• @NAXLAB
    link
    English
    311 year ago

    “that it’s a true representation of what someone saw.”

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but photography has never ever ever been a “true” representation of what you took a picture of.

    Photography is right up there with statistics in its potential for “true” information to be used to draw misleading or false conclusions. I predict that a picture with this technology may carry along with it the authority to impose a reality that’s actually not true by pointing to this built-in encryption to say “see? the picture is real” when the deception was actually carried out by the framing or timing of the picture, as has been done often throughout history.

    • @CrayonRosary
      link
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re talking about “the whole truth”. If the whole is true, then all of the parts are true, so photographing only a subset of the truth (framing) is still true. If a series of events are true, then each event is true, so taking a picture at a certain time (timing) is also true.

      Photos capture real photons that were present at real scenes and turn them into grids of pixels. Real photographs are all “true”. Photoshop and AI don’t need photons and can generate pixels from nothing.

      That’s what is being said.

      • @NAXLAB
        link
        English
        -11 year ago

        Nah, lying by omission can still tell a totally wrong narrative. Sometimes it has to be the whole truth to be the truth.

        • @CrayonRosary
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          You’d make a bad programmer or mathematician.

          • @NAXLAB
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            Well… Mathematicians would agree with me

              • @NAXLAB
                link
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your position assumes also that no photos can be staged. That’s a whole category of “true” photos that tell a false narrative.

                • @CrayonRosary
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Neither of us were talking about that. Not in your original comment, and not in my reply. Obviously, I was arguing against your original comment.

                  I said nothing about staged photos, and bringing that up and saying it’s part of my argument is intellectual dishonesty.

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      As I understand it, it’s a digital signature scheme where the raw image is signed at the camera, and modifications in compliant software are signed as well. So it’s not so much “this picture is 100% real, no backsies”. Nor is it “We know all the things done to this picture”, as I doubt people who modify these photos want us to know what they are modifying.

      So it’s more like “This picture has been modified, like all pictures are, but we can prove how many times it was touched, and who touched it”. They might even be able to prove when all that stuff happened.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Even that doesn’t do much to prove the image is an authentic representation of anything. People have been staging photos for as long as there have been photos, and no camera can guard against that.