I just had a legit photo booted off a landscape photography group on FB because they thought it was AI. A couple of other photographers commented that the scene was in fact real and to their credit the moderators reinstated the image.

Regarding the anteater picture, anyone who spent hours waiting for the perfect shot would NEVER flip to playback after ONE picture to check if it's good while the subject is still standing there. You keep taking shots until it leaves and THEN you check and hope one of them is a keeper.

And a fact, only very few people know: Anteaters love being photographed so much, that they instantly freeze for at least 5 seconds, if they notice the click of the camera, not to create any movement blur. But after that, they run away pretty fast.

I have zero respect for photographers who edit photos and then try to claim them as unedited.

In one of my photo classes years back, while discussing credibility in digital photography, we were shown a series photos of Civil War solders killed in the war. But look closely, it was the same solder in every photo. This photographer dragged this poor soul around the battlefield, posing him in different ways and taking pictures.

Many years ago a young girl won a national youth photo competition with an image of a yacht framed in a perfect rainbow. The photo was featured on the children's TV programme Blue Peter. The presenter Valerie Singleton and the administrator of the competition asked the photographer about her photo. She replied that all her photos had rainbows as the camera lens was cracked. An embarrassed silence and a rapid cut to Shep was made.

The aeroplane up the ladder is just SO RIDICULOUS because there is no conceivable chance of getting that shot WITHOUT massive preparation, simply because the speed of the plane would take it out of the frame of the ladder almost quickly as depressing the shutter button!

I have an M.A. degree in photojournalism and I worked as a professional portrait photographer for about 20 years after that. In college in the 1980s, we didn’t have access to digital manipulation of images; you had to do that the old-fashioned way by painting onto the negatives and then painting onto the prints, or by airbrushing, pencil work, burning and dodging, etc. Photoshop came along early in my professional career, but its use age was limited in those early years because computers couldn’t handle large files and it was hard to output a digital file into a large print. I was perfectly happy sticking with (mostly) reality, just fixing wrinkles or spots or splotchy skin tones. As we got into the 2000s and approached 2010, everyone was aware of what Photoshop could do and I was asked to do more and more digital manipulation of portraits. I was spending 90% of my time fixing thousands of little problems every week that would never have been an issue in 1990. I was doing "digital weight-loss surgery" on more than half of all my clients. I was swapping out parts of different images. I was changing the color of clothing, removing objects from photos, addIng objects to photos, giving people digital haircuts, etc., etc., etc. That was the point where I hung up my Hasselblads and Mamiyas. Photography was no longer about being able to capture beautiful, authentic images. No matter how gorgeous a bridal portrait was, the bride would want it to look like one of the fake images in a magazine. "I know we did my portrait in a field of wildflowers, but can you make it look like that field of wildflowers is on the top of a cliff overlooking the ocean?" "Ummm, we did this portrait 200 miles away from the nearest ocean." "I know, but I want it to look like we went to the coast…" Now, I take photos with my iPhone and work as a classical musician in live opera. It’s so much easier than dealing with photography clients.

Photo judge here- I had to disqualify an image last year for being AI. Myself and the other two judges really liked the image, but luckily, I noticed that the lighting came from multiple directions. The longer we stared, the more issues we found. It's a tricky world out there for photo judges, but I do think RAW files or negatives are going to have to be shared soon.. I personally don't see a way around it

My guess on the elephant is that he flipped the *whole elephant* and then realized people will be able to tell because of his tusks, so he swapped those back and forgot about the ears being very distinguished - therefore "accidentally" making the elephants left ear smooth and right ear jagged.

Rules sometimes have to be persnickety in order to prevent cheating. Some people may get disqualified who did not deserve it, but the integrity of the competition is preserved.

I cannot believe how willing you are to excuse these photographers who "harmlessly" touched up their photos. They were contests where technique and composition matter.

I think photo competition rules should be respected. If you are in it to win it, better make sure you follow the rules.

