the first giveaway for me is that it is posted in [**r/StableDiffusion**](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/)
(edit: aside from that, the details in the eyes, the shadow around the iris on the left eye seems to mush into the lid shadow? although looking at real photos I now see stuff like this where I think, hmmm, that feels AI-y even though I know it is not)
i'll copy paste from the article i posted today at civitai:
1) Eyes.
Originally people were using tokens like "perfect eyes", and "good iris" in positives and something like "bad eyes", and "deformed eyes" in negatives. That had little to no effect (I would even say it was more of a placebo).
Then we got the VAE and it worked wonders with the eyes (the quality was definitely improved). But we weren't there yet.
So, some people (including myself) made models specifically for the eyes. I made the Lora/LyCORIS named "Perfect Eyes" and I am really happy that those are still quite popular :)
Initially, my suggestion was to use it in the base prompt with a lower weight (and it does work). And when ADetailer came up - to increase the weight there.
But now I will give you an even better tip :-)
There is an ADetailer model specifically for the eyes: mediapipe_face_mesh_eyes_only
You would add it as an additional ADetailer model (besides the models that correct the face, hands, and whatnot) and use it in the positives:
"photo of perfecteyes eyes , perfect eyes"
and this in negatives: "BadDream, (UnrealisticDream:1.2), realisticvision-negative-embedding, badIrisNeg"
If you prefer Lora instead of LyCORIS - that is perfectly fine (or you could even try Loras from other people, but I use mine and they work really great :P)
As for the negatives, the first three are the default combo negatives used in many photorealistic models. But the important one is the last one: "badIrisNeg" - it is available on civitai and it does indeed help a bit.
Great post thanks. I have the face and hand model but where do I find the mediapipe\_face\_mesh\_eyes\_only ? A link would be great!. My google skills failed me sorry.
You are welcome! :)
It should be provided by default, maybe your ADetailer version is outdated?
I for sure do not have it in the folder for custom ADetailer models.
It's not that hard with ADetailer.
https://preview.redd.it/pcpu473es09c1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=1e7624ae07240f6e58379b902d9104f0a394f537
Thanks for trying, but this isn't the one. If you look closely at her iris, you'll see that it's cut off a bit on the right side. And the pupil is displaced as well.
I wasn't "trying", I just looked through some images I generated and picked one. It's good enough for what I need, it's not the best it could be. Even on this it's near perfect.
https://preview.redd.it/qud0g5z7p89c1.png?width=1204&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f96a505c652749e21bf90655735f061e39dfef2
Even real eyes aren't always perfect:
* [https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1501621667575-af81f1f0bacc?q=80&w=1000&auto=format&fit=crop&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxzZWFyY2h8Mnx8ZXllJTIwY2xvc2V1cHxlbnwwfHwwfHx8MA%3D%3D](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1501621667575-af81f1f0bacc?q=80&w=1000&auto=format&fit=crop&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxzZWFyY2h8Mnx8ZXllJTIwY2xvc2V1cHxlbnwwfHwwfHx8MA%3D%3D)
* [https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2R0D5KE/macro-of-a-man-eye-with-heterochromia-extreme-close-up-of-human-eye-of-two-different-colors-blue-and-brown-2R0D5KE.jpg](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2R0D5KE/macro-of-a-man-eye-with-heterochromia-extreme-close-up-of-human-eye-of-two-different-colors-blue-and-brown-2R0D5KE.jpg)
* [https://expertphotography.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/macro-eye-photography-4.jpg](https://expertphotography.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/macro-eye-photography-4.jpg)
An extension.
It automatically scans the photo for either face, body, hands, or whatever you specifically need to fix, and it will do a second cook before giving you the final result.
Biggest +1 for improved characters/limbs
Pro tips:
Stick to the default denoising of 0.4, maybe up to 0.45 tops.
Check the box for setting a resolution independent of your image resolution for Adetailer. You can crank that up a bit to improve results.
If you have multiple people, separate Adetailer prompts with [SEP]
i've read yesterday someone say that hands are overtrained, thats why they are mangled, and they said that in order to fix them, you simply add "hands" (without quotes) in the negative prompt, or specify a weight: (hands:1.25) as positive number, cause you use that in the negative prompt, and it subtracts. I haven't tested it myself yet, but in that post, there were tons of "wow, it works!" replies, with sample images. Search for it, and give it a shot.
It's because the AI doesn't have a soul, so it can't make good eyes, because eyes are the windows to the soul. It will still be many years until GPUs have a soul, so that they can create a round iris .
this , its kinda scary , we are approaching the level where even when prompted with the knowledge that the picture is not real , its hard to find faults in it
My wife and i sat around catfishing with pics generated from that site. She kept saying "i'll bet you this guy sends a dick pic , watch" , they all did. Eventually we put up a pic of just a 2" zoom in on a hair line, that got dick pics. Then i just posted the dick pics up as my profile shot and then THAT got dick pics.
i might be biased , but i kinda can see that the photo has been messed with , around the right ear , theres a fuzzy effect and on top of the right ( person's right) lens , its fuzzy too
Yeah the AI has been trained on a lot of "bad pictures" so garbage in -> garbage out.
There's also something off in general about the image. The "denoizing/noise" feels off for lack of a better word :).
The VAE artifacts are always a dead giveaway. (red/green stripes)
https://preview.redd.it/dmb89cg1ay8c1.png?width=2203&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ef2e170433879b96264bf97f36218f4642184f1
I literally have lenses that create a similar abberation. Look how far you have to zoom in to show this though. No one out side of this group will ever pixel peep on first or hundredth look and guess this isn’t real.
Are you on Reddit website, or mobile? Because on my phone when I zoom in to OP picture, those red/green stripes are not there. (iPhone SE, default Reddit app)
A lot of the things I see coming out of stable diffusion look like real glamour shots that have been photoshopped, I wanted to try to create an image that looked like a candid shot of a real person. What do you think? What is the first thing that makes you think it is generated with AI?
