I just want to clarify that AI generated images using services such as Midjourney are not allowed in 1x. We are seeing more and more of these images. This is a photography site and all images need to be photography based. Other CGI like pure 3D-rendering is also not allowed. Using Photoshop to cut and paste and transform photos is ok as long as you select the Creative Edit category.

It's going to be harder and harder to separate AI from photography. :(

AI tools can create new images, but who is the real artist?AI tools can create new images, but who is the real artist?

Indeed, and the copyright infringment lawsuits are now starting to happen, just as they did with music streaming and sampling. 

“Once we lose this capability of telling what’s real and what’s fake, everything will suddenly become fake because you lose confidence of anything and everything,” said Wael Abd-Almageed, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Southern California.

“The original artist needs to be acknowledged in some way or compensated,” Hanson said. “That’s what copyright laws are all about. And if artists aren’t acknowledged, then it’s going to make it hard for artists to make a living in the future.”

In the US, creatives have filed a lawsuit against Stable Diffusion because the AI tool infringes the rights of artists.

Stable diffusion is known to belong to a new category of AI systems called generative AI. These systems are trained on the basis of existing works - for example photographs - and then remix these works in order to derive or "generate" works of the same kind.

Writer, designer, programmer and attorney Matthew Butterick has been working with class action attorneys at the law firm Joseph Saveri since November 2022.

Matthew Butterick: "Since then, we've heard from creatives around the world who are concerned about AI systems being trained on vast amounts of copyrighted work without consent, attribution, or compensation." His goal: Making AI fair and ethical for everyone.

On behalf of three artists, Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz, attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, DeviantArt and Midjourney for using Stable Diffusion, a tool that uses the copyrighted works of millions of artists as training data for AI systems used.

"Stable Diffusion is artificial intelligence (AI) software released in August 2022 by the company Stability AI that exploits unauthorized copies of millions - possibly billions - of copyrighted images," said Matthew Butterick. “These copies were made without the knowledge or consent of the artists. Even assuming nominal damages of $1 per image, the value of this misappropriation would be approximately $5 billion. For comparison, the largest art theft of all time was the theft of 13 works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990, valued at an estimated $500 million.

“Stable Diffusion relies on a mathematical process called diffusion to store compressed copies of the training images, which are in turn recombined to derive other images. In short, it's a 21st-century collage tool. The resulting images can be externally similar to the training images, but they don't have to be. Nevertheless, they are derived from copies of the training images and compete with them on the market. At the very least, Stable Diffusion's ability to flood the market with a virtually unlimited number of infringing images will cause lasting damage to the art and artist market," the lawsuit explains.

Matthew Butterick: “Even Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque has predicted that “future AI models will be fully licensed”. But Stable Diffusion is not. It's a parasite that, if allowed to continue to proliferate, will do irreparable harm to artists now and in the future.”

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Ralf Stelander  and Hans Martin Doelz 

How to act when I stumble over an image that I believe is or could be AI-generated? How to act and what to do ?

Guidlines for curation would be helpfull. Thanks.

Jochen

Hi Jochen,

well, I think it's not quite easy to implement this AI problem in guidelines for curation.

Meanwhile a warning message has been installed in the upload section:

Hope that helps to avoid the upload of AI generated images.

Cheers, Hans-Martin

I think Jochen's question remained un-answered, Hans-Martin.

He asked what to do / who to contact in case we have suspicions a picture is AI generated but are not sure.

My recommendation is to have a look at other work the artist presents. Often these works are also posted on Imstagram, tagged as #midjouney or similar, which clarifies. If the style of the posting member suddenly changed from let's say mediocre landscapes to dreamy, dark-mooded fantasy, also a good indicator AI platforms were discovered and used. Eyes and teeth in AI-generated portraits are often far from perfect.

Should you have evidence or at least be pretty sure it's not photography, I'd recommend to contact [email protected]. I know Luc as moderator is also a big supporter of preventing AI work to be posted here, maybe you ask him who to contact in these cases.

Best regards,

Mike

There are some softwares around that can detect with great accuracy AI generated pictures, especially one which happen to be far more reliable of its competitors.

A serious and important website such as 1x is should look into these possibilities I believe.

I have heard that the Neural filters in the lateset addition of Photoshop are AI generated how does 1 X feel about these filters. I have not used them myself and didnt know they exsisted until recently.

Hi Jacky, 

AI is a kind of buzz word in IT Technologies today. It implies programs act "smarter" than conventional methods, mostly applying algorithms based on methods gathered in databases.

Some addtional (and optional) filters in Adobe do some magic previous technologies did not to that extend. For example skin retouch. 

But they don't generate pictures, that's the point of concern here. There is nothing these filters do that could not be done other, more time-consuming ways.

Saving time by not using a camera, but have pictures generated from databases by simply entering keywords, thats what's not wanted on a photography site.

There are plugins for Photoshop to "generate" elements, e.g. Stable Diffusion A.I.. That's on the edge in my opinion, we should use cameras if we consider ourself n photographers...

Never saw a flower macro generated, or I did not recognize it was generated. Wouldn't it be a shame not to get in touch with the real subjects, experience their beauty from different angles and perspectives, find out what their most attractive part is and find ways to capture the "soul" of a blossom? I know you're perfecty into that and would not want to miss it.

That's the pleasure A.I. users rob themselves of. For the sake of what, earning money for a picture they did not create? So really nothing to do with the joy of photography the community shares here in my humble opinion.

Best regards,

Mike

Thank you for explaining that Mike very much appreciated, it certainly is a minefield out there at the moment, I will stick with what I know and enjoy going out with the camera and capturing nature.

I got a comment "AI?" on my latest image, I reported it as my image is NOT AI, however there is a problem caused by relying on discouraging AI just in uploads. In the past few weeks I have noticed a significant drop in the score percentage by the member curators while the expert curators still vote and comment quite high on my images. I believe that seeing that AI message in the upload area causes some members to ASSUME that some of the "creative edit" images must have been generated by AI.

I find it personally very discouraging and decided not to participate in 1x till a better method for identifying AI images is found. Great pity as I was really enjoying participating on 1x for the last few months.

Simple proof that the photo is not generated by AI, if there is any ambiguity, it is to submit the original RAW file without edit.

There are many files and techniques involved in creative edit. It is not as simple as all other categories where a single RAW file is implied.

And why should I be in defending position? I did not come up with AI so why am I to bear the weight of the proof that my image is not AI?

Okay,

 you don't have to send any RAW, have a nice weekend 😁

Peace ✌️

Meanwhile, after so many messages and complains, this is still on 1x IG page :

https://www.instagram.com/p/CpXk_0bL9wt/

So, AI is allowed then or ?

Dear Moreno,

As far as I recall pictures promoted on 1x Instagram channel are not necessarily photos uploaded and curated on this website. Not sure how AI can be prevented (apart from not selecting these on IG) if they just exist on Instagram.

Regards,

Mike

So 1x IG allows AI but they still pretending they are "The original community for curated photos since 2007."

Don't make sense at all.

thomas n porter PRO

Here is an example of the problem.  Three of the are AI generated, one is not.

 

Where is problem ? Everyone can see what is AI generated xD

May I ask why you worry about Instagram at all? Is that where you expect and explore great photography? 