Long since retired photographer - photo manipulation has gone on since the beginning, they just did it in the dark room. Having known several National Geographic photographers that used semi-wild/domesticated animals as well as baiting were standards. In my younger days I was lucky enough to assist on a shoot and was truly shocked to find out about these unspoken methods. The publisher took me aside and look kid, we have three days to get "The Shot", no shot, no cover that issue. We just use computers today.

I'm glad they're harsh. Photography is not all about the perfect image, but the capture and the moment itself.

Are you a photographer or an image editor? In my opinion, these competitions should accept only JPEGs straight from a camera, with zero editing allowed. Otherwise, it's only a competition of "who is better with photoshop" in my opinion.

Sounds like the rules for wildlife photography competitions reflect that they are photography competitions, not editing competitions.

I never entered a photo comp or anything, but as an outsider I would probably say editing out a piece of litter is a very slippery slope if you allow it. Because then, where are the boundaries, size of the litter, amount etc. If others start doing it, it may soon become a requirement to have any chance at winning because if you don't, you'll have far less opportunities for good shots than someone who does do it.

The issue with the elephant is that his name was "Tim" and he was a very famous elephant in Kenya. He has subsequently died of natural causes. So a large number of photographers had taken his photo and knew about the ears. Most wildlife competitions these days ask for the raw file once you get to the final stages of judging. One of the images I entered into the Natural History Wildlife Photographer of the Year has made it into the top 100 out of 50,000 entries. Unfortunately, they want a Canon raw file and I automatically convert my images to DNG files. This is because it saves 30% hard drive space and when you take 10's of thousands of images per year that is a lot of HD space saved.

It's in the name. It's no longer a "photograph" if changes are made. It becomes an "image".

As for the anteater: if this was an exposure of several seconds (and it had to be), then no way that animal was completely frozen during that time, so that is a "dead" giveaway.

For a photography contest, I am with disqualifying retouched images even that trash bag on the side of the photograph. Either you got it, or you didn't -if those are the rules. Whether it's ok to touch for a customer wedding or such it's a different story. But for a contest, I want to see unaltered touched up photography if the rules states so.

For the second image, I think maybe a fair question that hints at why I think it was reasonable to disqualify the photograph is "Why didn't you clean up the litter if you didn't want it to be in your picture?"

I'm reminded of the woman who won the Countryfile photographic comp a few years ago with a shot of a harvest mouse sitting in a half-eaten apple. The scene was staged in her kitchen using several mice and an approved handler whilst using another photo as a backdrop. The judges allowed it. Insane.

As a former newspaper photographer, I absolutely understand the first example. It was a PRESS photography competition. In my experience, many (I would hope most) publications have guidelines that say that their commitment to telling the truth includes not manipulating photos to clone something out, etc, because that’s not telling the whole truth. When I edit for a news publication, I do crop, white balance, tone/exposure, sharpening/clarity, and noise reduction, nothing else. For all other branches of photography, those incredible tools are fair game. For photojournalism, absolutely not.

I disagree that simple removal of "meaningless" items from a frame is harsh, as you put it. If the photographer made the decision to remove even a single hair from an image because he believed it improved the composition of his image, then what's stopping others from doing the same thing with more "significant" parts of theirs? Rules are in place for a reason.

Everyone when his wife chimes in "THANK YOU!!" lol That elephant example is bonkers! gr8t vid

Your videos are always entertaining but the way you edited this one really made me chuckle. Thank you, happy new year. 😅🐘

I was so excited to enter a local photography competition. Rules were no layers, no stacking, no manipulation of photo other than sharpness. Some of the photographers that won should be shooting for Nat Geo if they didn't manipulate their photo. They had to have been touched up. No way they came straight out of camera raw .

His wife be like: Let`s talk about the elephant in the room - the ears are on the wrong side.

I find it so hard to believe that a stuffed anteater who belonged to a national park could be taken on random field trip

I love the harsh rules as I think it forces digital-age photographers to actually photograph and win by the merit of their skill and experience behind the lens and not at the computer.

