So AI is now allowed on here?

Huw said

There are no rules about what tools you use. Russ has stated that on this thread, probably more than once.

But people still aren't listening!  :-(

Gothic Image said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Gothic Image said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Around a year ago, I posted a photo of a model with cyborg details created using Stable Diffusion. It was removed. Given the profligacy of such tooling now it's part of Photoshop (increasingly used in more parts of the program, even Denoising and the new 'Enhance detail' tool) and many other mainstream editing tools I do wonder when Admin (along with organisations such as FIAP, etc) are going to catch up that their 'No AI' stance effectively means we must remain on pre-2022 versions of software (and in come cases cameras) to stay safely within their rules.

Of course it doesn't.  It's not what tools you have, it's how you use them?

The thing is, Adobe are replacing how tools work with new versions, denoise is a good example. More and more are switching to AI based fundamentals. If you keep on top of the release notes, you'll be OK (but who reads those?). Otherwise a tool that you've used for a long time, might suddenly become something you can't use anymore to stay within rules. That's why it's safer to remain on old versions unless such 'No AI' rules are written from a technology agnostic standpoint.

The fact that an editing tool may or may not use AI (most of the time it's just a marketing claim anyway) is irrelevant. The AI that PurplePort is referring to is the type of image that is produced by typing words into Stable Diffusion or whatever.  It doesn't refer to use of a particular editing tool on a photographic image that originated from a camera and a real model.

You can use original photos from a camera in AI like SD, as well as add a prompt. It's similar to Adobe's Remove tool where you mask out an area then fill by specifying the fill with a prompt, except SD gives you more control over the result. In such cases the prompt becomes the name of your traditional slider and you can also vary its strength. The major advantage of using a prompt is that you don't need an infinite list of pre-defined sliders like you would in traditional tools. 

Gareth Oakey Photography said

CalmNudes said

 

ampy said

jmbphoto said

Guidelines are already described here under "machine generated images"

https://purpleport.com/articles/1/image-upload-guidelines/

Thank you for the link James,

Personally, I have absolutely zero interest in Midjourney and the like, but given the new (and no doubt ever increasing) AI features in Photoshop, I was looking for a definitive statement.

I failed to spot this.

Some people seem to have a massive blind spot. 

You can post an image where part of it has been generated by an "AI" algorithm, provided that part isn't the model.

Get photoshop to AI fill the background, it's treated no different to using the clone brush or compositing two pictures.
Get something to generate a photorealistic picture of a model and drop that into a background which you've shot, not  forbidden. 

I've got an idea for a picture which composites together photographs of living, breathing models, and cybergraphs of machine generated women, and I don't know if that is legal or not.    

Around a year ago, I posted a photo of a model with cyborg details created using Stable Diffusion. It was removed. Given the profligacy of such tooling now it's part of Photoshop (increasingly used in more parts of the program, even Denoising and the new 'Enhance detail' tool) and many other mainstream editing tools I do wonder when Admin (along with organisations such as FIAP, etc) are going to catch up that their 'No AI' stance effectively means we must remain on pre-2022 versions of software (and in come cases cameras) to stay safely within their rules.

I think you've demonstrated the blind spot but also illustrated the problem 

(a) There is no "NO AI" stance , and AI is largely a marketing term. No one cares if noise reduction benefited from machine learning and whether Adobe brand it is "smart", "Next gen" or "AI" .Ditto edge finding , sharpening, detail enhancement.   

(b) PP's upload guidelines - and it doesn't sound like you've checked them - say that if the picture is made by a prompt-driven picture generator it can be used like something from a free library e.g. as a background, but can't be passed off as the work of a photographer, retoucher or painter.  Anyone posting such a thing would needs an "AI prompt jockey" account, and until that's offered there's no place on PP for cybergraphs.   

BUT what happens when a prompt-driven picture-generator takes a photo from the photographer who made it and processes it?
"Take this picture of a woman and replace the background with ..." would be no different to doing the same in photoshop. "Take this picture of a woman and make her a cyborg"... is the resulting cyberwoman computer generated or an edited photo ? I don't have the answer, but the question shows how there will be difficult cases.  That's a world away from saying PP is trying to ban anything which is labelled AI. 

