It is unfortunate as the reality that the brain constructs seems to be based on this fake reality of everyone being unnaturally perfect and attractive. This seems to work even against better knowledge. No wonder we have a teenage mental health crisis. I would not be surprised if social media will get the same have the same curve of public opinion as smoking once had.
No surprise that the image you get in the end is mostly ML fabrication cued by some noisy inputs.
* For "pixel-scale reference", on a standard full-frame camera, 1µm pitch would result in some ~900 MP of resolution. The pixels are that tiny here.
Smartphone Camera vs Reality https://youtu.be/MZ8giCWDcyE
I think many replies are over-interpreting op's wording of "image filters applied" as being generalized to any image manipulation so having an algorithm determine it is unrealistic and pointless. (E.g. Does a camera's builtin noise reduction count as image manipulation?!? etc etc)
Regardless of the imprecise original wording, the intended question is probably much more mundane: Should a label be applied when a user uses Instagram app's builtin filters?
Yes, even the easier solution to that narrower scoped question has dubious value. Nevertheless, I think that's the op's intended idea.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/you-sure-you-used...
> Therefore informing the viewer, what you're seeing is a mixing of reality and illusion.
In my opinion, showing just the Instagram filters is worse in that case, since using any other filter (i.e. Photoshop, Camera-integrated or analog) will not be shown and people might think this is a realistic picture when it really is not.
There is some artistic and marketing value in showing the filter, but not for the use-case outlined by the OP.
Do we need to be taking so many photos, videos and short videos (shorts, reels, etc)? Do we need to be sharing all of them?
By default, those choices are made by engineers but they are not always "correct".
Take a photo of a beautiful sunset with auto white-balance and it will appear to have less color than the real thing.
By default, most smartphone cameras trade away some contrast in favor of dynamic range, too.
Why on earth would instagram want to break this illusion in any way? Their entire existence is in service to the illusion.
1. Would this take away the illusion? I think it'll just inform people of what they already know; it's not 100% real. The indicator will only serve to reduce the anxiety and depression in some folks by reminding them that what you say isn't 100% real.
I don't think Instagram wasn't to be a service of unhappiness and illusion. That would destroy their brand and I honestly don't believe the people working at Meta have such ill intentions. I think they do take pride in having a large number of users and a large number of people who are generally speaking, happy to use the service, but don't fully realize how deeply it can impact impressionable folks.
All that being said, a lot of people are starting to have negative emotions about Meta and similar companies because of a) their success b) their social impact and c) along with both of these some pretty deep negative impacts that I believe Zuck and the many workers that never intended. Basically, it's a negative by product.
This is all an opinion and I could be full of shit.
I think so, yeah. It's a reminder that the image you're seeing has been modified. That act of modification is exactly what Instagram provides, but under the guise that there is no modification.
> The indicator will only serve to reduce the anxiety and depression in some folks by reminding them that what you say isn't 100% real.
I agree with you. I think that's a good thing. What I'm saying is that it would be great for everyone, but harmful for Instagram.
> I don't think Instagram wasn't to be a service of unhappiness and illusion.
No, I don't think they ever intended this to be the case. But we often have no control over how the tools we create are used. It has evolved past its original purpose into a finely-tuned machine dedicated to presenting perfection.
Instagram knows this, and they know this is where their value lies. To expect them to go against market forces and do the right thing won't yield much fruit.
> I honestly don't believe the people working at Meta have such ill intentions.
The people working at Meta and the people deciding how Meta positions its products are two very different groups (welcome to capitalism). I could go on a 10-page rant about how the complete toxicity of Facebook and Instagram are entirely profit-driven and we should abolish capitalism and yada yada. I'll spare you.
That said, we need to at least stop pretending companies are going to the right thing. Meta knows Instagram is toxic to most of their users. But this is what makes them money. I don't think they're going to change it any time soon.
People need to stop pointing the camera at themselves. The world is so much more beautiful.
Uh what? People don't need to do anything. You might think the world is prettier without all the divas in it, and I might be of the same opinion. Doesn't mean anyone else needs to change. Just follow the accounts you like, mute the ones you don't but 'need' to follow (friends, etc.)
> Just follow the accounts you like, mute the ones you don't but 'need' to follow (friends, etc.)
