Hasn't this crossed over into being a philosophical question? You want to attest to reality or provenance. But then you start making lists of "acceptable" changes: file format; compression; color-correction; size; taking "medium" into account... It then slowly slides into "average human perceptibility"; "irrelevant details"; keeping the "spirit" of the image intact; judging the intention or motive of the user or of the viewer; aligning the image with "values"; appropriate/legal use... etc. Not sure what the end-game is?
We are trying to make images in the AI era be as reliable as they were pre-AI? But they were not reliable pre-AI, it was just more difficult to intentionally doctor them.
I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.
ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper.
Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case...
Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors?
"Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"
Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!"
Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous.
Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance.
Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing.
Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted.
Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...
> Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors?
>
> "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"
what exactly is the 'threat model' that you're trying to protect against here? If you already don't trust John Doe as a credible source, of course then there's a million ways he can frame a scene to tell an unreliable story. That's always been the case.
But to me, what we're looking for now in the age of diffusion models is for someone to be able to say "here is the provenance of this image, it came from John Doe's camera" and that can survive being shared round the internet, provably.
> You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames.
I'm not suggesting that the _only_ thing that gets used is a raw image. I'm saying that if you go to the Wall Street Journal, then underneath the photo, beside the credit, they put a link out to some page that hosts the RAW file, the metadata of the camera used and a signature.
If you find the photo unbelievable and think it's bogus, you're able to regenerate the signature from the parts and see that it's valid. (and obviously if they link off to something that's massively different - that isn't just compression, white balance, etc - people hold them to account)
jamienk · · focus · HN ↗
We are trying to make images in the AI era be as reliable as they were pre-AI? But they were not reliable pre-AI, it was just more difficult to intentionally doctor them.
another-dave · · focus · HN ↗
Gigachad · · focus · HN ↗
Provide the raw original, and the exact processing steps used to get the presentable one.
112233 · · focus · HN ↗
You cannot replace honesty with tech.
goodmythical · · focus · HN ↗
"Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed"
Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!"
Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous.
Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance.
Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing.
Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
jamienk · · focus · HN ↗
Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...
another-dave · · focus · HN ↗
what exactly is the 'threat model' that you're trying to protect against here? If you already don't trust John Doe as a credible source, of course then there's a million ways he can frame a scene to tell an unreliable story. That's always been the case.
But to me, what we're looking for now in the age of diffusion models is for someone to be able to say "here is the provenance of this image, it came from John Doe's camera" and that can survive being shared round the internet, provably.
> You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames.
I'm not suggesting that the _only_ thing that gets used is a raw image. I'm saying that if you go to the Wall Street Journal, then underneath the photo, beside the credit, they put a link out to some page that hosts the RAW file, the metadata of the camera used and a signature.
If you find the photo unbelievable and think it's bogus, you're able to regenerate the signature from the parts and see that it's valid. (and obviously if they link off to something that's massively different - that isn't just compression, white balance, etc - people hold them to account)