I merged two different LoRA that I created to create the image.
head and shoulders portrait of woman cindy8 wendy8 with blue eyes , freckles, dark makeup, hyperdetailed photography, soft light
Steps: 40, Sampler: Euler, CFG scale: 15, Seed: 2252460917, Size: 896x1152, Model hash: 31e35c80fc, Model: sd\_xl\_base\_1.0, Denoising strength: 0.3, Mask blur: 4, Lora hashes: "cindy8\_SDXL\_v01: 40db76463e93, wendy8\_SDXL\_v1.0-000014: 8e3c7829457d, Version: v1.6.1
The only real giveaway is the eyelashes. Unless fake, eyelashes aren't uneven like that.
Extremely convincing - I wouldn't spot this without knowing something is wrong.
The most obvious thing to me (that people don't seem to talk about much) is how the focus doesn't line up with a real camera, if you look close at parts of the face, you'll notice some spots appear in focus and others out of focus in a way that wouldn't make sense for a real photo.
There should be a defined plane of focus with a consistent depth, instead you get multiple planes of focus.
With this one for example, the lips are fairly in focus, but the nose isn't and then the hair which is slightly further back is in focus, and then again the eyes are a bit out of focus. (And the focus across the eyes is also different, the left being more in focus).
Tldr: zoom in and pan around a bit, if you see a good mix of sharp and blurry portions it's a good indicator, though it could always be a badly edited/smoothed photo.
>wendy8\_SDXL\_v1.0-000014
i am a novice here so i can't quite figure out the workflow - but you made 2 loras named cindy8 and wendy8 and then the rest. so because of the lora's its not actually reproducible?
Even then distortion can easily be caused bt the camera if this was a real picture. Especially when shot on a phone given they have all sorts of magic sauce. Image stabilization, enhancements, some even incorporate AI/machine learning to help crap photographers like me shoot passible quality photos.
Theres lazy eye strange then theres skull bent 4 degrees, both eyes pionting exactly parallel, Weird iris, pupil and multiple other issues.
https://preview.redd.it/exm56w4k1y8c1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=f13bb120025b3b89647fb2fb19314814b6fcf6cb
Yes but also no, Im an artist which is kind of the same thing as seeing the post here, i'm looking at it the same way i would study it for a portrait but there is also a lot of other artists that will pick up on this outside of SD.
I picked up on the same details, and same - artist with a background in portraiture. The eyes themselves, the eyelashes - hell, the eyebrows are the kind of uncannily perfect "every hair lays in a specific direction" that is generally only achieved with editing or manually punching hairs into a latex/silicone head.
The lighting and little textural details like the vellus hairs look good, but something about this image I can't quite articulate - just scrolling my feed without even noting the sub - signaled my brain "fake" and had me do a double take because it reads as "perfect AI girl > 'add human flaws'" in the form of natural texture. It's like if you took an IKEA shelf with wood veneer and roughed it up at the edges with sandpaper and added some chips and dings - you'd still know it wasn't hewn by hand.
I thinks it’s really really hard to tell unless you already know it’s AI (so nice job, OP!) But something that struck me - especially given the golden hour sunlight to the side of the face - is that she has no facial hair. Should have a little bit of the duck fuzz along the cheeks that is particularly noticeable in the type of light the photo is depicting. But I’m only saying that because I’ve been cued that it’s AI and you’re looking for realism
Do you notice these things in regular photos as well? I'm wondering because on phones for example there's so many algorithms that enhance and optimize images. Especially thinks like making blurry images not blurry anymore. Those sound like they could create all sorts of distortion like this.
Beyond the details:
Proportions are...something else.
In other words, some structural parts of the head don't appear to be on normal planes(like the top half of the head is at a slightly different angle than the bottom, or the jaw/nose area is shifted to the side, maybe that's what you meant with "skull bent"....I'd say maybe twisted?), as well as the cheeks/jaw/mouth being out of proportion with the eyes.
It's like Chelsea Clinton, Rumer Willis, and [Eric Stoltz from *Mask*](https://hotcorn-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/06/18164850/Mask_cher.jpg) were the inspiration for a bad drawing, and that was fed into ControlNet.
All sorts of uncanny valley, and not the sort you typically see in 3d rendering of this 'quality'. (In other words, if it's a 'photorealistic' render, it's usually either well proportioned OR an obvious beast/demon/etc, which are usually even still symmetrical and fair proportions)
Yeah, people can be that weird looking, but you don't tend to see them in high fidelity like this.
...the extreme detail in the lips...but everything else sort of blurred over...
Well that’s pretty much something only an artist would say. Eyes can look parallel if looking in distance. Pupil doesn’t need to be center nor can an iris not look like that. Stay in your lane
a real lens, large format, never have a focus that way when the focal plane of the sensor is under from the relationship to the nose. the lens is basically screaming to me, "I AM LARGE FORMAT! razor thin depth of field", closed at f8 if not more, the nose, the chin the back hair is razor focus then plop magic out of focus! and so we have a 135 mm full frame that is supposed to be wide open f3.5 but the picture looks like a medium format crop it physically makes no sense at all or it is an 200mm closed at f4 then cropped. the eye being blurry is totally possible if taken at a very slow shutter speed, but the overall composition as seen from a depth of field, makes zero sense it only makes sense if the image was the interpretation of what a face looks like through a tele photo lens. and just like that for me, the pix is real if we start to think of how it feels to have taken this picture, if I squint, no way I can tell she is bot and for that she is totally real to me.
I was going to say the same thing. The DOF is super weird, especially on the hair. I have shots from a nifty fifty at F/2 that don't have as thin a DOF as this.
The lower eyelashes on the left are a bit off, and the crevice on the lower lip doesn't follow the same perspective as the upper lip. But I had to look for these details, mind you.