If I had a penny for every time someone here casually drops such milquetoast advice (that DOESNT WORK), I'd be rich.
First you say there's too many faces, I give you an easy solution. Now you say there's too many ads, I say to make a script that pulls in latest images from a set of accounts using Instagram's Basic Display API.
Next you'll probably say you don't want to do any actual work, but also won't pay someone else to do work, in which case I have no solutions.
What I want is for people to change. For society to stop navel-gazing. For people to get over themselves. It's idealistic, for sure. But I am an idealist.
And for the record, those ads are going to show you more obnoxiously smiley faces, but this time they're hawking some bullshit product on top of it. So unless you can make the ads go away, whatever you set your feed to won't matter.
If you want something to exist either finance it or make it. Don't whine that other people aren't building it for free. I'm thankful the API even exists, it'd be easy for them to keep their walled garden totally isolated.
Hollywood has thousands if not millions of people literally "writing their own script". 99% of them won't get anywhere with it, wasting time and years of their life on a fruitless endeavor. Those are shit odds, and I don't see why society in general would be any different.
Don't let survivor bias cloud your judgement.
Much better to simply rip profits off the scalps of this contemptible society and revel in its few pleasures with a tribe of likeminded discontents. We can all watch the world burn together, and bitch about how much better life would be if regular folks didn't suck so much.
It'd take a 1,000 line html file and a couple serverless functions running on some free tier (CORS...), maximum.
And neither is building my own solution going to change anything. That is my point. You can't innovate your way out of people polluting the commons for their own selfish bullshit, because even if you do they will just pile on once it becomes big enough and ruin that too.
Also, fuck serverless. Like hell I'm going to let my stuff exist at the pleasure of some corpo that can change its mind at any time. Own your code.
> The only thing it will do is lock me into a cycle of maintenance and updating all the the mercy of whatever this free tier is and the API that it connects to. And neither is building my own solution going to change anything.
> Also, fuck serverless. Like hell I'm going to let my stuff exist at the pleasure of some corpo that can change its mind at any time. Own your code.
Hilarious coming from the person refusing to own any code. Sure, host your own server on your own rack connected to your own ISP. See what I care.
It seems overall very similar to smoking. It is bad for you; there are strong network effects, as in teenagers get peer pressure to do it if everyone else is doing it; it is difficult to get them to stop once they start; it is difficult to prevent them from starting.
This might have changed, haven't really used the app for a couple of years.
Even if Instagram does that, they can still modify the app to take pictures properly. That's definitely not a limitation with Android. The only problem I can see with this is people modifying the picture header to become the edited photo instead of a legitimate one (either with a rooted phone or a modified request on pc). There's not really any way for Instagram to properly verify this.
[0] https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/02/22/the-galaxy-s21-is-t...
E.g. people who prefer another camera app, or photographers who use a camera instead of their phone.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21231804
It seems silly to me to bother replying with a comment that just says "Yes" but I guess to elaborate I think that there's clear evidence that a ton of post processing is harmful to people's body image perception. A marking that makes clear this is not a "real photo of a real person" would make a ton of anxiety go away without literally regulating away the fun parts of photo editing.
I think it's fantastic to incentivize people posting photos that are unedited beyond brightness and contrast (ignoring focus and stuff) even though I know just photo composition is enough to significantly alter a photo already. I've taken enough photography courses to know that a good photo looks much better than a bad photo even without airbrushing. But at least it's based on the physical world still rather than entirely in an algorithm, I don't know where else you'd draw a line even if there is a little grey area.
I'm not seeking a yes/no answer. I'm seeking opinions of what people think not just about the idea, but the issue at hand with instagram without censorship or complex policies.
The iPhone portrait mode is a good example of this. That’s a filter by any reasonable definition of the term.
Where’s the threshold between image filtering done to capture a better version of what the sensor saw and image filtering to create a better version of what the sensor saw?
Everything presented to you is at the very least cherry picked and not “reality”. That’s why it’s presented in the first place. That’s what is worth worrying about, abuse of context.
Even in real life people look dramatically different with and without makeup. People seeing pictures and not realizing they have filters applied is like seeing people with makeup and not realizing they're wearing makeup.