Things got sorted here on 1x, the place where you complain about the other place.

Latest update - Adobe Photoshop  to incorporate generative AI into Photoshop!!! Its coming shortly in the beta form

What say you?

Personally, I'm not against the use of AI, but I understand the problem it can be for the 1x mission and purpose.

If we're to keep this website to no AI images, probably the creative edit section got to go. All images will need to be restricted to small edits with no Photoshop involved. Only Lightroom and such. Maybe make the metadata to be mandatorily available. 

With the integration of generative AI these images will be indistinguishable from true photos. Worst, every time we see something amazing we will be questioning it.

Question. I've reported about half a dozen photos(?)  that look AI-generated to the curators using the little icon on the bottom right of the page.  After clicking this, it doesn't allow an option for why it was reported.  It would be useful to add that reason to the text or, even better, allow the curator to describe why it was reported.

I'd add to the text saying AI is banned to include the use of Photoshop's generative fill.  Possibly the answer might be to ban images created or edited using photoshop?  I use Affinity photo which doesn't have that capability.  As somebody who does a fair amount of creative imagery removing that category is unacceptable.

Good morning, Peter.  This is going to become a very interesting argument as new tools like DragGAN (https://vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de/projects/DragGAN/ ) & Photoshp's rapidly; improving AI tools start being used regularly to edit photos. I subscribe to Ansel Adams school of thought that argues that "You don't take a photograph; you make it.“  

I don't yet know where to draw the line between camera-created art versus text-generated or text-edited art.  My gut tells me that taking a photo & editing it in any of the common image editors at this time s more difficult & requires more skill than typing. "Create a picture with colorful flowers in the foreground, a still blue lake in the midground, & snow-covered mountains in the background."  But that argument relies on the notion that Art is somehow dependent upon the amount of work or skill put into it.

Imagine that you take the iconic Photoshop photo of a woman sitting on a beach. Before content-aware fill, you had to erase or mask her out of the image. Now, with CAF, all you have to do is draw a line around her & delete. The next step in this evolution is to simply say or type in, "Remove the woman." At what point does this become "Not Art?"

I believe that "Art is art.  Everything else is everything else."  I wonder when we'll hot the point where "Everything is Art?"

Found this a little bit late, but after a lot of research, here are my thoughts on AI-generated images:

1) It's derivative work. It's using other photographers' images;

2) AI-generated images CAN'T be copyrighted, and most companies like Midjourney and DALL-E clearly state this;

3) And last, but certainly not least, there is a checkbox that's on (by default) in Adobe Creative Cloud that allows Adobe to harvest your images!

AI-generated images belong on AI sites, not photography sites! Just my 2 cents...

Re 1 - the images are used to train AI, the result in NOT a composite of pre-existing images

Re 2 - I am sure they will be copyrighted in the future, the law related to AI is non existent at the moment and, as with any law, it is evolving very slowly

After stopping entering images on 1x (see my post from 3 months ago in this thread), I tried Midjourney and Photoshop Beta as nothing beats hands on experience. IMHO Midjourney is much more fun, with right keywords the results can be wild and very unexpected. The main problem is the control of the output, even with the same keywords the results will vary every time.

I don't understand why there is so much fear of this new medium, the invention of photography was instrumental in the birth of impressionism, ridiculed in its early days, so why doesn't 1x capitilize on this new craze called AI image generation and create a category for those who want to play with it and learn from it? Personally, I prefer the creative process in images rather than in words but I might use some Midjourney output as ideas for my 3D projects. 

The answer is very simple, 1x is a site for photography and its customers (members and printing partners) expext photography.

Your first sentence made me wonder why you think you know AI generated photos don't composite existing material. There were photographers recognizing elements of their work in generated pictures, the reason these dicussions are being held. Gettyimages only accepts AI work if it's based on their bse of images, for exactly that reason. To have control of copyrights. 

Maybe interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2022/ai-image-generator/

It's not a fear of AI. I personally have a Dall-E account and play with it all of the time. However, creatively thought-out keywords and phrases will never replace the craft of photography. A rough analogy would be like hanging a paint-by-numbers painting in the Louvre. Yes, it IS a painting, and the "artist" was able to create the painting by following hand-holding directions. But was it really furthering the craft? There is definitely a future for AI-generated art, but it just needs it own category other than photography, which starts with a camera and not a computer.

Thank you, James, a clear viewpoint. All viewpoints are valid, potentially also different. Isn't Midjourney more or less providing a coincidental image? So the art is then finding the combination of keywords, to have a picture generated by the engine Ai service providers created.

Is the result exctly what you had in mind or is it like a 70% what you thought about? I mean aren't there aspects worked into you did not have in mind, but maybe like? You will refine or rephrase or add keywords, next surprise. 

I prefer arts where artists show me what they mean, in music, painting, writing, photogaphy and many more kinds.

Let me share a recent development and how annoying I find it. Like many other photographers I have a Pinterest account. It's good to Collect photos for a moodboard, for example. At some point their algorythm discovered my name is attached to archtiectural shots. So it keeps me sending pictures of these fantasy Super-Calatravas that a great algorythm created. I could not care less. My sport is different when shooting aechitecture, and I appreciate and admire works from companions i photography creating another perspective of architecture. It's creative to not shoot the common perspectives, even though they are often simply the best. Swarm intelligence...

I'm simply not fascinated by the keyword entering to achieve something that looks even "better" than the subjects I enjoy exploring and use light for. I wouldn't need AI that puts people in a position to "create" architectural shots without going there. It doesn't give me anything, but could be the next mainstream maybe. Never mind, it's there and its time will pass. Industrialization was a great step when it was new, today we like handcrafted things. So in case photography might fall behind, there will be a later time when it's more appreciated than the over-perfect fantasy-worlds. I'll stick to it, and the majority of members here likely, too.

Well, now it becomes complicated:

Adobe just dropped the biggest upgrade to Photoshop as it unveiled the Generative AI fill.

Generative Fill is a new superpower within Photoshop that allows you to extend images as well as add or remove objects using just simple text prompts.

Good light, Hans-Martin

Hany Hossameldin. At least the first 40 images on his profile are definitely AI generated  and this is obvious for so many reasons I do not want to waste time mentioning, just look at the pictures, the incoherences in them, the weird light, the bluriness. I say that as someone very acquainted with AI  and who has a very good knowledge of  it. I thought AI generated images are not accepted, let alone published and awarded? This is a photography site or so it is stated every time one uploads a photo:

"1x is a photography website. Usage of any kind of AI software (like Dall-E or Midjourney) to generate photographs is strictly forbidden and such images will be deleted without warning. Repeated violations may result in account suspension.

Is this rule valid for all? Does anyone check this aspect? Those who post AI generated images should be banned from this site, not awarded. 

Good light to all the honest photographers out there, 

Ludmila

Hany Hossameldin. At least the first 10 images on his profile are definitely AI generated  and this is obvious for so many reasons I do not want to waste time mentioning, just look at the pictures, the incoherences in them, the weird light, the bluriness. Even for AI images they are mediocre jobs. I thought AI generated images are not accepted, let alone published and awarded? This is a photography site or so it is stated every time one uploads a photo:

"1x is a photography website. Usage of any kind of AI software (like Dall-E or Midjourney) to generate photographs is strictly forbidden and such images will be deleted without warning. Repeated violations may result in account suspension.