CalmNudes said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

CalmNudes said

 

ampy said

jmbphoto said

Guidelines are already described here under "machine generated images"

https://purpleport.com/articles/1/image-upload-guidelines/

Thank you for the link James,

Personally, I have absolutely zero interest in Midjourney and the like, but given the new (and no doubt ever increasing) AI features in Photoshop, I was looking for a definitive statement.

I failed to spot this.

Some people seem to have a massive blind spot. 

You can post an image where part of it has been generated by an "AI" algorithm, provided that part isn't the model.

Get photoshop to AI fill the background, it's treated no different to using the clone brush or compositing two pictures.
Get something to generate a photorealistic picture of a model and drop that into a background which you've shot, not  forbidden. 

I've got an idea for a picture which composites together photographs of living, breathing models, and cybergraphs of machine generated women, and I don't know if that is legal or not.    

Around a year ago, I posted a photo of a model with cyborg details created using Stable Diffusion. It was removed. Given the profligacy of such tooling now it's part of Photoshop (increasingly used in more parts of the program, even Denoising and the new 'Enhance detail' tool) and many other mainstream editing tools I do wonder when Admin (along with organisations such as FIAP, etc) are going to catch up that their 'No AI' stance effectively means we must remain on pre-2022 versions of software (and in come cases cameras) to stay safely within their rules.

I think you've demonstrated the blind spot but also illustrated the problem 

(a) There is no "NO AI" stance , and AI is largely a marketing term. No one cares if noise reduction benefited from machine learning and whether Adobe brand it is "smart", "Next gen" or "AI" .Ditto edge finding , sharpening, detail enhancement.   

(b) PP's upload guidelines - and it doesn't sound like you've checked them - say that if the picture is made by a prompt-driven picture generator it can be used like something from a free library e.g. as a background, but can't be passed off as the work of a photographer, retoucher or painter.  Anyone posting such a thing would needs an "AI prompt jockey" account, and until that's offered there's no place on PP for cybergraphs.   

BUT what happens when a prompt-driven picture-generator takes a photo from the photographer who made it and processes it?
"Take this picture of a woman and replace the background with ..." would be no different to doing the same in photoshop. "Take this picture of a woman and make her a cyborg"... is the resulting cyberwoman computer generated or an edited photo ? I don't have the answer, but the question shows how there will be difficult cases.  That's a world away from saying PP is trying to ban anything which is labelled AI. 

You're right, PP is more tolerant than other organisations such as FIAP, PAGB, etc which do have strict 'No AI' rules. The point I was making, though, is that the tech is evolving and becoming more and more integrated into the workflow. Take the example of a very low resolution photo and upscale it with AI image generation to many times its original size, adding new details with each upscale - at what point does it cross the line between something created by a camera and something created by AI? In the case of the federations, I've been asking for the 'No AI' rule to be replaced by a rule that doesn't specify technology but does ask that a clear lineage between the original photo(s) and the final image be present. With those competitions and salons, it's within their ability to request original unedited RAW files to check that the substantial parts of the image be present throughout. With PP it's not as easy to do this. Maybe the 'Content Credentials' file will hold the key to low overhead verification in future?

Gareth Oakey Photography said

CalmNudes said

I think you've demonstrated the blind spot but also illustrated the problem 

(a) There is no "NO AI" stance , and AI is largely a marketing term. No one cares if noise reduction benefited from machine learning and whether Adobe brand it is "smart", "Next gen" or "AI" .Ditto edge finding , sharpening, detail enhancement.   

(b) PP's upload guidelines - and it doesn't sound like you've checked them - say that if the picture is made by a prompt-driven picture generator it can be used like something from a free library e.g. as a background, but can't be passed off as the work of a photographer, retoucher or painter.  Anyone posting such a thing would needs an "AI prompt jockey" account, and until that's offered there's no place on PP for cybergraphs.   

BUT what happens when a prompt-driven picture-generator takes a photo from the photographer who made it and processes it?
"Take this picture of a woman and replace the background with ..." would be no different to doing the same in photoshop. "Take this picture of a woman and make her a cyborg"... is the resulting cyberwoman computer generated or an edited photo ? I don't have the answer, but the question shows how there will be difficult cases.  That's a world away from saying PP is trying to ban anything which is labelled AI. 

