Yeah, I don't get it. It doesn't look very good to me. It is also obviously AI generated, with the telltale signs of deformed limbs and hands.
His photo has been removed from the gallery, but here are the other finalists in the category he won. The category tends towards the abstract, so it's not super surprising that they'd confuse AI images with real ones.<p><a href="https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/winners-galleries/2023/open/winners/creative-2023-open-competition" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/win...</a>
My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article:<p>> "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not."<p>I withdraw my heavy sigh.<p>---<p>This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from the RAW format to whichever format the photographer chooses to export as after their touch-ups. This could be verified by contest officiants.
Site is being hugged to death, the image is also on the author's instragram:<p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cq_XiGJIQiC/?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/p/Cq_XiGJIQiC/?hl=en</a>
This is nothing significant TBH.<p>First, the image sucks. Do you really get any artistic whatever from that image? At best, it looks like a badly photoshopped image that struggles to simulates 80's look and feel. It also has AI-specific dirtiness. I really wonder how many people can legitimately argue for this image. Perhaps this may mark that the competition is somewhat irrelevant to the taste of general public anyway, and this kinda relates to the small trolling impact he made.<p>Second, the competition already accepts photoshopped images[1], as long as the scope of modification is clearly outlined in description. On top of that, the specific category he competed is more open to heavily photoshopped images in the first place. It's likely that images modified using AI will be allowed to some extent. (i.e. insert/remove items, minor fix to the posture, etc).<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.worldphoto.org/help-contact#13" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldphoto.org/help-contact#13</a><p>I mean, if he were such a pioneer, he could've just based his work on smartphone photos, and provide fully honest description and still win. That could've been a real history. This? It's just a dead copycat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is this fake? He claims:<p>> I am very happy that I won the creative category of Sony World Photography Awards 2023 / Open Competition / Single Image.<p>But I don't see that photo on the competition's website under "Winners » Creative - 2023 Open competition":<p><a href="https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/winners-galleries/2023/open/winners/creative-2023-open-competition" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/win...</a><p>Edit: it looks like it was taken down, but I didn't see the note about that because I was looking at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldagsen.com/sony-world-photography-awards-2023/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldag...</a> that was linked in the top comment.
The official contest rules are here [0]. There is actually very little in the rules restricting how the image is created; technically it doesn't even say it has to be a photograph, although that is clearly implied. The rules mostly cover usage and legal rights.<p>0: <a href="https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/open" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/ope...</a>
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldagsen.com/sony-world-photography-awards-2023/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20230325205601/https://www.eldag...</a><p>>“The work… is the result of a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge. For me, working with AI image generators is a co-creation, in which I am the director. It is not about pressing a button – and done it is. It is about exploring the complexity of this process, starting with refining text prompts, then developing a complex workflow, and mixing various platforms and techniques. The more you create such a workflow and define parameters, the higher your creative part becomes.”<p>The image is fairly derivative, and doesn’t demonstrate any traits of a well crafted generative image, nor does it show signs of the creator’s ability to draw in a topic, emotion or theme, other than ‘oooh spooky old photo’.<p>It also doesn’t show off their knowledge of photographic and ai technique like they claim. The scratches and effects look forced, and the hands and faces just look like classic ai.<p>It’s <i>okay</i> graphic design. He even goes on to say <i>it’s not a photograph</i>.<p>If this isn’t an April fool’s joke, then Sony have seriously tarnished the reputation of the award.
What's the difference between a photo I generated with AI vs , say, one I edited using Adobe's AI-driven toolkit?<p>This is a great debate and the right answer here for Sony (and everyone) is to have an open dialogue with creators and consider new sorts of categories and classifications so that we may revel in the spice of life – instead of letting it undermine/destroy the indefinable nature of art!
What a get for this artist though.<p>They've refused the award, but the recognition at having been offered it and then revealed their process is likely worth more in the long run.
I am of the opinion that the process used to create this image (or any AI image) can be considered an art form. For the author to correctly find the language and prompts needed for an AI to generate this image is a new type of art-form, from my point of view.<p>It doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't be able to understand the origins of the image and correctly categorize it. Contests like this will definitely have to grapple with their handling of generated images, just like they've had to decide rules about photoshopped images.
"AI images and photography should not compete with eachother in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award"<p>That is, the author of this dirty trick knew this very well from the very beginning, but nevertheless he submitted to the competition not a real shot (which is a unique stopped flat moment of reality), but a synthetic picture of which he is not the author.<p>And after all this, the author of this trick gracefully declined the award.<p>Someday such a logic of such bad fools will destroy this world.
Lots of comments here saying how much they dislike the picture itself, so I'm just putting in my two cents as a counter weight because I actually do like the picture.
Can tell it's AI generated from the weird looking pinky on right hand side of the photo, looks like it tried to do a thumb there instead. Stellar faces and eyes though.
My iPhone uses AI to apply the lighting filters. I’m sure it will soon erase the background trash and random tourists too.<p>We will need a new term, or the language will evolve :)