• nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’ve been able to manipulate photos since the early days of film cameras. While technology has made them easier to mess with, they’ve never been truly trustworthy.

  • DrQuint@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This has been the case in Asia for 7 years or more now. Every single photo of a person on a China-bought phone has had a filter you couldn’t turn off.

    • spookex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk, my Xiaomi mi mix 3 5g, that I bought straight from China, around 2019ish has a toggle for the AI face filter.

      Tried it once and turned it off straight away because how weird it was

  • Tibert
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My takeaway from the article was that Your photos are no longer real because the AI portions have altered the image captured. Your face has been cleared of wrinkles and blemishes, your eyes made larger and rounder, your aging features reduced without your knowledge or input. Of course, with your input your proportions could be manually or automatically enhanced, but also the sky replaced with a more interesting one, or people or objects “in the way” of your desired composition removed and replaced with mimicry in the background.

      The adjustments available - both automatic and manual - for balance, clarity, and color temperature have always been available in analog film, even if only to a limited extent in either film selection or in developing. The AI enhancements available in modern software, especially those baked into the Camera apps which are automatic, can be far more manipulative.

  • davefischer@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do a lot of photography for a museum. In documenting historic artifacts (as in journalism) you’re not supposed to do any post processing. Not that I’d use a phone camera for those photos, but it’s an issue as those features creep into more serious cameras.

  • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    In my opinion, phone cameras are usually used to capture a memory, not a moment. Memories are idealistic and inaccurate, so I don’t think it’s a problem that a way of “storing memories” is also inaccurate.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even the best camera is just an approximation of the moment, so articles like this are just pseudo-intellectual wanking.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it matters for a couple of different reasons.

      Instagram and the search for perfection is already ruining our teenagers self-worth.

      Also, news have to try to deal with facts. Lots of news will come from mobile phone cameras.

  • esscew@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A vast majority of photos are already staged and have been for a very long time, before phone cameras were a decent replacement. In th cases where accuracy is required phone cameras are rarely used. I don’t see an issue here.