Ya, I don’t mean the real physical negatives. I mean digital representations of them.

I haven’t done it yet, but now I will - copy a description of one of the images and put it in an ai image gen + “photographic negative 1940’s archival scan hyper-realistic aged military dust” or something along those lines. If the image doesn’t have people in it I bet one can make a pretty convincing digital image of a physical negative.

this is obviously going to be an issue in the future, so I dunno why people are so upset I’m asking

Thank you for actually answering my question instead of downvoting me because you are reading between the lines. This is what I wanted to know.

Do you think AI will be able to do this soon though? Or a combo of AI & photoshop could trick most people right? How could one be sure? Is there any forensic photographic test that can be done?

Because the first photo I saw in the article without people looked similar to pictures I’ve autogenerated. I’ve mostly been generating prompts like “archival scanned military photograph 1942 Bavaria leaked photograph photorealistic [etc…convoluted phrases]” and it often generates black & white photographs that I imagine if done with more iterations and intentional keywords look like this. This also was what showed up on my feed. I literally say I am not challenging the photos in this post, I am curious. It could have been a picture of anything & I would’ve commented the same. Holy hell people read into things looking at the downvotes. Isn’t this a legitimate question we should be asking nowadays? You’ve seen all the UAP news. With as many fakes coming out about contemporary things now I wonder about how we will trust historical images.

I am not asking this to discredit the images or challenge their veracity but looking at them after spending a few weeks playing around with AI image generators…how do we know nowadays if something is a real “historic” image?