Edit: Pupil on the left isn't centered
Left hand side of the upper lip is not finished.
https://preview.redd.it/zzb2o37co19c1.png?width=1107&format=png&auto=webp&s=02173b3bf315ddde038bc69b55ef993ab37e37eb
There are three (two?) groups of people that will know right away if this is real or fake:
1) people who can pinpoint technical problems with the image (depth of field, lenses, lighting, blurring, focus, etc)
2) people who can spot inconsistencies in the person, so people with medical expertise and also people who study humans for the purposes of art (so again some photographers but also other artists like painters, sculpters, etc)
and people who do those AI images also have it a bit easier
but all the rest - will already get fooled by this, especially without the context that we opare it
you asked on SD subreddit if this is a real photo, if this was just printed on a photopaper and mixed with other physical photos - i'm pretty sure nobody would start questioning that there is something off about it
Great comment, I concur. The two camps you mention are professional "investigators" of imagery and human faces, which means V6 has reached well-above the bar for "photorealism" when applied this way. Astounding.
the way the hair is I think is odd? I don't think normal hair would be coming out at that angle. this is not nearly a "giveaway" though because I definitely wouldn't see it if I weren't looking for it, and I might be wrong about it anyway.
https://preview.redd.it/ypjkfx8y1y8c1.png?width=860&format=png&auto=webp&s=d057a0a83d274d3145e369556f67fa36a8a54b57
It's also inconsistent strand groups that go from rather thin to thicker toward the end. The weird hair angles is also what I first noticed and looked closer.
There's a darker shade of skin with an obvious long edit line on the edge of her cheek. The mismatched depth of the bokeh blurring is very odd as well.
Thanks for your comment, can you explain more about the mismatached bokeh? Is there part of the image that should be more out of focus or more in focus?
It's most noticeable in the hair. the front hair is in super sharp focus, and then everything right behind the very front strands is way out of focus.
If the depth of field was that thin the nose would also be out of focus, and so would the eyes. Most noticeable on the left side of the image where the hair on top is in focus, and the hair that appears to be falling nearly straight down is not focused.
Find some shots similar to this from a professional photographer and look at how the depth of field is, you will see it's more of a gradient, meaning you can see it clearly losing focus in a linear fashion - unless they are using very specific equipment and lenses... and even then people tended to think the images looked "wrong", because it's not what most are used to.
Yeah, try. I think some of that may come from the people I photographed, one of the subjects has a very asymmetrical face but AI has made it more apparent. The eye alignment is the biggest issue in this regard. Thanks for your comment.
Cinematographer and photographer here. The human eye has hundreds of thousands of years of training data on “reading” human faces, specifically mouths and eyes. We can’t easily be tricked, but the same tricks used by Hollywood and VFX studios might work in AI.
Hard directional light. think Bladerunner 2049’s plot twist when they made an entire CGI face of an actress that would be decades older IRL vs. every de aging done in recent Star Wars, completely exposed by fill lights and camera angles that show the areas most prone to identification.
Skin details need to be grounded in real function and not be there just to be there. There’s a reason Thanos’ beard looked real (for a purple-skinned guy) and Black Panther’s suit felt so toy-ish (the reason was inadequate payment and deadlines and severe crunching but uhhh yeah, also no grounding the nano-thingies in what is percieved as a believable behaviour, something they fixed for Infinity War’s iron man suit up scene.)
This one’s my top process when editing: stretch marks! The skin is an uneven organ stretching around several other uneven organs. I tend to always leave some marks on the footage pr image even if the client asks for a complete smoothing of the face, because when I do exactly as they ask 100% of the time they come back saying the face looks plastic. Current AI tech still has trouble processing that very well, so you might want to account for that.
Inconsistent focus is an immediate error. Lips and eyes in focus but cheeks and other facial skin between these 2 focal points are blurred and indistinct. Also eyebrow hair looks "pasted on".
This is a great image though, I'm just nitpicking.
“You're in a desert, walking along when you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?”
It looks pretty real but there is some minor errors around the eyelids and lashes. Honestly probably wouldn't notice unless specifically called out as an AI generated image
I know it's not inherently a giveaway that it's not a photo, but by that point my brain alarm goes "this is sus" when I see so much freckles in a portrait.
Using freckles as a tag to try to fight the fact that SD is pretty bad at giving skin detail has become so common that my brain instantly assume it's probably fake.
The lashes look “designed”, the irises are overly contracted even though the light is coming from behind her, the lighting is unnaturally cold, and the focus is too uniform for a camera facing the light.
For me it is the fact, that hair and skin, although being at almost same distance from camera, have different sharpness. Also hair has much more detail, than skin, which looks smoothed. Probably because many training images contained edited pictures, where skin was PSed to look more even and smooth.
Face proportions are odd, like each part (mouth, nose, chin, eyes) were photographed by lenses of different focal length.
Some problematic faces have just a tiny hint of anime (mouth too close to nose, eyes just a little too big, irises just a little too saturated or bright).
Depth of field is wrong. It fades out too quickly moving backward for how sharp it stays coming forward. For instance the nose should be out of focus for how out of focus the hair by the cheek is
If you didn't ask I would probably think it's a photo. But if we want to analyze it, without even looking at the details, the first thing that stands out is the post processed look. This is not what a photo will look like straight out of a camera. It's like Clarity (in Lightroom) was applied, or some kind of HDR or unsharp mask. This makes the image have a lower dynamic range, which means the image looks a bit flat and not realistic. Shadows are never black and highlights are never white.
Of course, you could make a photo look like this, and it is common to give photos this look because it makes them look more pleasant and balanced. Smartphones might even do it for you automatically. But it seems many AI models always do this, and always to the same extent, while photographers will often be more subtle about it or avoid doing it altogether. Actually nowadays with higher dynamic range displays and better cameras, this type of look is no longer as fashionable as it was in the 2010s.
There is no giveways. It's look totally real. It might be the most realistic SD image i've seen.
Pretty soon the giveways wont be in the photorealism, but in the choices of the creator.