Thomas, quite a number of people have discarded photography not because of digital manipulation, but because many photographers imply that an image is something that it is not. For instance, many beautiful wildlife images from Finland are enabled by baiting, whereas the photographer makes no mention of that, even in their web site overview. Many such examples. George Orwell still said it best - "In the age of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

Dear friend. I have been following all your videos forever. I am no longer young, but I have been taking photos for 53 years for work. Events, or even fine art photography, of my little island which is Capri, in Italy. I don't even know how to drive anything a bicycle, but I'm fascinated by your old campers in the new one. I agree with every single sentence of your speech. And believe me after 40 years of darkroom I've understood something too, but there's always something to learn. Now I'm 68 years old, my passion has remained unchanged, and precisely for the sake of fairness, I won't even give you my site. One day I said to some young people, digital has helped a lot, but more to those who didn't have content. Then now AIIIIII, may God save me from these things, photography is something else, and you embody it just the way I like it. Sorry, I was too long. But a thought must be said in its entirety, otherwise what kind of thought is it. Greetings from Capri. ​

If an image has been manipulated regardless of whatever reason or method, it deserves to be disqualified for a contest if that's what the rules say. Not knowing the rules of a competition is not a valid reason to get away with cheating. At this rate, what stops people making photo realistic CG render of a scene and submit that as a "photo"? As for the picture @14:00 , I highly doubt that was AI generated image, since current iteration of AI generative images aren't that good with hands and fingers, and there are no visible artifacts with the hands or fingers on that shot.

I saw the title and thought "how does one cheat at photography the whole point is to get creative and bend the rules" and then I learned photography competitions are a thing

There was an incident in the Hungarian Press Photo competition, where a photographer's work got through to the main competition, and one of his photos was rejected, causing disqualification. The reason? The software of the scanner he used to scan his negatives had an automatic dust removal feature, which accidentally removed a crack in a wall, which was considered altering the original image. He sent in a new scan, proving it wasn't affecting the image at all, but he was disqualified anyway.

Clearly more people need to follow your lead and include QR codes with video evidence of the picture being shot 🤣

Elephant's are beautiful and majestic creatures they don't need to be photoshopped to hide a torn up ear. That shows how long he's been living and the heart ships of life in the wild.

thanks for the laughs. the trained wolf really got me, haha.

That shot with the elephant. Surely the sky had some work done? I would have questions about that aspect 😂

The levels we now think of as "cheating" has shifted so much that I think 99.9% of people have no idea how much used to be considered perfectly normal. I'm a huge fan of Hurley,'s images from the Shackleton expedition - the story alone is worth reading, never mind the images - so was I stunned to discover just how often his iconic images were made up of 2 or more plates. I had no idea the wildlife competions were so strict now: I entered a few many years ago and correcting levels was never forbidden.

It's funny how Natgeo disqualified those photographers for these manipulations where as a couple of months back Nat Geo actually awarded an Indian Photographer and uploaded his shot from their official Facebook page where the photographer had pasted a Butterfly on top of a Snake's head! I mean it clearly looked edited even to the naked eyes are Nat geo went ahead and awarded that photographer 😅

My god, that black and white AI image just screams AI. Look at their eyes ffs. Especially the eye of the woman in back - it's nightmarish. The one in front has two massively differently sized irises, and one of her pupils is mostly missing.

The scary part is that a person clever enough who possesses the right knowledge and tools can alter any photograph without being called out on it.

As a former press photographer, I'm very much used to the "no manipulation" rules. Regarding the very first image (boxer having his hand strapping done) it's unfortunate, but in my world I'd never have removed that foot if I was filing the picture, though I would like to think I'd have noticed and either got the person in the background to move or else changed my angle slightly to get the foot out of sight.

I think the elephant ear swap was done to make the dirt flow, if you follow the dirt lines up to the ear it draws your eyes to the body of the elephant and then the landscape behind it. It seems like a small thing to risk such a consequence but it's the small things that count.

So Claude Monet and Gustave Caillebotte are standing in the atelier at Giverny: "Well Gustave, what do you think of my painting of the water lilies by the bridge? I'm thinking of entering it into the Salon this year." "I'm not sure, Claude, looks to me like you've positioned some of those lily pads to make a more balanced composition!"

