Well yeah, I’m not concerned with its ease to use nowadays. I’m more concerned with the computer forensics experts not being able to detect a fake for which Photoshop has always been detectable.
Photoshop has existed for a bit now. So incredibly shocking it was only going to get better and easier to do, move along with the times oldtimer.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
kernelle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
As the cat and mouse game continues, we ask ourselves, is water still wet?
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Just wait, image manipulation will happen at image creation and there will be no “original”. Proving an image is unmanipulated will be a landmark legal precedent and set the standard for being able to introduce photographic evidence. It is already a problem for audio recordings and will be eventually for video.
ggppjj@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Photoshop requires time and talent to make a believable image.
This requires neither.
kernelle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But it has been possible, for more than a decade
ggppjj@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You said “but” like it invalidated what I said, instead of being a true statement and a non sequitur.
You aren’t wrong, and I don’t think that changes what I said either.
kernelle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Lmao, “but” means your statement can be true and irrelevant at the same time. From the day photoshop could fool people lawyers have been trying to mark any image as faked, misplaced or out of context.
When you just now realise it’s an issue, that’s your problem. People can’t stop these tools from existing, so like, go yell at a cloud or something.