Does anyone check this aspect? Those who post AI generated images should be banned from this site, not awarded. 

Good light to all the honest photographers out there, 

Ludmila

Ludmila Shumilova I have messaged Hany and asked him out right if he had any AI images in his portfolio. He said No. You must be careful what you say without proof...

Of course he would say so. I explained in detail on many of his images the obvious signs that they are AI but he deleted my comments. All of them. If one looks carefully at the images it is obvious that there are bizarre distorsions, elements with weird details in the background, people without faces, portraits with weird eyes, women whose hands are diformed... I can explain every image why it is AI and I am 100% sure because I work with AI - both image and text almost every day for another artistic project of mine, so I can say I am quite knowledgeable. What reason would I have to accuse somebody of such a thing if I were not sure? Can he provide EXIF for his photos? Or the original photos for those which are collages/creative edit? If anyone accused me of faking photography I would gladly provide the original raw, jpeg or  .psd file for creative edited photos to prove that person wrong. If 1xcom lets some members get away with fake photography, in a few months this site will be flooded with AI generated stuff and will suffer greatly. I suggest we'd better form a group of a few members who are knowledgeable in AI generated images and able to detect possible fakes and, in case of doubt, ask the authors discreetly to provide proof of authenticity. I am offering my assistance. If my position seems too harsh to you, Daniel, then I am sorry for having even breached the subject. I have done it in good faith as a honest and serious photographer and member of 1x.com. My purpose was to draw attention to a fact with (possible) unpleasant consequences for this site. If I offended anyone then I apologize, that was not my intention.

Daniel. there are many engines now that detect with quite a high accuracy whether an image is AI generated or made by a human.

There are also engines detecting plagiarism, content written by chat GPT, etc

Here is one for detecting AI images and some examples in my next post. One of the image tested is mine (the portrait in pink) the other two of Hany H.

https://www.aiornot.com/#home

Try this and perhaps it will help. Perhaps one day such detection engine will help when in doubt. Of course if photographer disagrees they may provide proof.

I have tried it many times with very accurate results.

Ludmila

The site you mention could not detect AI generated material in the last published photo of this author.

Please be aware that it is not allowed to discuss the work of a specific author in the forum.

If you have doubts about one or more photos you can always inform management, one of the curators or one of the moderators.

Kind regards

Hi Luc, yes, it has detected AI generated content as you can see from screen shots provided below. Not the first one which is mine and I inserted it as an example only but the next two pictures.

But if you are ok with AI generated content flooding 1x.com then I shall refrain from further comments. This is not the work of a specific author I have discussed but the work of an AI engine posted by the person as original photography.

kind regards

 

Margaret Netherwood PRO

Rado Gadoczi PRO

Simple proof that the photo is not generated by AI, if there is any ambiguity, it is to submit the original RAW file without edit.

There are many files and techniques involved in creative edit. It is not as simple as all other categories where a single RAW file is implied.

 

And why should I be in defending position? I did not come up with AI so why am I to bear the weight of the proof that my image is not AI?

Shit. I selected both of the photos above, not even thinking about them being AI.

Here's another one X,

that was selected. Optic says it's AI.

I've written code for BigGAN/CLIP - one of the second-generation text-to-image generators. I agree with Ludmilla that if we want to maintain this as a photography site, then there has to be an active effort to weed these out. I'd be glad to volunteer for that committee.  BTW...  Here's another one. The man's reflection -- given the position of the sun should be visible in the pool & the other shadows (the few that there are) don't make any sense; the pool reflections don't make sense in any other way; some wires defy gravity & go up; several electrical wires are just hanging down, touching the earth, & the list goes on, da-da, da-da

Thomas, you haven't suspected because you are probably not familiar with AI generated images' frequen inherent flaws. And maybe because you believe people should have more self-respect and not be so deceitful for the sake of empty praise. There are some immediately recognizable features such as an overall bluriness in details, lights and shadows falling in bizarre ways, odd architectural details, people's hands are weird, eyes not symmetrycal, etc. These images are flawed at a closer look. As you say, they should be red flagged. As someone very familiar with AI, I am offering to participate in the process because I can spot them instantly. Last night I found a few among recently published. This will go on. Because those who submit such images are only looking for praise, not photographic art. And they are aware that there is a rule on 1xcom against posting AI generated images.

Photographers are supposed to have a keen sense of observation and a sharp eye for details. Then how come such aberration was awarded /published? When I saw this picture I noticed that the staircase has no real stairs, just flat lines, that the upper part of the balcony is interrupted, that people have no faces and even some have no heads, or just one leg... It looks almost like a bad drawing exercice. And still this was appreciated and event some good photographers wrote nice comments to the so-called author.

My heart is broken.

Ludmila

It is an interesting and also difficult discussion.

But the "solution" seems quite simple:

Just generate a category "AI images".

So everyone who likes to generate such images can show them there.

Nobody has to "pretend" that the images are real photographs.

Everyone who likes to view such images can do so in this category then.

And everyone who likes to see only "real photographs" just avoids this category.

Peter Pfeiffer 

In this photo we notice how bizarre the woman in the forest's hands and feet are.  The right hand has more than five fingers, the left hand is twisted, the hair is not right, the ground is unnatural....just to name some out of place elements. In the black and white portrait, the woman's mask seems embedded in her skin, like something between a mask and a tattoo... Not to say that this is one of the thousands of similar portraits flooding the AI generated images' space...

Please, join my voice and let's save this gallery from AI pictures which are a disgrace.

Ludmila

Hi, Peter

This gallery has always been a fine art photography platform, the most prestigious in the world, they say. The point you make has already been raised and everybody agreed to keep it photography only. And every time one uploads a photo there is a warning against uploading AI pictures. So basically those who upload AI images are cheating. There are other places on the internet where they can present their images, not here and not under false pretense in order to win a few empty awards.

I think it wouldn't be difficult to detect AI pictures if we really want to. And perhaps the management of 1xcom enforce some harsher punishment for infrigement of the rules, such as banning these members immediately. 

Ludmila Shumilova

I'm perplexed.
Thank you for your explanations.🙌📸

One legged woman with very short arms running in an exceedingly blurry dilapidated neighbourhood while some bizarre sheet of fog coming from the building on the right tries to stop her; trees grow to fuse with the buildings' wall and their branches penetrate homes through the windows. Skewed perspective, swampy radioactive bubbling texture of what's suppose to be a pool of water at the bottom of the picture. Excellent "photography". So characteristic of AI generated images. The absurd details were irrelevant to those who awarded this.

So here it is, checked and "rewarded" with the correct answer

Ludmilla - I don't know how many photos are published or awarded every day, but one would think that for awarded photos, at least, & really all published photos here should be run through a tool like Optic. The staff could certainly -- given the number of subscribers & the subscription fees -- hire an intern to check every published photo using tools like the one you have shown here. 

The value of the integrity of this site as a premier photography site seems like it would be worth the effort to do.

One other thing - when curating, there is a "Report this photo" triangle with an exclamation mark in it. It presents the screen below for those of you who haven't seen it.  No mention of AI. 