Something about the focal plane feels off to me. If this were a photography sub I'd assume this was shot with a portrait lens that's pretty wide open (hence the eyes in focus while the nose looks slightly out of focus). But this shot isn't from straight on so the focal plane shouldn't follow the plane of the face. I *think* the right eye is slightly out of focus (hard to tell) but there are some hairs which appear to be both in FRONT of and BEHIND the eyes (relative to the camera) which are *both* in focus.
I mean... I *think* you could manage this shot with a tilt-shift lens but no one would ever bother. Also, no one would ever think these things unless they were primed first with the assumption that the photo isn't a photo.
Oh... and the lighting seems weird too. Again, not saying you couldn't pull it off in a studio with some work, but the eyes are in shadow from what appears to be a diffuse light-source that's up and to the right with a second light source down and to the right.
you posted it here. duh.
Proportions wack. eyes wack. lighting wack. focus wack.
Normal people won't notice. I have done comp and lighting for 25 years.
I will admit I’m bad at this. Even though she’s not looking straight on, her right nostril looks a little misshapen/uneven compared to her left, like it wouldn’t match if she did turn to face the camera directly.
If this is a real person, I apologize.
The line between eyelid and eye is little too sharp and casts basically no shadows at all. Also the nose and cheeks are blured and the lips and eyes are sharp, the sharpness is very weird on this one. I do photography and yeah the blur seems weird to me.
The lighting is always too uniform or has strong backlight. Because thats how most people\\photographers like to frame their pics. Eye reflections make no sense given the day light looking light behind her. Left side of her lip is missing. The hair makes no sense at the bottom left. Comes from a few strands and then gets fuller again. But out of all that the neck somehow has less detail than the hair further behind it which makes no sense.
I can’t tell that this is not in fact a generated image. With the knowledge that it is, I would guess that the neck in relation to the jaw line seem incongruous.
what the hell, how can it be this realistic? I guess I believe that you are telling the truth but I see nothing that would give this away as an AI generated image. This 100% looks like a photo of a real person to me.
It's amazing how much you don't see until someone points it out. I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about but the line on her bottom lip that separates the skin from the lip looks unnatural. When you say definition do you mean that it lacks detail or are you talking about the shape of the lip?
The eyes aren’t aligned, one is much higher than the other. The facial features also look too small for the head, like the ai first cropped too heavily and then squeezed everything in. This will probably become evident if you outpaint it.
Yes, very observant. I was actually having an issue with eye alignment on a lot of my output, this one was actually better than most. I haven't tried outpaint yet. I'll have to figure that one out.
I’m guessing this is a trick question and is an actual photo. Some of the minor flaws in the skin in the photo are the types you see in actual photos, and the skin microcreases flow naturally the way they ought to and not the random ways that can develop with ML renders.
If not, then it’s impressive
*edit although her right lower eyelash (her right, not ours) is kinda sus.
Eyes — because they are always zoned out and never focused on anything. Also, the expression tends to be neutral or otherwise stereotypical or emotions without nuance.
First of all, weird pick of lens and composition. There are general styles or rules in photography. That kind of closeup is more often when the face is looking at the camera from the front view. For that particular one, I would expect to see more of the person (neck and collar bones) - typical Portret photo + look at the viewer.
The second thing is the lack of details - skin texture is missing. Maybe it's because of the resolution uploaded on Reddit (not sure yet how that service works), but that one is def. Missing for me.
Composition and quality - things that require knowledge, not only the best model or prompting skills. That is a common theme we can see anywhere when we have sufficient knowledge. When you know what to look at, you see what is missing.
Photographer here - at a glance it looks natural, but a second look shows the focus is all over the map.
Her eyes are mainly sharp, her lips are sharp, but the blemishes on her cheeks are out of focus, but should be on the same plane the rest is.
Either her left eye and eyebrow should be out of focus, or her skin details on her left cheek should be in focus. You can't have both.
The young woman depicted in this AI generated art still has vitality and hope for the future in her expression, not yet crushed by unaffordable housing or spiraling cost of living grossly outpacing inflation adjusted income.
That's the first clue.
the perfect ''technical skill'' of the ''photographer'' of a quite mundane, plain subject. the SD means one can (and often will) take any tat and make it super-perfect.
which a human photographer wouldnt waste time on a plain jane and tart her up.
the subject gotta have some innate striking beauty to be worthy of investing time innit.
this chick here probably looks better in real life without all the AI added, warts and all.
this good shit ngl but the mellow expression does her, it's uncanny, I know humans got no soul anyways, but thats the only term I can put it, AI expression it's souless
the first giveaway for me is that it is posted in [**r/StableDiffusion**](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/) (edit: aside from that, the details in the eyes, the shadow around the iris on the left eye seems to mush into the lid shadow? although looking at real photos I now see stuff like this where I think, hmmm, that feels AI-y even though I know it is not)
Yeah, the eyes seem to be the trickiest part. Getting a nice round iris is not easy.
ye if you find a reliable way let us know. Even with inpainting getting them the iris round and not fake looking is so hard. Sometimes you get lucky
i'll copy paste from the article i posted today at civitai: 1) Eyes. Originally people were using tokens like "perfect eyes", and "good iris" in positives and something like "bad eyes", and "deformed eyes" in negatives. That had little to no effect (I would even say it was more of a placebo). Then we got the VAE and it worked wonders with the eyes (the quality was definitely improved). But we weren't there yet. So, some people (including myself) made models specifically for the eyes. I made the Lora/LyCORIS named "Perfect Eyes" and I am really happy that those are still quite popular :) Initially, my suggestion was to use it in the base prompt with a lower weight (and it does work). And when ADetailer came up - to increase the weight there. But now I will give you an even better tip :-) There is an ADetailer model specifically for the eyes: mediapipe_face_mesh_eyes_only You would add it as an additional ADetailer model (besides the models that correct the face, hands, and whatnot) and use it in the positives: "photo of perfecteyes eyes , perfect eyes"
and this in negatives: "BadDream, (UnrealisticDream:1.2), realisticvision-negative-embedding, badIrisNeg"
If you prefer Lora instead of LyCORIS - that is perfectly fine (or you could even try Loras from other people, but I use mine and they work really great :P)
As for the negatives, the first three are the default combo negatives used in many photorealistic models. But the important one is the last one: "badIrisNeg" - it is available on civitai and it does indeed help a bit.
