, the photographer had the skill to get the exposure and post capture editing spot on. AI means that anyone can sit in front of their computer and by typing a few instructions produce something similar and tell the world it’s genuine. That is regrettable

 

Exactly, it means that in future photographic evidence will no longer be reliable. Mine will be as I’ve no intention of subscribing to any fakeograpy software.

 

There's something indefinable about that image that make it look like a model. A very good one, but somehow to me it doesn't look real.

(Edit to add: I think it is the colour of the line side grass is too bright: given how far away they verges are, they should be more muted).

I think colourisation is problematic for the same reason of more dramatic changes: because people will believe it is true. For example, we don;t know the real colour many pre-grouping locos were painted because reliable records are scarce. But colourise a photo - and suddenly that becomes the truth, and it may be hard to refute.

In another area of interstate, I saw a colourised photo the other day of a group of professional cyclists in 1950. Something looked odd to me, and after a while I realised that one of them - Louison Bobet - was shown with a pale jersey, buts would have been wearing the tricolore of reigning French champion. The colourisation couldn't assert that, with only a black and white photo to go on. OK, that one was easy, but someone more knowledgable than me also pointed out that one of the riders was riding for the Thomann team, who rode in Orange, whereas the colourisation had him in green. That was expert-level knowledge, but will soon be lost. And if those two points were wrong, what else was wrong in the photo?

Tom

 

I didn’t spot the change in the valve gear, that’s a bit odd. The light behind the cylinder is wrong but I was impressed that it’s intelligent enough to know that there would be light in the cab from an open firehole door.

 

I fear that it's only a matter of time before these and a multitude of other AI Edit features will be offered in-camera as technology moves on.

My son-in-law has just bought a Canon R50 and the edit features in-camera provide a multitude of image choices that would take me hours to achieve, if ever, using Adobe PS/LR. I guess I'm now the one telling him that real photography requires learning of skills as I did "back-in-the-day" where I threw away most of what I took or processed in my makeshift darkroom. In terms of AI, I've seen some 'amateurs' posting stuff on Flickr accounts but because they don't know their subject in the first instance, they aren't realising how easy people will pick up the fakery. Wildlife images on social media are awash with creatures that have never existed although it's surprising to me how many likes and wows they receive. It's a shame that most non-enthusiasts won't notice (or care) that Clan Line has a second fire under it's boiler but in terms of not seeing a true rendition of what the camera/photographer saw, this situation has existed for some time albeit been harder to achieve.

 

Here is the B&W picture:



AI mistook the steam cloud for sky, and made the train enter a cutting, whereas there was plenty more cutting behind it, obscured by steam. It's the cutting between Springfield Lane and Broadway station.
The image has sharpened up well, perhaps too well, as you say. There is something model railroad about it. Has the 2800 become a Hall? It looks like it to me.
I have others like it. AI changes random stuff, and it's up to you to find out what it did

 

I’ve used AI frequently after we moved house to visualise what various building and decorating options might look like.
It’s been really useful in conveying to the Management why my schemes are superior.

Here’s a simple one I did today, after taking photos of my various signs I asked AI to postion them on the rear wall of our new garden shelter.

Hopefully this will convince SWMBO that it won’t look naff.

 

It's interesting, because as well as the wheels having rotated between the versions, the front of the loco has moved backwards for some reason whilst the first carriage has remained where it was!

When you look at the bush largely obscured by the left hand smoke deflector on the first photograph, the night time computer generated rendition has much more of it visible in front of the loco - however when you observe the telegraph pole growing out of the corridor connection between first and second carriages, that's in the same place. Has the loco and first carriage shrunk, or has the track side stretched?

I'm not convinced by the odd 'white dot' in the sky that I'm guessing is supposed to represent the moon, and it's interesting how it's totally mangled the cab-side number, yet left the smokebox number visible.

Could the slightly out of place illumination under the running board have come from a AI model that's been trained on one too many night photographs of the A1 with it's service lights turned on?
...I have to say having shot video of it on shed and heading off at Coleham during the signalling trials last year the tendency for them to forget and leave those running board lights on as they moved out of the yard was really quite handy even though they were turned off by the time they reached the main line.

Perhaps the greatest puzzle for me is the eruption of steam from just in front of the cab on the night version?? There's nothing in that location on the original daytime photograph so why has the AI model decided a rivet has blown out the top of the outer wrapper? The steam isn't coming from the whistle located half way along the barrel and it isn't coming from the safety valves which can be seen just in front of the belpaire and behind the dome, well in front of where the steam eruption is coming from - so what does the AI think that is supposed to be?

Whilst at a glance it does look an impressive image, as someone who enjoys taking photographs in no light I can't say creating something by typing a prompt into a computer would give me the same sense of satisfaction as creating photographs myself...

 

I'd have to say I find the image impressive whatever the arguments.
As a young chemist and photographer I had access to a wonderful book called 'Fortunes in Formulas', and limitless access to the works/laboratory chemical stores. I brewed my own toners, reduces, accentuators, metallizers playing around with images for the print battles at Bury Photographic Club. I even entered some treated prints as part of my submission for RPS entrance exams. No one ever boohooed in those days, some were interested, some disinterested. I wonder what, if any , is the difference now?

 

The difference is that it was you who did it. This is rather like claiming a new world marathon record by driving it in a car.,

 

At a recent slide show with real steam powered slides I heard two comments -
"Good, no faked pictures" and
"We'll get to see the whole show, there's not much for the gremlins to attack in a slide projector."
The second one is interesting, are digi projector and laptop set ups that failure prone? From my experience doing a few digital presentations and seeing those of a couple of groups, I am afraid that may be true.

Back on subject, it now means any image has to be considered suspect unless the historical researcher sees the original print or slide. It's a fine line between adjusting image contrast to enhance details and completely changing the image.

Cheers, Neil

 

It seems to have provoked a bit of a discussion and I think it’s important. I sometimes get my images published and it does seem unfair that in future those of us who are honest about what we submit may have work rejected in favour of those who have just typed some instructions into AI software. I do sometimes digitally remove non permanent parts of a scene such as people or vehicles but if I submit them for publication I always declare it. As an example I’ve recently had an image of a tram at Beamish Museum published but I was honest about removing some tourists but leaving those dressed in Edwardian clothing in the image.