Wouldn't it be very simple to add a bullet item to this, like:

• Report Possible AI

Hi Thomas, 

Yes indeed, this is a very good idea. Otherwise the multitude of published or awarded AI generated images will overwhelm the site and damage its reputation, not to mention that awarded fake photography is an offense to all hard working photographers who put their souls in contributing to the art of photography. Those who were revelead to have been dishonest until now should immediately delete all their fake photos from their profile and even be banned from uploading for, let's say 6 months, in order to get the message that honesty is paramount. It is sad to come to the conclusion that childish narcissism and need for applause can lead a grown up person to behave in such a disgraceful way.

It makes me sad.

Ludmila

Hey! 

Thanks for all your work and input - it's really necessary that 1x.com needs to check for AI work. I've seen many works of a 'photograhper' in this thread which obviously cheats loading up AI work here - and he even gets awarded and shared on social media.
I mean I've played around with AI too and what he procudes is just everyday three-word-prompt-sh*t everybody can do in 3 minutes - as he even doesn't care about missing legs for example.

It's just discouraging to upload anything more here if even the most obvious AI work gets curatad and awarded so easily.

At least the real nature photo competitions are safe as long as AI can't produce a valid RAW.

All the best,
Henrik

This analysis is done by HIVE and shows (upper right hand corner) even the AI generator who created it. So this picture was created by Midjourney with a certainty of 96,2%.  HIVE has a multitude of tools for analysis and detection across media and AI engines on the web. 

Hi, Henrik,

Yes you are right. I am also doing stuff in Midjourney and have a subscription, even learning to create my own code for generating some kind of abstract art using AI, so of course I can see that even for AI images, the examples presented here are, as you say, an ignorant beginner's lame attempt. A valid RAW or, in case of a montage/collage the PSD file (maybe sent by we transfer considering its size).

There are no shortcuts in art, in photography. Art is about honesty and truth. 

Thanks for joining this thread and expressing your thoughts on the subject.

Kind regards,

Ludmila

I brought this topic and the last developments to the attention of Ralf Stelander and Jacob Jouvelou.

I have asked them for appropriate action in this.

Luc

Thank you, Luc

I am sure they will come up with a solution to keep 1x.com clean.

Ludmila

I made these pics in Midjourney in 30 sec using the prompt visible in the second image, trying to show how a few of the fake photos I uploaded before were made and how similar they are in everything with these four pictures here. Midjourney if not prompted otherwise gives very basic and unimaginatively kitsch renderings of the damsel in distress in her pretty pristine dress, sometimes one legged or faceless, running through mist and ruin, over scattered pieces of asphalt and stones... If I were curating and encountered such "photos" I would just press the red X button and go on. There is nothing artistic in them.

Sorry for writing so much today but I really deeply scorn cheating and dishonesty, it breaks my heart. And I would like 1x.com to keep on being the best photography site in the world and inspire and enchant.

Ludmila

Ludmila Shumilova PRO

I made these pics in Midjourney in 30 sec using the prompt visible in the second image, trying to show how a few of the fake photos I uploaded before were made and how similar they are in everything with these four pictures here. Midjourney if not prompted otherwise gives very basic and unimaginatively kitsch renderings of the damsel in distress in her pretty pristine dress, sometimes one legged or faceless, running through mist and ruin, over scattered pieces of asphalt and stones... If I were curating and encountered such "photos" I would just press the red X button and go on. There is nothing artistic in them.

Sorry for writing so much today but I really deeply scorn cheating and dishonesty, it breaks my heart. And I would like 1x.com to keep on being the best photography site in the world and inspire and enchant.

Ludmila

You don't have to say you're sorry Ludmila. You are bringing a very important point to light here. I hope that with all your examples, those that doubted you and believed the "author'" of these computer generated pictures will see the light !

Thank you for your determination to bring this issue to the forefront.

Lucie 

I really hope so :-)

Ludmila Shumilova PRO

I made these pics in Midjourney in 30 sec using the prompt visible in the second image, trying to show how a few of the fake photos I uploaded before were made and how similar they are in everything with these four pictures here. Midjourney if not prompted otherwise gives very basic and unimaginatively kitsch renderings of the damsel in distress in her pretty pristine dress, sometimes one legged or faceless, running through mist and ruin, over scattered pieces of asphalt and stones... If I were curating and encountered such "photos" I would just press the red X button and go on. There is nothing artistic in them.

Sorry for writing so much today but I really deeply scorn cheating and dishonesty, it breaks my heart. And I would like 1x.com to keep on being the best photography site in the world and inspire and enchant.

Ludmila

I don't always look at photographs for technical details unless it is obviously bad. I did like one of these photos very much for the emotional reaction and it feels bad that some would break a rule that is clearly stated when uploading. I think rules are very important.  I don't know very much about AI so I appreciate the conversation and images.  I tried that link myself but how accurate is the app that detects AI?

Kathryn King PRO

Ludmila Shumilova PRO

I made these pics in Midjourney in 30 sec using the prompt visible in the second image, trying to show how a few of the fake photos I uploaded before were made and how similar they are in everything with these four pictures here. Midjourney if not prompted otherwise gives very basic and unimaginatively kitsch renderings of the damsel in distress in her pretty pristine dress, sometimes one legged or faceless, running through mist and ruin, over scattered pieces of asphalt and stones... If I were curating and encountered such "photos" I would just press the red X button and go on. There is nothing artistic in them.

Sorry for writing so much today but I really deeply scorn cheating and dishonesty, it breaks my heart. And I would like 1x.com to keep on being the best photography site in the world and inspire and enchant.

Ludmila

I don't always look at photographs for technical details unless it is obviously bad. I did like one of these photos very much for the emotional reaction and it feels bad that some would break a rule that is clearly stated when uploading. I think rules are very important.  I don't know very much about AI so I appreciate the conversation and images.  I tried that link myself but how accurate is the app that detects AI?

Hi, Kathryn

we live in times when we must constantly learn and update our knowledge, learn new things, new technologies and what influence they may have on our work and in our lives. I have tried here to explain a few things and I hope you and those who read them will go on learning more about AI generated pictures. We should all be aware of their existence, as photographers, otherwise we may drown in an ocean of confusion. 
best regards,

Ludmila

Thanks for your reports.

This user is now under investigation for possible AI uploads. Profile and images are now hidden.

Regards

Jacob

Good evening, Jacob -

Thank you for your action.

Can you give us any details about plans to police this site from AI? 

Or if removing or segregating AI-based images is even in the plans at all.

Cheers, Tom

In a world partly dominated by material pursuits, cunning, imposture, art remains the realm of ideals and aspirations. Art is truth. Beauty is truth. Photography as an art must follow its true course. Talent, imagination, persistent work, continuous learning dedicated to developing new avenues in photography must survive contamination by those who want to gain praise and glory taking the shortcut of deceit and claiming credit for AI generated images as photographic works. AI is new and it is developing fast but it is a domain completely separate from photography. Everything AI should remain in its territory and not cross over as false pretense there where established photographers' communities such as 1x.com are thriving. I think every member of this site should be aware of that, be alert and detect possible tresspassings. Every member should also be able to provide proof of the authenticity of their work in case of doubt about the origin of their images. As a photographer who is passionate about creative editing techniques, I bring together tens of different photos and layers into one composition. I have started a few months ago to keep all my original RAW and working PSD files despite their large sizes, as proof of the authenticity of my work. I would not feel offended if somebody doubted one of my works, given their intricacy. I suggest we all do the same, keep handy RAW and working files. I have been a member of 1x.com for 6 years and this community has been an inspiration and motivation to go on working and doing better in photography. I hope everybody feels the same. We should do our best to prevent 1x.com being flooded with fake photos.