You're right, PP is more tolerant than other organisations such as FIAP, PAGB, etc which do have strict 'No AI' rules. The point I was making, though, is that the tech is evolving and becoming more and more integrated into the workflow. Take the example of a very low resolution photo and upscale it with AI image generation to many times its original size, adding new details with each upscale - at what point does it cross the line between something created by a camera and something created by AI? In the case of the federations, I've been asking for the 'No AI' rule to be replaced by a rule that doesn't specify technology but does ask that a clear lineage between the original photo(s) and the final image be present. With those competitions and salons, it's within their ability to request original unedited RAW files to check that the substantial parts of the image be present throughout. With PP it's not as easy to do this. Maybe the 'Content Credentials' file will hold the key to low overhead verification in future?

I had to lookup both PAGB an FIAP,  and if I have it right, PAGB is the camera-club's  club, and FIAP if the club of clubs of camera-clubs. Given the mental atrophy found in so many camera clubs, it wouldn't surprise me to find "No digital" rules in place in those two.   

Tech has ALWAYS evolved, that's sort of the point. Better algorithms for everything that leverage greater CPU power and build on what's gone before are sort of inevitable. 

I think it is important to keep AI generation - that is I tell some service "Make me a picture of a bear making a sandwich" or other things that don't happen the real world (Mid journey did this quite well, except it assumes bears would include salad) separate  from existing functions enhanced with Machine learning  and branded as AI. Noise reduction is certainly in that class. Does anyone greatly care if the algorithm for creating a mask for the sky is marketed as AI or not ?  It's interesting if you say "enhance this" and photoshop as ah, well, that bit is a brick wall and it looks most like this bit of brick wall I've seen before so instead of just scaling up your pixels I can replace them with something that looks near enough the same but isn't really. As soon as you apply levels or convert to black and white, or colour grade the bytes in output don't match what the camera saved, so what swaps should be legal are what shouldn't gets very philosophical - when it is making up something that didn't exist, and when is it showing the best rendition of what was in front of the camera / in the mind's eye of the creator ? 

Website, Clubs, and clubs of clubs need to decide what they allow and what is "cheating" and if they suspect someone is using techniques they don't approve of, then it becomes "show your working". Adobe DO put stuff in the meta data with steps taken in lightroom and now additional bits for generative fill, but if you're determined to bypass it you can. RAW files from the camera are NOT digitally signed, but are harder to mess with. By the time something has been edited, exported, prepped for upload etc there's no audit trail left.  PP is dealing with the question of passing off as your work, other places have different kinds of deception to worry about which are more insidious, thinks that required experts to fake them not long ago are now available to everyone. 

Gareth Oakey Photography said

With those competitions and salons, it's within their ability to request original unedited RAW files to check that the substantial parts of the image be present throughout. With PP it's not as easy to do this.

If your image is considered "suspect", PP will indeed ask to see the RAW or other unedited source of the image.

Georgia Brown said

I’m a professional photographer. I have enough confidence in my work to know I’ll be valued regardless of the progression of AI.

People have become so engrossed in what others are doing it takes away your own appreciation for your own work - people creating AI don’t devalue your work or ability as a photographer nor do painters, those who draw or digital illustration artists.

The intent of art is the engine emotion and conversation, being bitter is just sad.

BUT, everyone should most certainly be honest but then who gives full descriptions with a piece of art, not many! It’s a tough one to navigate but I imagine photography had this impact of artist many moons ago.

Edited by Georgia Brown

Edited by Georgia Brown

I agree with you Georgia, if people want to create AI based images that's their choice. However this is a model photography website with the purpose of allowing models and photographers to arrange shoots and display a portfolio that represents their abilities.

The issue as I see it is that if people are passing off images that are wholly created using text generation and then passing it off as their own work. it's fraudulent behaviour, particularly if they are trying to attract models to work with them based on something they didn't shoot.  

It's the lack of transparency that is the issue (and they know they can't be transparent because this site doesn't allow wholly text generated images)