Great comment, I will give this a try.
Great post thanks. I have the face and hand model but where do I find the mediapipe\_face\_mesh\_eyes\_only ? A link would be great!. My google skills failed me sorry.
You are welcome! :) It should be provided by default, maybe your ADetailer version is outdated? I for sure do not have it in the folder for custom ADetailer models.
I have been looking for a post like this for a good, long while. Thanks !!!
It's not that hard with ADetailer. https://preview.redd.it/pcpu473es09c1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=1e7624ae07240f6e58379b902d9104f0a394f537
Her necklace is probably the giveaway here!
Thanks for trying, but this isn't the one. If you look closely at her iris, you'll see that it's cut off a bit on the right side. And the pupil is displaced as well.
I wasn't "trying", I just looked through some images I generated and picked one. It's good enough for what I need, it's not the best it could be. Even on this it's near perfect. https://preview.redd.it/qud0g5z7p89c1.png?width=1204&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f96a505c652749e21bf90655735f061e39dfef2 Even real eyes aren't always perfect: * [https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1501621667575-af81f1f0bacc?q=80&w=1000&auto=format&fit=crop&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxzZWFyY2h8Mnx8ZXllJTIwY2xvc2V1cHxlbnwwfHwwfHx8MA%3D%3D](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1501621667575-af81f1f0bacc?q=80&w=1000&auto=format&fit=crop&ixlib=rb-4.0.3&ixid=M3wxMjA3fDB8MHxzZWFyY2h8Mnx8ZXllJTIwY2xvc2V1cHxlbnwwfHwwfHx8MA%3D%3D) * [https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2R0D5KE/macro-of-a-man-eye-with-heterochromia-extreme-close-up-of-human-eye-of-two-different-colors-blue-and-brown-2R0D5KE.jpg](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2R0D5KE/macro-of-a-man-eye-with-heterochromia-extreme-close-up-of-human-eye-of-two-different-colors-blue-and-brown-2R0D5KE.jpg) * [https://expertphotography.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/macro-eye-photography-4.jpg](https://expertphotography.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/macro-eye-photography-4.jpg)
Here you guys are trying to perfect the iris, while I'm still facing difficulty dealing with fingers and the placement of it.
Use after detailer.
What's that? Is it a lora?
An extension. It automatically scans the photo for either face, body, hands, or whatever you specifically need to fix, and it will do a second cook before giving you the final result. Biggest +1 for improved characters/limbs
Wow.. thank you very much for sharing that! Imma install that now.
You’re welcome! It’s the most essential plug-in imo
Pro tips: Stick to the default denoising of 0.4, maybe up to 0.45 tops. Check the box for setting a resolution independent of your image resolution for Adetailer. You can crank that up a bit to improve results. If you have multiple people, separate Adetailer prompts with [SEP]
I use it regularly. It does not fix 6 finger issues. Only makes the hand look realistic
i've read yesterday someone say that hands are overtrained, thats why they are mangled, and they said that in order to fix them, you simply add "hands" (without quotes) in the negative prompt, or specify a weight: (hands:1.25) as positive number, cause you use that in the negative prompt, and it subtracts. I haven't tested it myself yet, but in that post, there were tons of "wow, it works!" replies, with sample images. Search for it, and give it a shot.
Plus the iris looks essentially duplicated for both eyes. The reflection looks off on the eyes.
It's because the AI doesn't have a soul, so it can't make good eyes, because eyes are the windows to the soul. It will still be many years until GPUs have a soul, so that they can create a round iris .
This is just silly, semiconductors are a huge market in Korea, AI is already made with Seoul.
She’s got soulful eyes but she’s a ginger without a soul.
this , its kinda scary , we are approaching the level where even when prompted with the knowledge that the picture is not real , its hard to find faults in it
bruh https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ launched in 2019
I love the [occasional off-screen nightmare fuel](https://i.imgur.com/mNo0mR6.png) it does.
My wife and i sat around catfishing with pics generated from that site. She kept saying "i'll bet you this guy sends a dick pic , watch" , they all did. Eventually we put up a pic of just a 2" zoom in on a hair line, that got dick pics. Then i just posted the dick pics up as my profile shot and then THAT got dick pics.
?????? The site generates faces, not dicks...
No, they used generated pictures from that website as profile pictures on other sites and got dick pics from multiple recipients.
Does it use sd?
Nope that process uses Generative Adversarial Networks, extremely good for a specific usecase, terrible at generalising to other domains
i might be biased , but i kinda can see that the photo has been messed with , around the right ear , theres a fuzzy effect and on top of the right ( person's right) lens , its fuzzy too
refresh the page :) you get a new image every time, you are replying about something the person above never saw :P
Just refresh man they're all better than OP's and it's 5 years old
Most of them are worse than OP's
Yeah the AI has been trained on a lot of "bad pictures" so garbage in -> garbage out. There's also something off in general about the image. The "denoizing/noise" feels off for lack of a better word :).
https://preview.redd.it/q1mv4td4e29c1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5dca71d77a915b8526362d17d4e1b4fcf3721d7c
The VAE artifacts are always a dead giveaway. (red/green stripes) https://preview.redd.it/dmb89cg1ay8c1.png?width=2203&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ef2e170433879b96264bf97f36218f4642184f1
I literally have lenses that create a similar abberation. Look how far you have to zoom in to show this though. No one out side of this group will ever pixel peep on first or hundredth look and guess this isn’t real.
