paul
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by paul on Apr 17, 2023 17:25:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Apr 17, 2023 20:43:50 GMT
I saw that several hours ago. Now there is a 404 error. I suppose the topic is a bit too controversial for dear old Beeb. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 17, 2023 21:02:12 GMT
Read about it yesterday on Twitter. Photo appears to be obviously AI, just look at the fingers. But, it's in the Photoshop as much as you want category, so judges weren't necessarily looking for realism. But the artist is right, there does need to be a discussion about it in this context and better filtering to ensure ineligible images don't slip in.
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by paul on Apr 18, 2023 6:06:44 GMT
They claim he misled the judges about the amount of his photography that was involved. Originally he said it was mostly his photography enhanced with AI, but since winning has stated the image was AI generated. For me one of the main discussion points is as the image won the Open category and was created by AI specially to do so, then the judging criteria of these competitions must be reliably conventional and consistent for this photo to have achieved itâs aim. Alternatively, looking at it cynically with AI stories all over the news it could be a AI photo winning the competition and then being exposed is getting the Sony Awards lots of extra publicity. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65296763 |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Apr 18, 2023 6:57:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Apr 19, 2023 15:51:05 GMT
For me one of the main discussion points is as the image won the Open category and was created by AI specially to do so, then the judging criteria of these competitions must be reliably conventional and consistent for this photo to have achieved itâs aim. Or might this [bold highlight] really imply: "unimaginative and predictable".....?  
BTW, welcome to the forum, Paul.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Apr 19, 2023 16:51:45 GMT
At least the 'photographer' has admitted what he did, and perhaps given Sony something to consider for future competitions.
Talking of competitions, I notice is a recent AP that the Garden Photography contest has yet again been won by an image not taken in a garden.
Also, given the way it was created, should it count as multiple entries?
|
|
paul
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by paul on Apr 19, 2023 17:12:31 GMT
For me one of the main discussion points is as the image won the Open category and was created by AI specially to do so, then the judging criteria of these competitions must be reliably conventional and consistent for this photo to have achieved itâs aim. Or might this [bold highlight] really imply: "unimaginative and predictable".....? I wouldnât disagree
BTW, welcome to the forum, Paul. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by dans on May 1, 2023 10:16:16 GMT
For me this just shows how competitions of art are nonsensical. I'm glad the artist said what he had done. In a way it allows the question to be asked about the blurring of the arts, painting ,photography and now AI. Its funny how once we know how something has been created it can change our judgement of it. For me this is good though, once I understand an artist's intentions I see the art differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on May 2, 2023 16:19:55 GMT
For me this just shows how competitions of art are nonsensical. I'm glad the artist said what he had done. In a way it allows the question to be asked about the blurring of the arts, painting ,photography and now AI. Its funny how once we know how something has been created it can change our judgement of it. For me this is good though, once I understand an artist's intentions I see the art differently. As long as competitions are judged by people who have their own preferences or opinions about what is 'art', it is inevitable that many other people will disagree with the selected winning images. So, to some degree these things are a lottery, and obviously more so if the competition requires payment for entry. However, I do believe that any competition should clearly state if it is for photographs, images created by AI software, or both. So in the case of the Sony competition, I hope that the organisers understand how stupid they appear to be. They could insist that the technical details of the images entered (camera, lens used, etc,) be supplied, but I suspect that somebody has already found a way to add 'invented' data like this to an AI image. This might be as easy as copying the AI image to an existing image from a camera using editing software, so as to retain the data from the original. |
|
