Photorealistic computer-generated images are difficult to distinguish from digital photographs: a case study with professional photographers and photo-editors

Abstract

Abstract:There are strict guidelines on photoediting in newsrooms, and serious professional repercussions if failing to adhere to these, while computer-generated imagery is increasingly used in other areas of visual communication. This paper presents empirical research on the ability of professional photographers and editors to distinguish photographs from photorealistic computer-generated images by looking at them on a screen. Our results show clearly that those studied (n= 20) are unable to distinguish these from another, suggesting that it is increasingly difficult to make this distinction, particularly since most viewers are not as experienced in photography as those studied. Interestingly, those studied continue to share a conventional understanding of photography, that is not in line with current developments in digital photography and digital image rendering. Based on our findings, we suggest the need for developing a particular visual literacy that understands the computational in digital photography, and grounds the use of digital photography among particular communities of practice. When seeing photographs on screens, journals, exhibitions, or newspapers, we might actually be looking at computer-generated simulations, and vice versa.

Research on the Teaching of Visual Communication Design Based on Digital Technology

“…Any form of artistic expression is created on the basis of social and technological development, and technology can promote the development of art [12]. Digitalization is the basis of computer, multimedia, Internet, and information society technology.…”

Creative Reconstructions of Political Imagery in an Instagram-Based Election Campaign: Implications for Visual Rhetorical Literacy

“…For example, social media channels are said to inundate us with trivial user-generated content (Warnick & Heineman, 2012), but is this content really devoid of rhetoric? How do we deal with stock photography that is easy to reuse to achieve trending in social networks (Frosh, 2002), or photo-shopped photographs and computer generated photo-realistic images (Lehmuskallio et al, 2019)? By itself, such heavy exposure to images, even if the fraudulent and manipulative ones still constitute a fraction of political content (Mourão & Robertson, 2019), cultivates new visual literacy practices.…”

Neurons in sparkling space: scientific objectivity and ‘blurry’ images in neuroscience

“…Likewise, it might also be difficult to tell whether an inherently digital image had any so-called "digital enhancement". Indeed, even professional editors can have a tough time distinguishing between digital photographs and photo-realistic images generated by computers [Lehmuskallio, Häkkinen and Seppänen, 2019]. Thus, asking a coder to differentiate heightened digitality from "plain" brain images is likely to prove difficult given a vast intermeshing of digital visual highlights, compressions, and over-laid elements.…”