Ask HN: Should Instagram add labels indicating an image used filters?

[codemonkeysh]

I think we Instagram should indicate whether or not an image had filters applied to them. This will still allow folks to enhance images, but at the same time inform users that the image has been enhanced and improved. Therefore informing the viewer, what you're seeing is a mixing of reality and illusion.

[halotrope]

I recently photographed a Tiger (The big cat, in the Zoo...) with the iPhone 13 Pro Camera. It looked like a comic drawing with exaggerated stripes and weird artifacts in the face. The whole pipeline from the photons hitting the sensor of the photographer to being emitted from your phones screen again is just layers and layers of optimization, compression and enhancement. Completely compromised. I think we are getting very close to a point where photography cannot be assumed to depict the real world by default.

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.

[formerly_proven]

You're looking at a 1/3.4" OF image sensor with 1µm pitch, and an f/2.8 lens - not only is the sensor tiny, but the pixels are extremely tiny*, and it's fairly diffraction limited as well. If you had a raw image from this sensor, you'd notice how it's very noisy even at base gain and brightly lit conditions. Base sensitivity images from sensors with much larger pixels tend to still be quite visibly noisy!

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.

[ducaale]

This reminds me of Huawei's moon mode https://in.mashable.com/tech/3114/are-the-moon-shots-from-th...

Smartphone Camera vs Reality https://youtu.be/MZ8giCWDcyE

[Jugurtha]

There'll be a point where you take a picture of the tiger and your phone will say "I see you're trying to take a picture of a tiger. You suck at photography. Here is a better picture from National Geographic instead".

[jasode]

A meta comment about some of the replies...

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.

[ceejayoz]

The API used to tell you which filter was used; I remember a Tumblr blog titled "No Filter" or something like that; it curated photos with #nofilter but filter data in the output.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/you-sure-you-used...

[Sebb767]

The OP said:

> 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.

[bittercynic]

I think this fits into a larger pattern where someone asks a question that touches on an area where they don't understand (or maybe just don't care) that there is a lot of complexity someone will have to deal with, and even then results will be far from perfect. The asker might know this, but think that a partial solution is better than the current situation.

[balaji1]

meta comment about the whole situation:

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?

[balaji1]

I think there needs to be an app that rewards reducing screen time / social media. Yes I need a crutch to keep my behavior in check. I like how the iPhone gamifies "you screen time down 27% this week..." and for the record, I was up 37% this week sigh...

[ISL]

All digital images displayed on a smartphone involve some degree of manipulation and choice.

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.

[cerved]

When developing a negative you choose how to process the film, which developer, dilution, agitation and time. When you print you choose contrast filter, dodge and burn. All photographs, analog or digital, are processed to some degree

[orthecreedence]

Instagram is a platform dedicated to presenting fabrication. The entire point is to create a better version of yourself. An unrealistically perfect distillation of all of your best qualities.

Why on earth would instagram want to break this illusion in any way? Their entire existence is in service to the illusion.

[codemonkeysh]

I have a lot to say, but I'll try to keep it brief.

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.

[orthecreedence]

> Would this take away the illusion?

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.

[xcambar]

Helping teenagers and adults alike to read an explicit mention of image manipulation can certainly remove some self-criticism that many Instagram consumers impose to themselves.

[agent008t]

Is there an actual positive use case to teenagers using instagram?

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.

[tomc1985]

Why can't it be about sharing cool photos you took?

People need to stop pointing the camera at themselves. The world is so much more beautiful.

[jakear]

> 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.)

[tomc1985]

With ads every other or third post or so, you don't get nearly as much control over your feed as you think.

> 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.

[jakear]

Goalposts drifting faster than my kayak in a windstorm.

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.

[tomc1985]

My point is that a casual "just change your feed settings," answer, which signals an implicit approval for a shitty status quo, doesn't work.

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.

[junon]

Cool so I just improve my images outside the app using a different app as a workaround.

[csw-001]

So what about the inverse? Mark any photo taken within the app and uploaded without modification as “Authentic”?

[thih9]

What about people who want to make "Authentic" photos outside of the app?

E.g. people who prefer another camera app, or photographers who use a camera instead of their phone.

[gruez]

And what's preventing you from aiming your phone at a monitor? Sure, people might notice if you're aiming at your $200 monitor, but with a high DPI, high brightness, wide color gamut monitor you can probably get away with it.

[csw-001]

It’s about instituting a level of messaging to shift culture and promote authentic photos - not build fool-proof security.

[Sebb767]

Analog filters exist, too. They might not be as great as their digital equivalent in some cases, but people really want to fake #nofilter and it's basically impossible to detect.

[petepete]

I think this would put Android users at a huge disadvantage because of the way the app works (it takes a screenshot of what's on the display).

This might have changed, haven't really used the app for a couple of years.

[Snowworm]

What? That sounds really stupid. Could you provide a source?

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.

[petepete]

I might have confused the screenshotting the viewfinder with Snapchat[0], it looks like Instagram was just poorly optimised[1]

[0] https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/02/22/the-galaxy-s21-is-t...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagram/comments/downdc/_/

[gabereiser]

Oh, so like I do for TikTok? Easy.

[JohnJamesRambo]

It would be great for mental health and the users and bad for the bottom line and the fake reality that makes all their profits; so no they won’t do it.

[Sebb767]

People would simply apply filters before uploading it to Instagram. All this would do is making built-in filters worse.

