Arizona Shoots wrote:
Is anyone else finding it harder and harder to determine if the Instagram model you want to follow is real or if she's just AI crap? What are some things you look for to make a determination one way or another? It's to the point now, that if she doesn't have any unpolished snapshots, I don't even bother following back.

How are you being fooled?

Arizona Shoots wrote:
Is anyone else finding it harder and harder to determine if the Instagram model you want to follow is real or if she's just AI crap? What are some things you look for to make a determination one way or another? It's to the point now, that if she doesn't have any unpolished snapshots, I don't even bother following back.

Whatever you may think of AI, the reality is that it's going to continue to get harder and harder to tell the difference.

It used to be much easier.  You looked at the fingers, strange limb angles, disconnected / extra or misaligned body parts (such as an arm that went behind someone and came out on the other side in a strange way), or checked for bizarre text on background signs, etc, etc.

More and more it's going to come down to a "gut check" as to whether it just feels too perfect or not.  Which is really unfortunate for all those non-AI shots that really do look exceptionally good.

Lucifers_Corner wrote:

How are you being fooled?

There are TONS of men on IG giving money to fake profiles thinking it is a real person. It's like a censored version of OF. I'm not saying that is what the OP is doing but it absolutely is a thing on IG in particular.

(I just follow chefs and comedians so I never see this anyway. )

Camera Buff wrote:
How do you tell the difference between a fake subject in an AI generated image to that of a real human-being in a digital photograph?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-27/ … /103627436

Yeah but that article is almost 2 years old. AI has gotten a lot better since then.

Model Sarah wrote:

There are TONS of men on IG giving money to fake profiles thinking it is a real person. It's like a censored version of OF. I'm not saying that is what the OP is doing but it absolutely is a thing on IG in particular.

(I just follow chefs and comedians so I never see this anyway. )

Must be a lonely man's thing.

Model Sarah wrote:
Yeah but that article is almost 2 years old. AI has gotten a lot better since then.

I think it's actually better than we've seen so far. Hear me out.. I think they're putting out the fake looking stuff that's obvious, so we won't know what hit us when what it's actually capable of finally leaks out.

Lucifers_Corner wrote:
Must be a lonely man's thing.

Well I have a few photographers (who incidentally ALWAYS get their FB/IG hacked) who are always one of the first people I see following and commenting on obvious AI slop.

Arizona Shoots wrote:

Well I have a few photographers (who incidentally ALWAYS get their FB/IG hacked) who are always one of the first people I see following and commenting on obvious AI slop.

We all know those people......

Arizona Shoots wrote:

Well I have a few photographers (who incidentally ALWAYS get their FB/IG hacked) who are always one of the first people I see following and commenting on obvious AI slop.

Like who? Because I don't see any of this. Do you have some examples?

Model Sarah wrote:
Yeah but that article is almost 2 years old. AI has gotten a lot better since then.

I realise that article was almost 2 years old and here are a couple of other interesting articles, one that is 5 years old, but you should check out the models latest work https://www.instagram.com/shudu.gram/?hl=en

The much more recent story is "The Fashion Industry is DEAD":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qBZUb34JE … Jlbg%3D%3D

The 5 year old story is "I Am a Model and I Know That Artificial Intelligence Will Eventually Take My Job":
https://www.vogue.com/article/sinead-bo … telligence

samreevesphoto wrote:
You can use another AI for a face search:

lenso.ai

But the AI generated images usually have skin that is too good to be true, highly airbrushed.  I'd trust a model with some imperfections to have credibility.

Airbrushing is a concept from the domain of photography and modern airbrushing is generallly done using Photoshop

AI generates perfect, blemish free skin and can be made to look more real using Photoshop as well

Arizona Shoots wrote:
Is anyone else finding it harder and harder to determine if the Instagram model you want to follow is real or if she's just AI crap? What are some things you look for to make a determination one way or another? It's to the point now, that if she doesn't have any unpolished snapshots, I don't even bother following back.

This is why I have long objected to Photoshop. Because the finished portrait often bears no resemblance to the actual person who was in the original image.

To me there is no difference between AI images and anything else produced by a computer. Neither one is real.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
This is why I have long objected to Photoshop. Because the finished portrait often bears no resemblance to the actual person who was in the original image.

To me there is no difference between AI images and anything else produced by a computer. Neither one is real.

Whether you agree with using Photoshop or not, photo manipulation has a VERY long history.

Think in terms of cameras with "portrait mode", or toning down skin details with Black Pro-Mist filters, or the days of using a silk stocking over the lens, or smearing Vaseline on a lens filter.  Or EVEN Ansel Adams classic dark room manipulations.  Not to mention the 1917 photographs of the "Cottingley Fairies"...

I'm not sure where YOU draw the line criticizing photographs for "not being real", but you certainly can't suggest that it's just "anything else produced by a computer".   If NONE of these long-standing techniques meet your particular standards, then that's fine for you. 

But let's not pretend that photo manipulations are anything new to photography or specific to computers...

---

As a side note, consider a couple of examples.   Photographers that specialize in advertising, glamour or fashion photography, or even portrait photography.   Clients want the photos to look as flattering as possible.  Purists that might try to insist that the photographs they take "must be as real as possible", will find themselves out on the street VERY quickly.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
This is why I have long objected to Photoshop. Because the finished portrait often bears no resemblance to the actual person who was in the original image.

To me there is no difference between AI images and anything else produced by a computer. Neither one is real.

In 1860, a photograph of the politician John Calhoun was manipulated and his body was used in another photograph with the head of the president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. This photo credits itself as the first manipulated photo.

Today, digital photography is a direct byproduct of computer technology.

Model Sarah wrote:
There are TONS of men on IG giving money to fake profiles thinking it is a real person. It's like a censored version of OF. I'm not saying that is what the OP is doing but it absolutely is a thing on IG in particular.

(I just follow chefs and comedians so I never see this anyway. )

People are paying people on IG?

I never understood the whole pay thing…