Steve Brazill joins the conversation to see where AI is going and what can be done about it, lenses that shoot at extremely wide apertures, “efficiencies” and fines at Meta and look at the reputational damage to Outdoor Photographer for not paying their contributors. Thanks for listening!
Story 1: Photoshop’s New ‘Generative Fill’ Uses AI to Expand or Change Photos (via PetaPixel)
Related Google’s AI Product Studio Removes Need for ‘Expensive’ Photographers (via PetaPixel)
Story 2: F-Zero Camera ‘Breaks the Laws of Physics’ by Shooting f/0.3 to f/0.6 (via PetaPixel)
Story 3: Meta Completes Another Round of Layoffs in its ‘Year of Efficiency’ (via PetaPixel)
Related Shutterstock to Acquire Giphy from Meta for $53M (via PetaPixel)
Related Meta Issued Record-Breaking $1.3 Billion Fine for Mishandling Data (via PetaPixel)
Story 4: Outdoor Photographer ‘Grossly Mismanaged’ as Contributors Go Unpaid for Months (via PetaPixel)
Picks of the Week:
Don: Snow Crystals: A Case Study in Spontaneous Structure Formation
Steve: The Photography Rates Spreadsheet
Connect with Our Hosts & Guests
2 Comments
Regarding AI and dealing with photo fakery, here’s a thought: for crucial photos that must be identifiably “true”, shoot analogue on film. An actual film negative is even better proof of the photo’s origins than a raw file.
Can you fake a negative? You probably can, but it would be way harder than throwing AI at a photo, so leas likely to happen, I would argue.
Rex, an interesting take, but just because something is on a negative doesn’t make it “real”. Copy stands allow one negative to be copied – but what if the “original” was a digital fabrication being transposed onto film?
Sadly, it’s incredibly easy to fake a negative. It would be as authentic as printing off a copy of an AI image and calling it real, simply because it was tangible.