Adobe Credentials AI checking

[DD_Crash]

Has this happened at any clubs? Post from a forum

During a recent inter camera club competition, the other Camera Club used Adobe Credentials to check the competition images. Three images were then dismissed from the comp, because the checking software claimed that the images were AI generated.
Using ‘AI technicalities’, so as to dismiss your rival’s best images, seems like an effective strategy to both cheat during, and to then win club competitions. So, I would expect that other Camera Clubs will soon be buying and/or using Adobe’s Credential checking software.

It appears that the Author, who was labelled as an ‘AI Cheat’, used the AI cloning tools inside of Photoshop, to remove dust spots, and that this was sufficient to trigger Adobes AI Credentials Software.

Does anyone know how Adobe’s Credentials software works?

–Does it only affect images produced inside of Adobe’s Software? (In which case not using Adobe’s products seems like the best course of action).

–Will it flag up images produced inside of rival software, such as ON1’s products?

–Is Adobe’s software likely to label images, where ON1’s dust spot removal tools have been used, as ‘AI Fakes’ ?

–Is there any way to set up PR 2025, so as to make sure that only the Non-AI cloning tools are available for use?

(N.B., a senior Committee Member of my Camera Club, (who is a devout Photoshop Fan Boy), has already told me, that because Photo Raw uses AI, I should not be using ON1’s products to post process my images. Also, he says that the Committee is ‘investigating the use of non-Adobe software’… and that he thinks that Non-Adobe software should be prohibited.

 

[DD_Crash]

For me the issue is whether it works on other image apps e.g. Affinity Photo, Capture 1, On1, Luminar etc. If it doesnt then I hope that the photographic associations dont make it compulsory to use Adobe. It does seem a bit off that Adobe who have been pushing AI for a few years now offer a means of checking if AI has been used on an image. If our club goes down this route I am off.

 

[DD_Crash]

Thats my take, I do hope that PAGB dont make it compulsory for salons etc but our club does have an Adobe bias.

 

[DD_Crash]

Thanks, I will watch that.

Thing is, even Adobe are ever-creeping down the AI route. Whilst the spot healing doesn't currently use ai, whats to say it wont in the future as a means to do a better healing result ... who knows.



I wonder if you could take an original image, edit using no AI, save out, and then do some AI editing on it and save out, then compare the meta data to see if there is anything added in which flags that AI was used ? ( I have no idea ... you'd likely need to deep-dive the meta data )

On1photoRAW 2025 gives options with healing tools not to use AI but the sidecar file which On1 produces cant be read by Adobe.

 

[DD_Crash]

I enjoy the editing part of photography and I find that using AI to help masking useful. I think that a lot of camera club members were pleased when Adobe introduce "content aware" cloning but it has moved on a lot since then.

 

[DD_Crash]

Cameras (which are in effect computers with a sensor) can do a lot in camera black & white, HDR, even "film effect" and colours can change due to lighting. What actually is the correct colour?

 

[DD_Crash]

You are right about doing anything in post, however de-mossaicing in raw editors will give slightly different results. For example some say Capture1 is best others say DxO photolab, or Lightroom etc and when you see it on the screen it probable will look slightly different to how you remember when you took the image. Even the monitor calibration can change the appearance and in camera doesnt always give the best exposure or white balance.

 

[DD_Crash]

They can be but some love entering competitions. Editing trends and subjects seem to go in and out of fashion. One current style I have noticed are portraits with texture overlay and previously a lot of winners looked over processed to me. Yes the hardware can make a difference to the image but removing distractions, cropping and maybe even using a LUT and vignette to emphasize the subject can really improve an image. The point is that the possibility of images being inadmissible because Adobe cant be used to check for AI use on images edited with other software. Adobe doesnt give better quality pixels.

 

[DD_Crash]

A bit more info from the O1 forum, it looks like Adobe Credentials doesnt look at the metadata.

Our Comp Secretary has now got a copy of Adobe Credentials, and has been scanning images. He has expressed concern at the number of false positives. i.e., images that were created from scratch, without using AI, and were then flagged up by Adobe as definitely being created by AI. When to be frank, they could not have been.

He has scanned some of my Photo Raw created images, (last year’s Comp Entries), and so far they have not fallen foul of Adobe’s Credentials software.

Personally, I am not worried about using ON1’s AI Masking. Because it just selects what is there in the original raw file. It is not a form of generative AI.

Sorry, but this looks like something that is going to run and run. And the false Positives will no doubt be used to great effect during some of the inter club comps. (Easy way to dismiss images that are considered to be too good?)

 

[DD_Crash]

Just watched an On1 resize video and it uses AI to "put in detail" which can look really good. I am sure that Topaz and the new Photoshop tools will do the same, so that means now upscaling would be considered inadmissible if no AI is allowed.

 

[DD_Crash]

I am sure the club competitions will use PAGB guidelines but I am not too sure what they actually are, hence the enquiries about Adobe Credentials. When the club starts meeting again I hope to find out more.

 

[DD_Crash]

The reference to the Comp Secretary was from a post in the On1 Forum, so I dont know any details. Also a lot of upscaling apps like Topaz and On1 also very probably Photoshop beta use AI so this might add to the issue.