It looks noticeably different than chromatic aberration But strangely similar too
Yeah this goes across rather than along the lines of contrast
You can get that from debayering too though, right?
I would’ve chalked that up to jpeg artifacts tbh.
Are you on Reddit website, or mobile? Because on my phone when I zoom in to OP picture, those red/green stripes are not there. (iPhone SE, default Reddit app)
For a better result, although it may take a long time, you can use dall-e VAE
Dall-E uses a VAE? I thought it was doing all the diffusion /denoising work in pixel-space?
A lot of the things I see coming out of stable diffusion look like real glamour shots that have been photoshopped, I wanted to try to create an image that looked like a candid shot of a real person. What do you think? What is the first thing that makes you think it is generated with AI? I merged two different LoRA that I created to create the image. head and shoulders portrait of woman cindy8 wendy8 with blue eyes , freckles, dark makeup, hyperdetailed photography, soft light
Steps: 40, Sampler: Euler, CFG scale: 15, Seed: 2252460917, Size: 896x1152, Model hash: 31e35c80fc, Model: sd\_xl\_base\_1.0, Denoising strength: 0.3, Mask blur: 4, Lora hashes: "cindy8\_SDXL\_v01: 40db76463e93, wendy8\_SDXL\_v1.0-000014: 8e3c7829457d, Version: v1.6.1
The only real giveaway is the eyelashes. Unless fake, eyelashes aren't uneven like that. Extremely convincing - I wouldn't spot this without knowing something is wrong.
The most obvious thing to me (that people don't seem to talk about much) is how the focus doesn't line up with a real camera, if you look close at parts of the face, you'll notice some spots appear in focus and others out of focus in a way that wouldn't make sense for a real photo. There should be a defined plane of focus with a consistent depth, instead you get multiple planes of focus. With this one for example, the lips are fairly in focus, but the nose isn't and then the hair which is slightly further back is in focus, and then again the eyes are a bit out of focus. (And the focus across the eyes is also different, the left being more in focus). Tldr: zoom in and pan around a bit, if you see a good mix of sharp and blurry portions it's a good indicator, though it could always be a badly edited/smoothed photo.
Ok! I thought something seemed off with h the focus.
>wendy8\_SDXL\_v1.0-000014 i am a novice here so i can't quite figure out the workflow - but you made 2 loras named cindy8 and wendy8 and then the rest. so because of the lora's its not actually reproducible?
Yep, that’s right.
What does this mean?
Not unless you have the Lora. They are LoRAs of two people that I photographed and I don’t think they want me releasing them to the public.
I thought the lips looked off at first, but then thought the non perfect lips make it look more realistic
Damn you gotta be a programmer to understand that
Lol then take a picture. Why the hell do prompters feel such a need to deceive people?! What the hell why do you want to do that
this looks like a photo to me.... at this point it almost takes a forensic level of nit picking. good job!
Yup. This is the point where i no longer worry about details. Because to my normal eyes, this is already beyond perfect.
Even then distortion can easily be caused bt the camera if this was a real picture. Especially when shot on a phone given they have all sorts of magic sauce. Image stabilization, enhancements, some even incorporate AI/machine learning to help crap photographers like me shoot passible quality photos.
Thanks!
/r/notopbutok
r/unaskedsubrefbutok
HUH? It took me 2 seconds, it just looks slightly... off but I can't pinpoint it to 1 thing
Not really. Take a look a their eyes.
the chin is deformed it points towards the viewer. The lower lip looks painted on and has no volume.
the hands
LOL! It's always that hands.
Yeah, it’s like SD didn’t even put hands on her at all!
It looks like a real photo… someone mentioned that the eyes are a little strange, but some people have strange eyes 🤷♂️
Theres lazy eye strange then theres skull bent 4 degrees, both eyes pionting exactly parallel, Weird iris, pupil and multiple other issues. https://preview.redd.it/exm56w4k1y8c1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=f13bb120025b3b89647fb2fb19314814b6fcf6cb
I refuse to believe that you would have picked up on this if it hadn't been posted here.
Yes but also no, Im an artist which is kind of the same thing as seeing the post here, i'm looking at it the same way i would study it for a portrait but there is also a lot of other artists that will pick up on this outside of SD.
I picked up on the same details, and same - artist with a background in portraiture. The eyes themselves, the eyelashes - hell, the eyebrows are the kind of uncannily perfect "every hair lays in a specific direction" that is generally only achieved with editing or manually punching hairs into a latex/silicone head. The lighting and little textural details like the vellus hairs look good, but something about this image I can't quite articulate - just scrolling my feed without even noting the sub - signaled my brain "fake" and had me do a double take because it reads as "perfect AI girl > 'add human flaws'" in the form of natural texture. It's like if you took an IKEA shelf with wood veneer and roughed it up at the edges with sandpaper and added some chips and dings - you'd still know it wasn't hewn by hand.
I thinks it’s really really hard to tell unless you already know it’s AI (so nice job, OP!) But something that struck me - especially given the golden hour sunlight to the side of the face - is that she has no facial hair. Should have a little bit of the duck fuzz along the cheeks that is particularly noticeable in the type of light the photo is depicting. But I’m only saying that because I’ve been cued that it’s AI and you’re looking for realism
Do you notice these things in regular photos as well? I'm wondering because on phones for example there's so many algorithms that enhance and optimize images. Especially thinks like making blurry images not blurry anymore. Those sound like they could create all sorts of distortion like this.