[dymk]

A disclaimer about a filter isn’t going to change the reaction of somebody who would already feel insecure by seeing a filter.

[neltnerb]

Hacker News lets you make polls.

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.

[codemonkeysh]

So what you're saying is that your reply isn't a yes/no it's more in-depth?

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.

[neltnerb]

Ah, okay then. I thought you were hoping to get a straw poll of what people think of the idea, in which case I'd have simply said "yes" because I don't think my reasoning is very original.

[sokoloff]

Digital cameras have built-in image processing already. (You’re not seeing data directly from the sensor.)

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?

[donatj]

Why? I don’t understand why it even matters. The colors are different and someone’s pimples are hidden? The filters on Instagram aren’t worth worrying about.

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.

[JCharante]

Just assume everything is manipulated and then you never have to worry about filtered or not again.

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.

[dkasper]

This already exists if you use the filters in the app. In fact it's one of the ways cool new filters go viral. But lots of people use other apps to edit photos and upload them and IG has no way of knowing what happened to those unless there's something I'm missing?

[bryan_w]

I was thinking the same thing, it's already clear when people us IG filters in IG.

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.

[perardi]

What is an illusion and what is reality? How do I present an objective true image with a camera?

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?

[xcambar]

You could have started on a consensual definition of "unfiltered photography" with OP and share some valid ideas to fuel the conversation instead.

[incone123]

I've done Photoshop work for images which were for someone's Instagram. It won't be able to label those as filtered.

[iamben]

More importantly, I think ads should have a separate tab. If your post is an #ad, 'ad', paid partnership (or anything other way that influencers use to just fit in with the rules), the photo/video should be put in there. It should be more or less permanent (short of appealing for removal) - so there's thought behind posting.

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.

[csydas]

I get the goal but I don't think it really addresses the main issue which is that what you're looking at is already a heavily curated stream of photos taken in very specific ways to suppose a specific kind of life-style.

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.

[cronix]

How about we just put a popup on all of our devices warning us that what we are about to experience is not reality each time we use it. Why is this unique to instagram? Should they also be forced to get a notarized statement using documents proving every word they post is also accurate?

[fortran77]

No. All images use filters. What comes off the image sensor is just a bunch of numbers. Something has to be done -- which always involves compromises and choices, there's no one correct solution -- to make an image that can be viewed on a range of display devices.

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.

[throwaway0x7E6]

and how would you stop people from modifying the image in another program before uploading it?

[capableweb]

A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be valuable. Catching 90% of the cases can sometimes be good enough to have a large impact.

[throwaway0x7E6]

yes it would have some impact - by elevating the 10% above the fold

[can16358p]

Should they? Probably (perhaps in somewhere like "more info" not to clutter the UI).

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.

[misnome]

How do you define “not enhanced”, and how would you get an image that hasn’t been somewhat filtered and interpreted by camera software or hardware?

[arbor_day]

Of the negative effects of IG, knowing which photos have been digitally altered doesn't seem high on the list. I'm not sure who you'd be significantly helping with this feature.

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.

[vogt]

Seems in line with cookie pop ups, COVID disclosure banners, and all the other modern web cruft that doesn’t deliver value.

[gelstudios]

Why do you think that most viewers would get from an "image has filter" indicator?

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.

[rognjen]

My pet peeve is the fact that Instagram has a label for when something is a paid promotion but it is so infrequently used and poorly enforced that it might as well not exist.

It's within the same realm as the OPs argument as to what is real and what isn't.

[nh23423fefe]

So basically a trigger warning for the mentally weak to manage their crippling envy?

[peppermint_tea]

So basically a trigger warning for our teenagers to manage their suicidal tendencies?

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.

[xwdv]

It will be bad for mental health as now people will filter photos or videos externally and won’t have a disclaimer that they’ve been filtered, giving a mentally weak user the impression that these are real images guaranteed.

[peppermint_tea]

can you try to replace "mentally weak user" by "gullible teenager"?

Although both are correct, one denote a blaming approach and the other one a more empathetic note.

[xwdv]

No use. Gullible people do not believe they are gullible.

[clircle]

Should a movie display a warning banner that special effects are being used?

[xenocratus]

You can look at C2PA [1] as an attempt to track image (and other type of media) authenticity, processing, and so on.

[1] https://c2pa.org/

[jmrm]

This would totally make those filters users pretty angry: They want to enhance the pictures without nobody noticing that. I don't think Meta would allow that.

PS: Have a peek on r/Instagramreality ;-)

[dalmo3]

> inform users that the image has been enhanced and improved

They could just add a statement to their ToS that all photos on the platform have been algorithmically enhanced and/or compressed.

[ksec]

May be an Instagram "clone" where only photos taken within the App's internal camera function with no editing allowed.

[dragonmost]

You can't just make up a new social media site and expect everyone to join. Especially if it's more limiting then the billion dollar company product you're trying to compete with.

[bryan_w]

Not with that attitude

[dom9301k]

Nope, the user can use another app and than upload the picture without have the pic be market with the label

[idonov]

They already added that to stories

[HKH2]

It'd be quite useful to have a browser plugin that shows irregularities in photos.

[dymk]

Not really. I don’t care if somebody uses a sepia filter or facetune.

[ushakov]

are you a plastic surgeon?

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

[simplehuman]

What's the fun in that?

[moneywoes]

yes, however people would just find ways to avoid the filer

[simonswords82]

Yes