Although it's gives a great example of the cynical ignorance on this site, with the posts saying, "Meta would never allow this". Just goes to show how much this site has fallen.
And this is not some superficially dumb dorm room philosophy rambling. I can stand in one spot and get a radically different photo depending on the focal length of lens I choose. Ignoring time of day, ignoring weather, what is the “reality” I should be presenting?
https://digital-photography-school.com/wide-angle-versus-tel...
Ignore all the “filtering” stuff. (Which, of course, you cannot possibly have an un-filtered digital photo, there is a Bayer filter array in front of the sensor, literally every photo is filtered or else it would be in black and white.) Am I presenting reality accurately if I shoot someone with an 85mm lens versus a 35mm lens? What if I use lighting? What if I have them stand so they’re looking at me over their shoulder instead of straight on? What if I coach them to smile a bit? Is a model in a studio with a big softbox light an illusion or reality?
If you're happy to get paid for it, we should overtly know it's paid for and that you stand behind. Let's hold influencers responsible for the shit they post.
One of my friends is pretty into managing their instagram within what I consider a normal and reasonable amount. Usually this means that the highlights of our lives are briefly arranged in the most photogenic way. If someone unfamiliar with us was to check my friend's instagram, probably they'd imagine someone who lives a pretty lavish lifestyle filled with amazing meals, delicious cocktails all the time, and a beautiful life all the time. This is mostly just the result of carefully chosen and staged pictures creating a stream that shows the best parts of life.
Influencers likely do the same, but with slightly more tricks; the cutest trick I learned was that the majority of mirror selfies are anything but, and actually are shot with a pretty decent DSLR that's positioned to stay out of the shot. The photo is then cropped to phone dimensions and uploaded and 'whoosh', camera quality better than even the best iPhone can take with the perception that "oh, I just shot this on the fly".
Basically, I'm not suggesting that a solution needs to be perfect to be implemented, but I am suggesting that I think the suggestion misses the main reason that instagram lives feel so much more glorious and out of reach for most people; there is a lot of time and effort put into making a strong and effective instagram stream beyond instagram filters. Seriously, try it out -- try _just_ using your phone and instagram filters to copy some of the most popular feeds, and likely you'll get close a few times, but fail to capture the same look and feel. The physical production values that is required for a well curated feed goes far beyond just the technical, and even with just a basic smartphone camera, a few simple camera tricks and taking the time to prepare you shot goes a long ways into making instagram work.
And I think the whole premise is wrong. You're trying to make people not feel bad about themselves because they may see an image and have some psychological consequences? I'm not sure that these concerns are on a firm footing.
Would they? No! Why would they want to break the part of the illusive loop that keeps people attached to endlesz scrolling? People don't want to see the reality, they want to see "perfect" shots, "perfect" bodies and don't want anyone to wake them up to the reality telling that what they are experiencing is not real.
Even if this does solve a user problem, it'd be difficult to make this label accurate for photos altered outside the app. An inaccurate label might be much worse than not having a label.
I imagine most people _know_ when a filter has been applied.
Image modification via filters / sliders / tools are built into the product and a core part of the user-generated content creation loop, at this point any image on instagram is expected to have a filter applied.
Is there a threshold for "not reality"? Sharpening and color representation in digital images are already illusions.
What's your suggestion for images edited outside of the instagram app? I did not look for any statistics but if you take a cursory glance at the "explore" section of instagram, I'd argue that most of the images were taken with a DSLR or a camera not built into the device that posted the image. So it's likely those images went through some form of modification and enhancement.
If the concern is for viewers being deceived by these images, I think it more likely that viewers are deceived by the "story" behind the image, than the image itself.
It's within the same realm as the OPs argument as to what is real and what isn't.
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/fault-lines/2022/5/4/a-tox...
you're welcome
P.S : I agree with all the technical complications/impossibilities that comes with such an idea but the idea remains good.
Although both are correct, one denote a blaming approach and the other one a more empathetic note.
PS: Have a peek on r/Instagramreality ;-)
They could just add a statement to their ToS that all photos on the platform have been algorithmically enhanced and/or compressed.
i’d imagine there would be a lot demand by instagram celebrities who would want to keep looking like their filters once the truth is uncovered