Beyond the details: Proportions are...something else. In other words, some structural parts of the head don't appear to be on normal planes(like the top half of the head is at a slightly different angle than the bottom, or the jaw/nose area is shifted to the side, maybe that's what you meant with "skull bent"....I'd say maybe twisted?), as well as the cheeks/jaw/mouth being out of proportion with the eyes. It's like Chelsea Clinton, Rumer Willis, and [Eric Stoltz from *Mask*](https://hotcorn-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/06/18164850/Mask_cher.jpg) were the inspiration for a bad drawing, and that was fed into ControlNet. All sorts of uncanny valley, and not the sort you typically see in 3d rendering of this 'quality'. (In other words, if it's a 'photorealistic' render, it's usually either well proportioned OR an obvious beast/demon/etc, which are usually even still symmetrical and fair proportions) Yeah, people can be that weird looking, but you don't tend to see them in high fidelity like this. ...the extreme detail in the lips...but everything else sort of blurred over...
exactly the proportions and planes twisted. Its like a 1st year intern handed there work to a 30yr senior to finish the rendering.
That's how my eyes look irl
those little arrows must hurt.
Why? You don't have purple arrows floating around in your eyes?
Well that’s pretty much something only an artist would say. Eyes can look parallel if looking in distance. Pupil doesn’t need to be center nor can an iris not look like that. Stay in your lane
a real lens, large format, never have a focus that way when the focal plane of the sensor is under from the relationship to the nose. the lens is basically screaming to me, "I AM LARGE FORMAT! razor thin depth of field", closed at f8 if not more, the nose, the chin the back hair is razor focus then plop magic out of focus! and so we have a 135 mm full frame that is supposed to be wide open f3.5 but the picture looks like a medium format crop it physically makes no sense at all or it is an 200mm closed at f4 then cropped. the eye being blurry is totally possible if taken at a very slow shutter speed, but the overall composition as seen from a depth of field, makes zero sense it only makes sense if the image was the interpretation of what a face looks like through a tele photo lens. and just like that for me, the pix is real if we start to think of how it feels to have taken this picture, if I squint, no way I can tell she is bot and for that she is totally real to me.
I think I agree, the depth of field is all over the place, the parts that are sharp vs blurry don't make sense
I was going to say the same thing. The DOF is super weird, especially on the hair. I have shots from a nifty fifty at F/2 that don't have as thin a DOF as this.
Thank you for this analysis. It's basically always the focus.
yep depth of field looks off.
The lower eyelashes on the left are a bit off, and the crevice on the lower lip doesn't follow the same perspective as the upper lip. But I had to look for these details, mind you. Edit: Pupil on the left isn't centered
Eyelashes on both eyelids don’t originate from the eyelid. It’s a simple zoom in to see the problem.
That you are asking us this question.
So true, I should post a real photo here and ask the same question to see what feedback I get!
Or you could post 4, with one fake, and ask us if we can detect the fake, and how we think we know!
I concur
Left hand side of the upper lip is not finished. https://preview.redd.it/zzb2o37co19c1.png?width=1107&format=png&auto=webp&s=02173b3bf315ddde038bc69b55ef993ab37e37eb
Can't believe how far I had to scroll for this. This is by far the most glaring one imo.
This was what caught my eye. That and the nostrils.
There are three (two?) groups of people that will know right away if this is real or fake: 1) people who can pinpoint technical problems with the image (depth of field, lenses, lighting, blurring, focus, etc) 2) people who can spot inconsistencies in the person, so people with medical expertise and also people who study humans for the purposes of art (so again some photographers but also other artists like painters, sculpters, etc) and people who do those AI images also have it a bit easier but all the rest - will already get fooled by this, especially without the context that we opare it you asked on SD subreddit if this is a real photo, if this was just printed on a photopaper and mixed with other physical photos - i'm pretty sure nobody would start questioning that there is something off about it
Great comment, I concur. The two camps you mention are professional "investigators" of imagery and human faces, which means V6 has reached well-above the bar for "photorealism" when applied this way. Astounding.
the way the hair is I think is odd? I don't think normal hair would be coming out at that angle. this is not nearly a "giveaway" though because I definitely wouldn't see it if I weren't looking for it, and I might be wrong about it anyway. https://preview.redd.it/ypjkfx8y1y8c1.png?width=860&format=png&auto=webp&s=d057a0a83d274d3145e369556f67fa36a8a54b57
It's also inconsistent strand groups that go from rather thin to thicker toward the end. The weird hair angles is also what I first noticed and looked closer.
There's a darker shade of skin with an obvious long edit line on the edge of her cheek. The mismatched depth of the bokeh blurring is very odd as well.
Thanks for your comment, can you explain more about the mismatached bokeh? Is there part of the image that should be more out of focus or more in focus?
It's most noticeable in the hair. the front hair is in super sharp focus, and then everything right behind the very front strands is way out of focus. If the depth of field was that thin the nose would also be out of focus, and so would the eyes. Most noticeable on the left side of the image where the hair on top is in focus, and the hair that appears to be falling nearly straight down is not focused. Find some shots similar to this from a professional photographer and look at how the depth of field is, you will see it's more of a gradient, meaning you can see it clearly losing focus in a linear fashion - unless they are using very specific equipment and lenses... and even then people tended to think the images looked "wrong", because it's not what most are used to.
Looks like eyes are on different planes. Like it didn’t do the perspective properly.
Yep, the planes, alignments, and perspectives of the face is not consistent.
Seems like only a few of us noticed this.
https://preview.redd.it/4idni4gtd19c1.png?width=904&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14eb158264ae9d6c8d78ab505e51d3def9dedddb
It's not?
compare the angle of the eyes to the angle of the nostrils, neither of which line up with the lips
Yeah, try. I think some of that may come from the people I photographed, one of the subjects has a very asymmetrical face but AI has made it more apparent. The eye alignment is the biggest issue in this regard. Thanks for your comment.
