No. Films can be faked too. You just need high quality 4K display to point your camera at. Even forensic can't tell the difference if you set it up right. Has been done ever since.

No.

doctoring photos has been around since photography.

This was done via analog technology and was a mystery for quite some time.

Edit: image didn't attach.

You're acting like there was no way to make convincing fake photos before AI. Treat it like before: don't take things you see at face value and do some actual research to confirm it.

Sorry, but you can already print polaroid pictures from a cell phone telephone. If someone handed you one of these, you'd have no way of knowing what the original source was from. You can do the same thing with any film technology.

We don’t interact with physical photographs in the way we once did. Ultimately, 99% of our exposure (hehe) to photographs will still end up digitized, so the point is moot. But even in the rare instances of having a physical print, there’s really no evidence of the analog chain being unbroken. And even then, analog photos can be faked, just not with AI.

It would be a nice thing but the industry is too far invested in digital medium for that.

The revealing chemicals are expensive and need to be disposed of in a controlled manner, which implies costs photo shops are not willing to incur.

And there is the supply of fim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Physical film has to be scanned and there’s your AI inlet.

Real photojournalism will demand cryptographicly signed image provenance.

For example Apple’s “reference image” feature uses a key in the secure enclave to sign the digital negative. I imagine Android will offer something similar.

Photo paper and home printers are pretty good these days. Not sure this would solve the deepfake problem.

In a swiss cheese model of verification maybe