• BreadOven@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 天前

    This was done via analog technology and was a mystery for quite some time.

    Edit: image didn’t attach.

  • LettyWhiterock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    11·
    1 天前

    You’re acting like there was no way to make convincing fake photos before AI. Treat it like before: don’t take things you see at face value and do some actual research to confirm it.

  • wunderkatze@discuss.tchncs.de
    27·
    2 天前

    No. Films can be faked too. You just need high quality 4K display to point your camera at. Even forensic can’t tell the difference if you set it up right. Has been done ever since.

  • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    11·
    1 天前

    Sorry, but you can already print polaroid pictures from a cell phone telephone. If someone handed you one of these, you’d have no way of knowing what the original source was from. You can do the same thing with any film technology.

  • blitzen@lemmy.ca
    8·
    2 天前

    We don’t interact with physical photographs in the way we once did. Ultimately, 99% of our exposure (hehe) to photographs will still end up digitized, so the point is moot. But even in the rare instances of having a physical print, there’s really no evidence of the analog chain being unbroken. And even then, analog photos can be faked, just not with AI.

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    6·
    2 天前

    It would be a nice thing but the industry is too far invested in digital medium for that.

    The revealing chemicals are expensive and need to be disposed of in a controlled manner, which implies costs photo shops are not willing to incur.

    And there is the supply of fim.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    4·
    1 天前

    Physical film has to be scanned and there’s your AI inlet.

    Real photojournalism will demand cryptographicly signed image provenance.

    For example Apple’s “reference image” feature uses a key in the secure enclave to sign the digital negative. I imagine Android will offer something similar.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 小时前

      Real photojournalism will demand cryptographicly signed image provenance.

      That’s not enough. Movies use set design and wardrobe and practical effects to fake a bunch of stuff in camera.

      A camera that can attest “this is what I saw” doesn’t really extend that attestation to “and what I saw was real.”

    • f314@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 天前

      Physical film has to be scanned

      Uh, what? You can both reproduce, enlarge and project film photographs without them ever touching a digital device.

  • jobbies@lemmy.zip
    3·
    2 天前

    Photo paper and home printers are pretty good these days. Not sure this would solve the deepfake problem.

    • qyron@sopuli.xyz
      3·
      2 天前

      The negative would be hard evidence the image was not tampered with or generated.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 天前

        The negative is hard evidence that a photograph was taken of something. But that thing could be a still image and that image could have been tampered with or generated

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 天前

                To convince people that something happened…

                This isn’t a theoretical, people have been manipulating photos from the start

                • qyron@sopuli.xyz
                  1·
                  22 小时前

                  To link back to the original spirit of the post: would that be something that people returning to non-digital photography immediatly resort to, considering such individuals would be striving to remove themselves from generated images?

                  I’m not afraid to say it: I’d have the technology destroyed and banned tomorrow if I could. Image generation will cause a lot of damage in a near future. Many will have their lives destroyed because of it.