Well, obviously I was there. I’m in it.

But there’s a serious point behind that.

The most deceptive AI images I see aren’t always posted by people pretending to be photographers. Sometimes they’re posted by photographers.

And that bothers me.

I’m not against AI. I experiment with it and I’m fascinated by what it can do.

What I have a problem with is AI generated imagery being posted without explanation, allowing people to believe it was photographed by them.

Photography has always involved editing. I edit my RAW files. I adjust exposure, colour and contrast. I might remove a distraction.

But the fundamental moment happened.

The person was there. The location was there. The light was there. Someone pressed the shutter.

AI changes that relationship.

If AI creates a person, replaces a location or generates something that never existed in front of a camera, I think we should say so.

Especially if we call ourselves photographers.

If you generated it, say you generated it.

If you photographed it, say you photographed it.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with creating AI imagery.

But allowing people to believe you photographed something you didn’t is something entirely different.

As AI becomes harder to spot, transparency matters more than ever.

Ray