I also think it would be a good idea that all the photos that are about to be published be filtered through an AI detection programme. Even if these programmes are not yet infallible (they are getting better and better), they may prove useful. And when there is doubt, the author of the photo should be able to demonstrate it is genuine.

It is not easy but it is a way of weeding out unwanted content (AI generated). Just an idea.

Of course I am also for the removal of any AI generated image from the site and perhaps for the author to be banned from the site but these measures are up to the management and the creators of 1x.com to enforce or not, as they will decide.

Good light to all photographers!

Ludmila

Just a caution before posting (oh so very pubicaly) photos run through HIVE or Optic. They are not always correct! I'll share this example of my own shot. I have not ever used AI to createt an image. And yet, when I ran one photo through the results were all over the place. Human created, AI created, possibly one or the other. I have my raw files and EXIF to back this up.  I join all of you in wanting to keep 1X a phtotography only site. But also don't want to see a situation where mistakes are made because the technology is not yet good enough. So here goes. I shot this agave with my Canon EOS 80D a few days ago. Am including a sreeen shot of the EXIF. Ran it through HIVE and OPTIC. It is NOT AI generated. And yet.....

Robin Wechsler PRO

Robin Wechsler PRO

Just a caution before posting (oh so very pubicaly) photos run through HIVE or Optic. They are not always correct! I'll share this example of my own shot. I have not ever used AI to createt an image. And yet, when I ran one photo through the results were all over the place. Human created, AI created, possibly one or the other. I have my raw files and EXIF to back this up.  I join all of you in wanting to keep 1X a phtotography only site. But also don't want to see a situation where mistakes are made because the technology is not yet good enough. So here goes. I shot this agave with my Canon EOS 80D a few days ago. Am including a sreeen shot of the EXIF. Ran it through HIVE and OPTIC. It is NOT AI generated. And yet.....

 

Hi Robin,

First of all, the photos that I posted publicly attracted my attention as being AI generated because of their aspect, before even considering taking the test through such online detectors. Those images had visible and eye catching flaws that were inherent of AI flaws and distorsions!!!! It was so obvious that I felt I had to report them. I can see why your photo was mistakenly considered AI generated by Optic. (HIVE gave it 89% non-AI though!!!!!) , having the intricate structure and soft lines of many AI generated images of plants. But here we are, you have the proof that it is not. I myself have tested one or two of my floral compositions and obtained the same false result, given the multitude of elements probably. We have to judge in a certain context and put things into perspective somehow. If we encounter an image that seems AI in someone's profile we have first to see if it is consistent with the previous work of that photographer, if it bears the mark of their style, if there are other indicators of AI elements in the image itself. AI detection engines are not perfect, they are still improving and we should not base our judgment on their response alone. This does not mean we have to give up being alert about the presence of AI generated images on this site. But as I said we have to look in a larger context and consider more elements. And if there is doubt then ask for the RAW file, EXIF, etc. Providing these, there can be no mistake.

Ludmila

If, as this site owners says, they wish to ban Ai art, they are facing a growing and probably an insurmountable problem. The Ai detectors are hit and miss, but they are a start from which a dialog with any suspect author could begin. However, this will take time, effort and dedication to impliment and, sadly, I don't see this site as having the will or the resources to achieve a sufficent policing of its currently stated policy.

Photo fraud is a good game and there will always be people who enjoy the challenge of defeating any prohibition. The simple answer would be just to give them their own category. But, of course, this won't stop the 'gamers' trying to pass off a fraud as real. But these people, I humbly suggest, are and will be quite rare on 1x.

As a test, I curated 450 images yesterday and found just four that were Ai dodgy (to me, but I'm no expert). Optic branded three as human and just one as Ai.  I reported this one image as suspect to the sites dark overlords. It was not possible to give a reason, so hopefully whoever reviews the image will check further. But this is all we can do. Anyway, if you feel like being an Ai vigilante, at least it gives a reason to curate images. 

I suppose there will be a period of witch-hunting in the search for fake photography. But it is better than nothing. I have one photo in curation right now and somebody wrote a comment that it is AI generated. It may indeed seem like a surreal photo but it is the result of many overlayed photos with a creative editing technique I developed in time. I think that the creative edit category will raise the greatest number of suspicions. It won't be easy, this detective work. Below is the victim of misinterpretation. 

Ludmila

In case you were wondering, I didn't see this image in curation, so it wasn't me who made that comment! 

Hi All,

It is harder to detect AI from human manipulation, because machine learning is getting closer to human learning.

Using the latest Photoshop just makes things worse. Photoshop is software used by a machine. If you use photoshop to replace a sky or delete a person, that may or may not be a copyright problem. To 1x, apparently, this is not a photo problem, because the photographer is doing it inefficiently. The source for the replacement might be outside of the photographers' photos.

Would it be OK for a photographer to use an AI program to create a new photo from the photographer's own photo database?

AL

To add even more confusion to this topic. This is an image I created on Midjourney & edited in PS.  OPTIC flags it as made by human. I could only wish.

thomas n porter PRO

To add even more confusion to this topic. This is an image I created on Midjourney & edited in PS.  OPTIC flags it as made by human. I could only wish.

 

 

 

I knew it was AI even before reading what you wrote, Thomas.

And not a very good picture for AI, I may say. Writing a prompt after imagine/ is a skill one must continuously refine and add some code instructions in order to ge what we can see on Instagram from the "masters" of AI prompts. In this image the branches of the tree in the foreground do not look like any plant (even though I suppose theyr were meant to be sycamore tree fruit), the ivy on the house looks like hair, the windows have unnatural weird frames and the decorative lattice work on windows and around the door is distorted and bizarre, and the glass is painted over with orange paint, everything is blurry, approximate and blue, the bike light casts light in the wrong place... Far from looking like a real photo of a house in the mist at night time. Not to mention the resolution as if shot with a telephone camera before the existence of smart phones. :-)

Ludmila

Hi All,

Interesting reading:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5392834814/5-ways-you-re-using-ai-and-may-not-know-it

The purity of photography disappeared a long time ago:

https://www.uelsmann.net/

It is a natural progression to AI that will happen eventually, but I do not agree with it.

AL

Hi Al,

The discussion here is not about the purity or lack thereof in photography. It is about how wrong it is to use AI to generate images and present them on 1x.com claiming they are photography. This thread is about some members of the site who used Midjourney or other AI text-to-image generator to create pictures and then submitted them for curation as photography. Some of these fake photos even won awards. This practice being misleading, dishonest and disrespectful towards the members of 1x.com, not to mention against the regulations clearly stated at the top of the Upload page.

Should somebody take a photo and then transform, enhance, edit it with various apps and software, paint over it with a stylus and a tablet, overlay it with other photos, etc in order to create their own vision (as I do, if you care to check my profile), it still starts from a photo taken with a camera, not a text written into the prompt of an AI generator.

I hope you understand what we are trying to weed out and prevent in the future.