The sky behind the elephant was changed as well. I believe that's a stock sky image and sky replacement was used.

I think the judges overlooked the fact that the photographer removed Tarzan and Jane from atop the elephant and the rest of the herd being pursued by velociraptors and charging down a bevy of photographers and rampaging over copies of Chasing Awe by Gavin Hardcastle. (There's a link in the description.) : ) I think I've retouched this blurb a few times already.

The narrator: He only killed 5 children, its only a minor thing, he probably didn't read the rules...

It is very common to now see people commenting on Facebook posts "AI" without knowing what the picture or even video is. As you said, 10 years ago people shouted "Photoshop" and now they say "AI"

One of my favorite stories about photo manipulation is the Peter Lik picture of the moon with clouds behind it. Apparently he claims all his shots are strait out of camera and he charges a ridiculous amount of money for his shots.

What the contests need to sort out is what they are judging. If they are judging the beauty/impact of a final image (the photographer as artist perhaps) then anything should go. In today's world editing is very much a part of the photography process (and it was as well for many photographers in the past, witness Ansel Adams' dark room processing techniques). If the contest is to judge the photographer's ability to compose and capture in camera (a subset of photography skills) then almost all editing would disqualify an entry. Finally if it is the ability to capture reality (a photojournalism contest) then most editing should be disqualifying, although I'm on the fence about some tools, like denoise apps, which aim to return a raw file to what was actually there by taking out artifacts that were never there. Cropping in post vs. in camera should also be allowed in photojournalism contests, the photographer has to decide whether to trade some potential resolution for flexibility in cropping, by shooting larger than required, or being unable to zoom or move in closer.

The elephant is a great example of why they don't want to allow *any* manipulation. If you see one bit that's edited, the question quickly comes up how much more was done that you're not catching.

On the elephant's ear, if you look at the top of the elephant's head the ear was so poorly aligned it goes up a little bit over where it should smoothly be connected to the elephant's head.

It isn't just photography. We are entering a world where we will never be sure whether every aspect of our lives will be real or fake. Not good.

Long exposures with a stuffed animal sure are a lot easier. Great idea - I'm off to my local museum to 'borrow' some.

3:28 Minor? The changes in that elephant ears also change the animal!! That damage constitutes and define a characteristic of the animals, a minor change in the ear change the animal

'Spot removal tool' ...a fancy name for 'now it is not a photo but rather a derivitive of a photo'..

I kind of agree with the rules. When taking a photo, I make sure there's no distracting things in the background and perhaps remove them for a second shot. Using spot-tool is simply "photoshopping" an image.

"I think photography has been wrestling with a burden of telling the truth, which I don't think it was ever particularly good at. It is very tricky now to really, honestly call yourself a photographer because a lot of what I do doesn't adhere to the rules of photography". Nick Knight.

Had to laugh at the Very Large Earbud mime when you were talking about the elephant's ears.

I really enjoyed this. Thanks. Straight out of camera (S-O-O-C) should be every non-commercial photographer's goal.

Excellent video Tom...about 20 years ago I had a photo returned from competition judges who said I had manipulated the sky too much.....I hadn't done anything to the sky, it was a vibrant blue via polarising filter....so I must have been guilty of manipulation by using a filter.....

Can't imagine that glowing termite rock is long exposure, it would look like a child had scribbled all over it with a neon green felt tip given how much they'd be scurrying about😂

Loved this video! I'd love for you to do the same topic but with famous photographers, like Steve McCurry who has been caught multiple times manipulating his images. I wonder if there's any more. 🤔

breaking the rules is breaking the rules, HOPING to not get caught, IS STILL BREAKING THE RULES

This is a very thought-provoking video. I've never thought of cropping as a variety of unethical image manipulation, but apparently some people would call it that. In the days of film and darkrooms, cropping via adjusting an enlarger was done all the time and nobody would have objected (or have been able to detect it, except in extreme cases).

