Hi, this is Wayne again with a topic “AI Images vs. Real Photos: Can Pro Photographers Tell the Difference?”.
The order is wrong, so we’re going to say the wrong one, and so we’re going to look like fools on the internet. Take a look at my photos. Some of these are real. Others never happened.
Ai and photography is nothing new. Our phones and cameras have used AI to improve photos for years, uh, think red, eyee removal or portrait mode. That gives your phone photos an artistic blurry background, as if they’ve been taken with a dedicated camera, an expensive lens and now there’s generative AI, which Powers, tools and services like Dolly mid Journey, Firefly and Linda Ai, and can create photos from scratch with nothing more than A prompt just as photography, changed, drawings and paintings AI will forever change our photos, but that leads to the question: how do you know what’s real and what isn’t and does that even matter anymore, to find the answer? I assembled two professional photographers cets James Martin and Lexi sides.
I showed them a series of images some made completely from AI others, where AI was used to manipulate an image and photos were neither were the case. Let’S see their reactions, we’re give you a laptop yeah and just have to figure out. Is this photo AI or not just that simple and then we’re going to talk about everything? Do we win a prize? Yes, you do you get to go home, looks pretty real to me. It does.
I think what gives away that it’s taken on a phone with kind of like portrait mode is like that kind of weird kind of sharp cut out around, like the bodies at the back is kind of like artificially blurring and then sharpening and then kind of like Bluring it again like the edges, are kind of Shar sharpened to the point, but I definitely think that’s a real image and then I don’t I do too, like the textures of the of the plate here would be more smooth than L texture. Were it a AI IM and then also just kind of like some of the imperfections in the the plate? No toast doesn’t look like it’s nice I’d eat that, but it looks like something I’d eat, as opposed to like a picture perfect thing that I choose off a menu right. So that’s why I it’s not overly perfect. This is a real photo. I 99 % sure that this is not like a portrait mode shot.
Oh more avocado toast this one looks like AI. I don’t know if it’s AI, I wouldn’t say it looks like a I I think it could. It could go either way. I see what you’re saying, but I think it looks real enough again taken on a smartphone cuz that, like blurring effect, does look like it’s kind of like a food mode or a portrait mode. Just on the toast.
It does there’s something about the texture in the bread. I don’t know looks very um. I mean I’d eat that very thought through by a computer yeah, but I’d eat that, like that’s, I think, that’s real. Okay, I’m going real you’re going fake.
The second avocado toast is a i generated 100 %. No, I thought that was the real one. It’S like almost too nice looking and now you mention it. The lime does look kind of weird.
The lime does should have noticed that in the first place, something about this one that just says AI to me there something weird happening with the dog’s nose. You know it’s kind of like it’s, not a complete, so actually that makes me think it’s AI yeah. I think there’s something for me about it, like everything is so direct like everybody’s too perfectly straight to the camera, including the dog. I mean, I have a dog, it’s really hard to get my dog to look straight on in the camera. Unless I have a treat perfectly positioned behind the phone, yeah um and the tongue, there’s something weird about the tongue. Oh look at his watch. There’S something strange going on: oh that that looks like a slug.
This is an AI photo. Oh, this is a dead giveaway. What phone is this? It’S a slab, it’s very generic, like I mean, as somebody who you know, covers Tech all the time I can tell that is not a phone I’ve ever seen in my life, except if it’s off, like a display cabinet, a fake one. In a Verizon store or something it’s fake is looks pretty fake um. What’S this right here, this thing thumb finger thing: that’s creepy! It’S like a claw.
They look like real headphones. You might actually even know the model uh they’re, the new Bose qc’s. I think I’m not sure of the model number, but it’s just like really like a lot of depth of field. This looks real to me yeah, I think so I’d say real, like a real photo mhm.
This is AI. These headphones with the wooden veneo right, yes, looks a little too text again. The texture is almost too uh, I don’t know yeah, there’s no, there’s no right like if you look at this side like it looks like it’s a 2D rendering yeah. This one looks less even like a photo than those other ones that I thought it kind of looks like Photoshop, generative AI, like you type in wooden headphones, and it would come up with this yeah a bless, Mr Patrick Holland himself.
I mean this is like. If you know, if Patrick decided to you know, become or become a Harvard Professor, I would say this: this is his head shot that I would see on his LinkedIn and across the faculty, websites and stuff like looks very trustworthy, love it, but 100 % AI. I don’t know: what’s Patrick I love you, but I know that you’re not going to become a Harvard Professor anytime. Soon with this you just wa. I think anybody who knows Patrick could tell that. That’S AI because the fabric doesn’t look real and you have much better taste in clothes.
I think the biggest surprise for me was. I look at things with a really critical eye, so I was honestly expecting everything to have a layer of manipulation to it. I was looking for things that didn’t exist as well totally and in that it kind of like backfired, especially on the avocado ones. Does it matter that photos are AI or not AI or is this like? Is this whole exercise just a waste of time? It’S not a waste of time. I think it’s a really important question. I think it’s largely dependent on context.
So, for example, for like a journalist, istic, um application, or something like the context of it’s in a newspaper is something that’s been altered. Is somebody’s face being changed, but I would say most people just want the best possible image and we have limited storage right. I take 500 of the same shot, trying to find the right one. So if I can have one, that’s just manipulated in a way.
That’S not bending the truth. It’S just making sure that everybody’s looking the right way to the camera. I’M happy just to have that uh. I read over the weekend about high schoolers, taking pornographic images and using an AI generated tool to put their classmates heads on the image, so the image is not real, but then this image was shared around the school.
The kids, who were the subject of those images, felt violated, felt bullied, so that’s real, but do we need something that not only restricts that but also penalizes people for doing that? I agree that there should be some way of doing this, but I’m just thinking realistically like how would this be in forced you’re, using the FDA analogy like how does that result in years and years of legal action and then finally down the track? There’S some sort of resolution think about how many images are created and post online every single day, millions billions. You know trillions even more than that trying to regulate. That is enormous. It doesn’t seem to me like there’s any way of going back. Is this just another chapter turn from like when we went from like drawing and painting and to photography and now we’re going from photography into like AI photography or AI images, probably yeah. I think you can’t really say whether it’s right or wrong. I guess you can say it’s whether it’s right or wrong in terms of it being a photograph, but maybe then the definition of photograph has to change. Yeah photography has always been complex. Decades ago, photographers use lens selection, shot Framing and film chemistry to make alterations in the dark room. Now, Photoshop St uh smartphone image processing in generative AI, make those analog era alterations, look primitive but before you despair that AI fakery has sucked the fawning utility out of Photography, take a step back yeah.
It’S true that you need to exercise more skepticism, especially for emotionally charged social media photos of provocative influencers and shocking Warfare, but at the same time, the photos you’re more likely to care about. Personally. Those from your friend, friends, family and co-workers are far more likely to be anchored in reality. That might even benefit from some of the AI power tools now available to us, and that’s all I’ve got if you want to know more about the topic of AI imagery check out cenet for an in-depth exploration on the topic by my pal and colleague, Steven Shanklin.
But now I want to hear from you: do you think the benefit AI images bring outweigh our diminished trust in photos, especially online? Let me know in the comments. Lastly, if you enjoyed this video, give it a thumbs up and thank you for watching .