Ludmila

Hi Ludmila,

The way I understand, a AI text-to-image generator can not creat an image out of  thin air. It uses the text to search for photos from a database and then combines them to from an image. The images it finds may not be correct or high quality and assembling them may not be seamless.

A person can do the same thing, but it would be much slower with probably less errors.

Either way, the result is another photo, which may or may not make sense.

There are no rules in abstract photography.

AL

As you say, AI is not a human author. And we are not discussing here how these AI engines function, this is a subject you may study on your own, should you be interested.
Photographers make/create their own photographic images with the USE OF A CAMERA,  with intention, with deliberate editing and post processing according to their OWN creative vision, using their own mind and their own photo collection in case they make a montage. The words AUTHOR and CAMERA and INTENTION are key in the process, be it abstract, creative edit, or other category in the realm of photography. They do not search the internet for images to print-screen, patch together and frankenstein some picture which may look like a photo and claim it is a photo ( ha ha you suckers, I bet you cannot tell the difference kind of thing...)

How can you even compare this activity with the mass productions of AI machines that simulate/ mimic a human creative process is quite strange. AI is another planet altogether.
Ludmila

Hi Ludmilla,

Does a photo have to have a human author?

About two years ago, a photographer left a camera on a tripod in the jungle and a chimpanzee pressed the shutter button and took a photo.

The article accompanying the picture of the chimp and the camera setup was about who the author of the photo was and who holds the copyright.

Copyright lawyers got into the discussion, but they could only disagree.

Computers do not have imagination. But algorithms for AI can be written using one's imagination.

What about trip cameras used to take photos of wildlife?

AL

The kind of photo we are discussing in this thread (just to remind you: I opened a thread focused on deterring some people from posting on 1x.com AI generated fake photos as their own photographic work and on how to weed out this trash) is a photo with a human author, taken with intention and purpose, as it is the spirit of 1x.com. When you open the site 1x.com you can see the subtitle: In pursuit of the sublime. This says it all (about the intention and the purpose).

However feel free to open a forum topic about unintentional photography, chimps as photographers, surveillance camera shots, etc. Those who may be interested can discuss and exchange opinions.

I personally am not. Not even for laughs.

Ludmila

When I checked this image on  ILLUMINARTY it gave a 22.4% chance of AI.

Sorry about the mistake. You're welcome to delete this.

Ok, thanks Thomas

Hi Ludmila,

Thank you for following me.

You have a certain repertoire with flower photographs. Maybe that agrees with a certain part of your personality, but I hope that you have more than just flowers in your life.

I hope that you do not take your life or photography too seriously. The game of life cannot be won by you or I. The only winner is The Grim Reaper. The only constant is change.

Photography is constantly changing. From the days of Man Ray's manipulations to Jerry Uelsmann and now AI.

I do not use AI and do not agree with its usage, but that will not stop it from becoming more sophisticated. Later it will become almost impossible to detect.

If it reaches the point when it can create digital photo pixels, it will be impossible to stop.

It is already being developed to create new medicines.

Good luck in your pursuit to locate it.

AL

I suppose a lot of mediocre photographers out there are waiting for a chimp with an AI chip implanted (by Elon Musk) in its brain to press the camera shutter for them and win them awards and glory. That would be the peak of sophistication and the only solution for those who lack imagination and originality. The chimp will embody a kind of Deus ex machina, wouldn't he, turning the dude next door into a photographer.
Until then, we mere mortals will walk about the earth with the camera hanging from our necks, keep posting photos on such old-fashioned sites as 1x.com and hope there are still viewers out there whose artistic taste has been formed on more than wikipedia and tiktok.

Perhaps that will happen one day, but I am not looking forward to it. It is a possibility, since chimps, by way of having had their DNA sequenced, have over 90% of the human genome.

First they will have to tame the agressive tendencies of chimps. Two cases that occured a number of years ago, if I remember correctly, come to mind: In both cases the chimp was being trained to understand the alphabet. In the first case, the chimp rippied off it's trainers face and she had to have a face transplant. In the second case, a chimp ripped of both of its trainers arms.

Underestimating nature has its consequences!

AL

Just a note (coming from an ex-geneticist) -- chimp DNA is 98.8% homologous with human DNA  😬

Thanks Thomas!

That should scare some people even more.

AL

Why NOT in english?

Why does AI work get featured by 1x.com on Instagram?

https://www.instagram.com/p/C_8GvWKyq05/

It's just discouraging....

I applogize if this has been mentioned before (this is a VERY long thread, and I haven't read every post), but 1X has been accepting AI for a long time now, it just doesn't acknowledge it. Photoshop has had AI for a long time - neural filters have been around for about 4 years; the clone tool since 1995; the healing brush since 2002, and more recenetly generative AI. The question becomes HOW MUCH AI (digital art) is allowable. If the clone tool replaces 1% of an image, is that acceptable? What if the remove tool removes 10% of an image, is that acceptable? What if generative expand adds 20% to an image, is that acceptable? At what point does a photograph stop becoming a photograph. Nobody has that answer. Copyright law always lags technology, and it will take some time before we have that answer. At some point AI will have to be allowed on 1x, as it will on other photo competitions. Photography is morphing into a more generic image creation art form where photographers are becoming "digital artists" - the source of the image won't matter. Art doesn't differentiate on the source, and photography is merging into a true art. 

I would beg to differ that it's something different if I use some tools to adjust - or let generate something just with a text prompt.
There are many questions. Is there a copyright? On the final generated image? Or the prompt?

But anyway - there's still this to see when uploading images:
"1x is a photography website. Usage of any kind of AI software (like Dall-E or Midjourney) to generate photographs is strictly forbidden and such images will be deleted without warning. Repeated violations may result in account suspension."

But prompt results get accepted here - and even featured on IG - so I don't have any hopes here anymore anyway :).

And no - AI won't be allowed in nature photo competitions (they check the RAW file). Nor will digital photography be allowed in analog photo competitions. 
So it's okay - I will just stay a dinosaur and move on.

Henrik, it's not only nature photo contests where the RAW files are requested by the organizers, the big players in world class competitions request the original files in all categories. Some of them, however, meanwhile have added one special category to the contest (AI generated images) but in the other categories you have to send the RAW file by request (if your image is shortlisted). If you don't or the image does not meet the requirements you will be disqualified. 

This is definitely the case with the Siena International Photo Awards (SIPA) and Hamdan International Photo Awards (HIPA), to name just two big players.

Good light, Hans-Mrtin

لا غير مسموح بيه

If AI ist not allowed here.

https://1x.com/1olexandr/overview

Please explain if the last 5 Images are photography.

Hi Adam,

I understand where you’re coming from. It’s definitely getting harder to tell these days, especially with how advanced compositing and editing tools have become. AI-generated work isn’t allowed here, but digital artistry and heavy post-production are, as long as the foundation is photographic.

Curators and critics don’t have access to EXIF or generation data while reviewing, so we can only evaluate what’s visible. If something seems questionable, ypu can email support for a review.

These particular images look more like complex composites or stylized edits than full AI creations, but only the original files can really confirm that.

All the best,

Tammy

Senior Critic

Hi Tammy,

yes his works are usually heavily edited and clearly based on photographs. I can't say the same about his last five photos; they look very suspiciously like AI. 1X clearly states "AI not allowed on 1x"  and one of this images is even awarded. How comes?