I hope you do more of these videos. This is really enjoyable and interesting!

GOLDEN RULE NEVER LOOK AT YOUR IMAGES UNTIL YOU GET HOME!

This is why I do wildlife photography for myself and the sense of personal achievement for getting an image I had in my head to getting it on camera. The "community" of photographers is really weird.

I think it would be a good idea if the camera makers added a feature to digitally sign the raw files.

I remember when DSLR’s were first created. It was years before I finally broke down and bought my first one! To me, just that was cheating. Before, you had limited shots so you had to make all of them count. 12, 24, 36… there was no snapping 100 photos to get it perfect. You had to know so much more. Now you don’t necessarily have to be a good photographer as long as you’re good at photoshop.

Good sound engineering, thank you!

I’ve caught a few AI images. I’ve also had a few people get right up in my face denying it, when you can clearly see defects.

Well done Tom. I had heard of several of the stories and the emphatic denials by the photographers, even after they get proven to be a fake.

Elephant photo looks like an image an AI bot would be proud of and would look great in the old Athena poster shop

Great entertaining video. I remember the airliner ladder shot 6:35 and the wolf 8:55, both featured in a photographic magazine exposing the truth, a few years ago.

Great content Thomas. I myself have started looking at images wondering if they are “AI”. It’s actually quite sad, in my opinion. Thanks for sharing!!

I felt sure when I saw your title that you were going to mention Kittiya Pawlowski. The woman famous for those fake snow leopard imaged that were all over the internet. After she got busted, she's doubled down even harder, further embellishing the story on her website (it's still up even now). Talking about all the great lengths she went to to get these photos that everyone now knows are fake.

Photography once upon a time was once a film that needed you to be competent in getting the right emotion, and feeling of a subject through your abilities and experience in working with the light and environment. No computers. Now we have digital cameras, but we can still maintain the true spirit of a photographer. However, we now also have digital manipulation software. Personally, I am fed up with seeing people saying they can take a photo when in truth so many use digital manipulation software. A photo is a true image (Raw), a digital manipulation or artistic improvement should be labeled as such. A photographer is good at using the camera, and a digital artist is good at using computer software. Raw is Raw!

If the rules say "don't clone/stamp/soften/change shapes" then it IS "don't clone/stamp/soften/change shapes", No discussion, no but-ing, no whingeing, no "in my book ... yada yada". It's not your book, it's the host's book. Nobody is forced to participate, but if one does, one has to play by the book.

The bizarre thing about super strict rules about "manipulation" is that using clone tool to remove a few random but on the whole irrelevant details (such as a random foot, or litter etc) is much less of a manipulation of the real world than the presumably acceptable (or in any case impossible to prove) practice of staging photos. For nature photography and journalistic photography; I'd much rather have a snapshot of a real moment with a few details photoshopped out than a fake moment directed and staged by the photographer by using stuffed animals, or having actors pretend to be soldiers after the battle and after the battlefield has been tidied up and dressed by the photographer. That's what you actually got most of the time before digital photo manipulation; most of the most famous photos in history are staged, and a few are happy accidents of perfect snapshots that usually is taken out of context. Disallowing cropping is even more ridiculous because every* camera crops the image somehow; so why is the camera crop more "valid" than cropping in the darkroom or photoshop? Also not allowing cropping after the photo is taken, effectively restricts the aspect ratio to whatever your camera sensor has (if a digital camera has a selector to change the aspect ratio; that's effectively exactly the same as cropping after the fact, because the whole sensor is still exposed, it's just choosing to discard some of the information afterwards), which is just a needless restriction on artistic freedom. (*Even the so called 360 cameras that film a full spherical image also has cropping, but it has built in automatic manipulation to merge the multiple fish eye angles into one cohesive image)

When it comes to competition, I agree with the judges on cloning out a shoe or a piece of trash. As harmless as it may appear, it blurs the line between what is true and what is not. With AI, generative fill, and compositing images together there is literally no limit. Editing a photo this way shifts the work to art or story telling.