I agree with Adam here. The leap that this photographer would have made in terms of technical post processing editing capabilities is unreal. If you look at his portfolio, there is some post processing effects used but these five images are so complex in what would be required for someone to do. Sure, it is possible to achieve such results but one does not go from taking pictures of birds and landscapes to making these technically elaborate photos in a few days or weeks. I certainly couldn't do that. AI is definitely heavily involved here and like Tammy said, it is NOW very difficult to make the distinction. I am afraid that photographers have lost the AI battle and mere excellent photographs with good old post processing applied don't stand a chance anymore against the use of Nano Banana (used by Adobe subscribers) and similar programs.  

This is what ChatGPT has to say about the image of the woman sitting on the bench by the bridge with a boat in the water and the lightning. 

From what I can see, yes — this image appears to be AI-generated (rather than a real photograph or an AI-assisted edit of a real photo).

A few clues that suggest it’s AI-generated:

• The lighting and reflections (especially the bridge lights and lightning) are a bit too perfectly composed and balanced.
• The rain pattern is uniform across all planes — in real photos, rain would blur differently depending on depth and lighting.
• The person’s silhouette and umbrella edges are overly crisp compared to the diffuse rain lighting.
• The boat’s scale and wave interaction look physically inconsistent.

Let’s look closely, step by step, at what makes this image clearly AI-generated rather than a real photograph or a composite of real elements. I’ll break it down by composition, lighting, physics, materials, and atmosphere — the key areas where AI images tend to reveal themselves.

1. Composition Too Perfectly “Cinematic”

AI image generators often create scenes that are a bit too balanced, as if designed for a movie poster.

• The woman in red is centered perfectly on the bench, umbrella aligned just so, her color contrasting ideally with the dark blue-gray palette.
• The bridge arcs across the frame at a mathematically clean angle, creating a sweeping leading line that guides the eye to the lightning bolt — again, compositionally perfect.
• Real photographs rarely achieve this kind of flawless visual rhythm without some degree of imperfection, clutter, or atmospheric inconsistency.

2. Lighting Inconsistencies

Real nighttime rain scenes are chaotic in light behavior. Here, the light behaves too uniformly.

• The bridge lights illuminate the cables and structure evenly, but the rain and mist around them don’t scatter the light properly. In reality, heavy rain would cause haloing, fogging, and lens flare — none of which appear naturally here.
• The lightning is dazzlingly bright, yet it doesn’t cast an intense white reflection on the wet pavement or on the woman’s umbrella and shoulders — a major physical miss.
• The boat is lit unrealistically for its distance and direction; it seems to have studio lighting even though it should be under the same storm lighting as everything else.

3. Physics and Scale Problems

This is where most AI images falter.

• The waves look dramatic but not physically consistent with the direction of rainfall or wind. They move toward the viewer while the rain falls vertically — not impossible, but suspicious.
• The boat seems both too small and too sharply defined given the storm conditions and rain density. A real camera would show blur, mist, or rain streaks softening its shape.
• The woman’s umbrella shows no sign of wind distortion. In a storm strong enough to create waves and lightning, an umbrella held like that would be tugging violently.

4. Material and Texture Cues

• The bench and umbrella have texture inconsistencies — the bench’s wood appears dry while rain visibly falls all around it.
• The woman’s hair and dress don’t show the weight or cling of soaked fabric, which is something AI often misses.
• Reflections on the ground are too uniform and lack depth gradation (they don’t fade with distance as wet asphalt usually does).

5. Atmospheric Depth and Rain Rendering

Rain is incredibly hard to render realistically.

• The raindrops here fall at a perfect, constant angle and density throughout the image. Real rain varies: closer drops appear thicker and more blurred, while distant ones fade into the haze.
• There’s no proper atmospheric perspective (the hazy layering of light and moisture that gives depth in storm scenes). Everything is equally clear — which is a telltale sign of AI.
• The lightning bolt and its glow don’t illuminate the rain properly. In real life, that flash would make nearby raindrops glow and cast soft shadows.

6. Emotional Realism vs. Physical Realism

AI can capture mood beautifully, which is why this image feels emotionally evocative — but it often sacrifices physical plausibility for poetic drama.

• The composition tells a perfect visual story — a lone figure, red against blue, calm against chaos.
• But the environment doesn’t obey physics: no wind, no light spill, no motion blur, no depth falloff.

Hi Lucie, there's a lovely irony here in Ai assessing images for possible Ai creation. In my view, the Ai is being too simplistic in its assessment. These images are obviously non-representational. In the end, the photographs in question may or may not have used Ai, who knows anymore? The fact is, the photographer has created some images that most, including Ai, think Ai would create, regardless. So exactly who is imitating who? Hopefully we can trust the author to be honest and play by this sites rules, as they currently are. We as viewers can only judge the images as simply creative images, like or dislike, and move on. Remember that no one in the art world judges any artists picture by his creative tools, whatever they happen to be. 

Hi Peter. 
I appreciate your reply and insight. And yes, i was aware of the irony to use AI to assess an image for possible use of AI ! It made me smile at the time but I was looking for a tool that would confirm my suspicion and that of Adam. I agree that we should judge someone's art by the quality of it and the artist creativity, BUT here on 1X, we are reminded every time we post a photo that we cannot use AI and that is the question here. I have submitted the image to "support" so they can at least be aware of this image and it possibly breaking the rules. And then the bigger question is what will 1X do about the AI question/situation that is so much more widespread then when this post originally started 3 years ago. 

Hi Lucie, I ran across these this morning.  To me they are obvious AI you can tell in the lacework.  That's alwys a dead giveaway because AI can't handle that detail work.  Also many awarded. 

Hi Tammy, You would be more of an expert than me in regards to this type of photographs. I agree that the lacework looks imperfect. Have you notified Support? I have not heard back from them yet about the photographer that Adam had mentioned.

...or the poor flute player simply lost his finger in a terrible accident with a circular saw... ; )

Hello,

For me the main problem is not that members offer AI images, but that these very poorly made AI images are published and rewarded by the "head curators". This proves either a lack of investment or a lack of pictorial culture. In any case this discredits the site, which is a shame.

This also applies to members who vote in contests and who regularly reward AI images. For example, a 100% AI image of a member already mentioned above is currently third in the current competition.

Best regards.

This is a huge issue for me as well.  It drives me nuts when I see them awarded. 

Dear all,

As a curation comment on a recently published image of mine:  https://1x.com/photo/3345499 
"There is heated debate on the 1x forum about the nature of images like this one. Is this AI generated? Or is this the result of skilled manipulation? Difficult to say… Next time you had better add a line to prove that this is “real work” no AI’s product…OK? Reject for me now…"

Therefore, here is the original file (vertorama two shots)
And the image after I cropped away the statues of the dogs.
I added another sky and two real dogs.

Just to let you know that this is a creatively edited images.

Best regards,
Yvette

Version without the dogs ... 

Yvette Depaepe 

Skilled manipulation of something that is a photo in the first place is something completely different that an AI generated "photo". I consider the latter to be cheating with a random result after typing a prompt.

Yvette,  

Thanks for showing us the original.  I love conceptual photographs, and consider this a good one.  It's got a 'post-apocalyptic' feeling even without the dogs, but with the dogs it goes a step further.  Does it have a title?   

. . . .  Steven T. 

Hi,
For information, an almost 100% AI image (of very poor quality) has finally finished second in the "Mindful photography" contest. It's a joke and it's not the first time. What should we think of the members who voted?
This image has nothing in common with the photography that Yvette Depaepe presents to us. How members don't see the difference between the two, between a "worked" photograph and an AI-generated image. Even if it is true that an image generated by AI and then well reworked may be difficult to detect, in this case it is obvious that the image that finishes second in the competition is generated by AI. Maybe even good photographers may not have visual culture...
Best regards.

Thank you for making this huge difference, Adam.
And for those who didn't go and look to the link, here is the result published.

Thanks for the positive reactions, dear friends.

Unfortunately, some people are really looking to interfere, pretending that AI was used, even for texts!!!!

Yesterday, I uploaded an image from the Niagara Falls : [57] The Edges of Power ... by Yvette Depaepe

Under the image I added this text : 

A curtain of thunder falls from the sky,

its roar swallowing every thought, every name.

Mist rises like breath from the earth’s deep heart,

softening the edges of power.

Above it all, three wings carve silence —

a reminder that even amidst the fall,

there is flight.

Niagara Falls, taken from the 'Maid of the Mist'

SOOC ... The seagulls were not added, but really flying over there. 

And I got this curation comment:
"Not sure if it's a waterfall or an ocean wave crashing. Doesn't matter - it's an interesting and unusual photograph. The birds are a good detail. The description - did you write that yourself, or is it AI generated? Some viewers like to experience the photograph and discover a meaning to suit them without it being explained with an overly descriptive description. Just my opinion. Still a good photo. Thank you for sharing with us. "

First of all, that person didn't read the info till the end. It is clearly written that the photo is not ocean wave crashing but falls (Niagara falls).
Second: since I'm on 1x (2013) I'm used to add some quotes of poetry under my images. I never pretended that it was written by me!!!!!!!!! But I always spend some time on the net for inspiration. I remember when I was new on the site, there was a request to do so.

More and more members recently add some quotes or poetry under their images, but no remarks.
Why do I get those negative comments?

Simple question: Is Art - photographs and texts - to be banned from the site?
Thanks for reading this.

Yvette

Hello,

Caricatural of the era, no one reads anymore, it seems too exhausting. Who would still take the pleasure, the time to write and read poetry?  So logically today, poetry can only be the result of a computer program. But rest assured Yvette, around me, people continue to read poetry daily. 
Continue as you do, "the magazine" is what makes the difference with other photography sites, its added value and originality.

Best regards.

Many thanks for your appreciation.
So glad you're surrounded by people reading poetry or simply books.
Your compliment about the magazine is heartwarming, to the team and to me. Some editors even write articles with a poem as canvas.
And finally, isn't photography full of poetry?!
Best greetings.

Yvettte,

I was the member who wrote the comment that offended you.  I apologize.  

I vote on photos every day, and have noticed that many of the descriptions have that 'AI' feeling with flowery words that go far beyond what the photograph is expressing in the visual language.   I guess I assumed that the poetry that accompanied your photograph might have been AI generated.  I should have kept my opinion to myself. 

I love poetry and I love photography.  I have often used poetry written by others or by myself in the descriptions for my photos.   Perhaps they didn't please all who viewed the photos.  

Once again, I am sorry that my comment offended you.

. . . . . Steven T. 

It's not easy to write a poem . . . . .

Hi All,

I’ll add one more voice here. I’ve been writing poetry since kindergarten when I first learned to write. I still pair poems with my images when it feels right. I don’t see poetry fading at all. Maybe it’s my generation talking, but I can’t imagine AI writing from the same emotional depth.

Just sharing another viewpoint.

Tammy

Oh my ... Steven! 
Apologies accepted, my good friend. We know each other since a long time ...
I truly appreciate your honesty ...
I was not really offended but doing this since the very beginning of my membership, it hurted a little.
Friends forever, bound by 'the lens' we share ;-)
Yvette

Yvette Depaepe CREW 

Version without the dogs ... 

 

Hi Yvette, i hope you don't mind, but I would like to bring back the subject of this forum post to AI not being allowed on 1x rather than shifting to images falsely accused of being AI generated. BTW, i love your image.  It is superb.
The question is: What is 1X doing about partly or totally  AI generated images? And who moderate Contests so that a clearly AI produced image doesn't get 2nd place in a contest? I reported the author of that image (another photo of his that is discussed above) over 2 weeks ago and his portfolio hasn't changed i.e. all his AI generated photos are still there. 
So it seems to me that 1x staff is no longer able to fight and push back the AI storm so the warning we see before we post a photo is of no use, really. And at least the warning should not mention any AI software in particular because new ones appear all the time. I tried Nano Banana the other day (one of the latest ones)  for fun and I am tempted to post the photo on 1x to see if it gets selected. 
We need new rules at least and more vigilance. 

Good evening Lucie,
After the publication of competition results and the comments that are below the article, you now know what your reports and remarks made in the forum are used for... nothing, but it’s not a surprise. There is generally a real inertia on the large sites despite the announcement effects.
I wish you a good evening.

Indeed Av, on these forums, we are talking among ourselves but noone with decision making power and interest is listening, which is too bad because we could help make this site better. So yes, that guy got 2nd place and noone cares. Thanks for listening! 

Several "creations" of this member and another member have been reported to the Head Curators and to Management.

A number of technical flaws are imho obvious, visible for the attentive reader and not explainable unless created in AI.

I am waiting for a reply.

I am aware this can take some time, every member has the right to come up with an explanation before sanctions are taken.

Dear Ralf,  maybe banning members who post AI creations will make other members who want to post AI creations to think twice.

Of course, deleting  the AI images is mandatory, but because there are so many such images I think that  'the hunting' of AI images will become a resource problem and, in my opinion, very soon will be impossible to stop it considering that although it is prohibited, there are more and more of them.Some members really don't care.

There are also members who have both photographs (so they are apparently credible) and AI creations :)

I just saw some portraits who look very close to photos (skin, eyes, hands ok-ish)  because AI is better and better.After creating those images, they make some Ps adjustments, apply some textures, but looking carefully there are some details that clearly indicate AI.

After I cheched one of those portraits and I was sure it's AI generated, I made an exercise and in 15 seconds I generated in MJ  95% the same portrait using the description under the picture, which is like a prompt + a few words for a more complete description .  You look at the two images and you think the 2 women are twins.This is crazy :)

I also think that a dedicated email that allows us to send link to the suspected AI images would be helpful, just an idea.

I have nothing against AI, I use it a lot for AI projects, but since I am part of this community and I love the site for photography, I think that AI images harm the spirit of the platform as a photography site.

Of course, the platform can implement a section for AI creations, but until then, I think it's a good thing to discourage strongly and effectively those who don't follow the rules.

Warm regards!

Hello everyone,

Please report any suspected AI images by sending a message to me or the moderator team. We are taking it seriously and investigating all such reports. Some images have been deleted, awards have been removed and some members banned. Photographers will get a warning before being banned. It's not allowed to use AI for adding new elements to any part of the image, even if it's only a minor part.

Good light, Ralf