Honestly, respect for the guy who declined the award to make a statement about AI detection. That's exactly how you force an organization to come to a decision on important matters; rather than hypotheticals, you give them a direct case study.

Probably someone already pointed out but the photo in the bathroom is taken at Gucci garden in Florence and it is indeed an art installation.

I only have limited experience in this area, but I do know that many photographers who worked for outlets such as National Geographic hold to a common standard that objects in the frame at the time of capture must remain in the frame for publication, so I agree with the rule, as long as it's stated as part of the context announcement. I've participated in photo contest judged by a NatGeo photographer who reiterated this same standard. I don't mind it, it encourages me to pay attention to composition when I have the time to do so, or it encourages me to not be too concerned about small details like a foot, telephone line, or trash when time is of the essence to make an image. Allow cloning and retouching and documentary style photo contests will eventually be dominated by artificially concocted yet "perfect" images. Now, if a contest does not prohibit composited or cloned images, and the photographer states that the image is a manufactured composite, and the image looks great, I'm all for it. IT is unfortunate the AI imagery, like Photoshop before it, will make it harder for genuine images created by patience, diligence, timing, creativity, and just plain luck to be called into question. That being said, I'd retouch and clone an image that isn't being used for a as a gift, for someone, or to hang on my own wall.

There is nothing more beautiful than capturing moments in its most natural form. It makes me sad to see this altered in the new digital world we have and are creating.

I mean, if it's a rule, there is no discussion. You can hate how the king moves on the chess board, but if you enter the game, you play by the rules.

I have always wondered how many professional wildlife photographers bait their shots.

loved this chat. I mostly do astrophotography and specifically deepscapes since 2020 and the groups are rampant with AI and composites. For me the whole purpose of incorporating a landscape is planning around alignments and angles to show the stars/nebulae behind the veil of our limited sight but so many will move their tripod to take the stars or even use an entirely different lens to make the nebula seem much larger in frame. I don't call it cheating if they're honest but I just feel like it makes the shot feel hollow. You miss out on the best part for the photographer in planning and the best part for the viewer in the real view of the sky. Recently there was a contributor to one of the Facebook groups who was banned for using AI to alter other peoples photos, not even come up with something new. Its amazing how bad this situation has gotten so fast.

Rules are rules. By the way, there is a term for manipulating a photograph: to Steve McCurry a scene/photograph. If caught, claiming to be a "visual story teller" rather than doing documentary photography is called "pulling a Steve McCurry".

When I did a black and white photography summer school many years ago I was taught about dodging and burning images to fix and improve relative contrast in the print from the negative. How would you prevent that?

As an artist who admires David La LaChapelle's credo, "If you want reality, ride the bus", I also feel like Photo Journalism is about authenticity and truth, so if you're going to enter into a photo journalism contest, then you better not swap your elephant's ears out, or remove an arbitrary bag of trash. - The rest is just blatant cheating.

Great video! To a large extend, modern photography has descended into the "is it real or not" manipulation pit. I realize that photo manipulation may be a separate and legitimate category of photographic art, but it is getting to the point that I instantly wonder if what I see is real or an artist's figment of imagination.

For a Press photography competition, I absolutely agree that the removal of any object is unacceptable... even though the same change might be completely acceptable in other genres of photography. Tonal adjustments are fine (and probably necessary to make the captured image appear more like what the photographer saw in person).

When I was taking photos in the 1970's to 80's, I use slides, so every photo was authentic WITHOUT editing of any kind. These days photographers shoot in Raw and every photo is manipulated. Today it seems like every photo, like journalism is questionable, you never really know if it is real or fake. I know that most photographers "dress" up their photos now, even cell phone photographers. If you ask me, an old timer, all of these photos should be disqualified.

Thank You Thomas Heaton!

In the elephant image, after carefully checking Tim's ears edges in many other pictures (Tim was an icon living in Amboseli NP), it seems clear to me that what the photographer did was exchange the position of the ears (left ear went to the animal's right side and viceversa), possibly to prevent the "ugly" parts from being revealed against the sky in the background. What a job!!!!