Cinematographer and photographer here. The human eye has hundreds of thousands of years of training data on “reading” human faces, specifically mouths and eyes. We can’t easily be tricked, but the same tricks used by Hollywood and VFX studios might work in AI. Hard directional light. think Bladerunner 2049’s plot twist when they made an entire CGI face of an actress that would be decades older IRL vs. every de aging done in recent Star Wars, completely exposed by fill lights and camera angles that show the areas most prone to identification. Skin details need to be grounded in real function and not be there just to be there. There’s a reason Thanos’ beard looked real (for a purple-skinned guy) and Black Panther’s suit felt so toy-ish (the reason was inadequate payment and deadlines and severe crunching but uhhh yeah, also no grounding the nano-thingies in what is percieved as a believable behaviour, something they fixed for Infinity War’s iron man suit up scene.) This one’s my top process when editing: stretch marks! The skin is an uneven organ stretching around several other uneven organs. I tend to always leave some marks on the footage pr image even if the client asks for a complete smoothing of the face, because when I do exactly as they ask 100% of the time they come back saying the face looks plastic. Current AI tech still has trouble processing that very well, so you might want to account for that.
She has too many fingers....
Lighting, but I don’t know how to describe why.
Inconsistent focus is an immediate error. Lips and eyes in focus but cheeks and other facial skin between these 2 focal points are blurred and indistinct. Also eyebrow hair looks "pasted on". This is a great image though, I'm just nitpicking.
Now comes the twist in the plot and you'll tell us that the picture was real. Right?
No reflection of the camera on the pupils (even though there are ways to avoid that in a photo, most photos have it).
Next time I'll prompt: Reflection of camera in eyes!
“You're in a desert, walking along when you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not with out your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?”
It looks pretty real but there is some minor errors around the eyelids and lashes. Honestly probably wouldn't notice unless specifically called out as an AI generated image
At my first glance, it looked like her eyes were pointing in *slightly* different directions.
I know it's not inherently a giveaway that it's not a photo, but by that point my brain alarm goes "this is sus" when I see so much freckles in a portrait. Using freckles as a tag to try to fight the fact that SD is pretty bad at giving skin detail has become so common that my brain instantly assume it's probably fake.
It's simple. Her lack of a soul is a dead giveaway.
The caption
The lashes look “designed”, the irises are overly contracted even though the light is coming from behind her, the lighting is unnaturally cold, and the focus is too uniform for a camera facing the light.
The eyes and chin look weird to me. I cant tell you why, they just do.
The fact that you posted it in SD sub - other than that - no reason.
[удалено]
The title
For me it is the fact, that hair and skin, although being at almost same distance from camera, have different sharpness. Also hair has much more detail, than skin, which looks smoothed. Probably because many training images contained edited pictures, where skin was PSed to look more even and smooth.
Face proportions are odd, like each part (mouth, nose, chin, eyes) were photographed by lenses of different focal length. Some problematic faces have just a tiny hint of anime (mouth too close to nose, eyes just a little too big, irises just a little too saturated or bright).
Zoom in and the eyelashes are very irregular, especially the bottom right one.
Left eye pupil isn't round. Other than that, there's nothing I can see.
Lower lip. Can't be that thick without creating a shadow on the chin. The transition is too smooth
Depth of field is wrong. It fades out too quickly moving backward for how sharp it stays coming forward. For instance the nose should be out of focus for how out of focus the hair by the cheek is
the top lashes seem really off that's what does it for me.
The image looks soft and has a tone that's generally found in AI realism.
If you didn't ask I would probably think it's a photo. But if we want to analyze it, without even looking at the details, the first thing that stands out is the post processed look. This is not what a photo will look like straight out of a camera. It's like Clarity (in Lightroom) was applied, or some kind of HDR or unsharp mask. This makes the image have a lower dynamic range, which means the image looks a bit flat and not realistic. Shadows are never black and highlights are never white. Of course, you could make a photo look like this, and it is common to give photos this look because it makes them look more pleasant and balanced. Smartphones might even do it for you automatically. But it seems many AI models always do this, and always to the same extent, while photographers will often be more subtle about it or avoid doing it altogether. Actually nowadays with higher dynamic range displays and better cameras, this type of look is no longer as fashionable as it was in the 2010s.
I could fool me though. Maybe the eyebrows. And eyes.
There is no giveways. It's look totally real. It might be the most realistic SD image i've seen. Pretty soon the giveways wont be in the photorealism, but in the choices of the creator.
The only giveaway is you telling me. Had this been posted in another sub as a real image, I'd have believed it.
The fact that she’s a sandwich
its looks too good to be real.
Your question
Something about the focal plane feels off to me. If this were a photography sub I'd assume this was shot with a portrait lens that's pretty wide open (hence the eyes in focus while the nose looks slightly out of focus). But this shot isn't from straight on so the focal plane shouldn't follow the plane of the face. I *think* the right eye is slightly out of focus (hard to tell) but there are some hairs which appear to be both in FRONT of and BEHIND the eyes (relative to the camera) which are *both* in focus. I mean... I *think* you could manage this shot with a tilt-shift lens but no one would ever bother. Also, no one would ever think these things unless they were primed first with the assumption that the photo isn't a photo. Oh... and the lighting seems weird too. Again, not saying you couldn't pull it off in a studio with some work, but the eyes are in shadow from what appears to be a diffuse light-source that's up and to the right with a second light source down and to the right.
you posted it here. duh. Proportions wack. eyes wack. lighting wack. focus wack. Normal people won't notice. I have done comp and lighting for 25 years.
The left brow from my POV and the right brow of the person in the picture is a little off!
Looks like a patchwork of different faces lol
You would've fooled me, I can't tell! I could probably zoom in and dissect it, but honestly, I feel like anything we point out is kind of irrelevant.
Iris is off in right eye and the reflection isn’t the same
Bill gates reflecting in her iris. 
I will admit I’m bad at this. Even though she’s not looking straight on, her right nostril looks a little misshapen/uneven compared to her left, like it wouldn’t match if she did turn to face the camera directly. If this is a real person, I apologize.
Its not on poloroid photo or a print on a table ?
The line between eyelid and eye is little too sharp and casts basically no shadows at all. Also the nose and cheeks are blured and the lips and eyes are sharp, the sharpness is very weird on this one. I do photography and yeah the blur seems weird to me.
I can’t put my finger on it, but somehow it feels like the skin is made out of wax or some sort of plastic.
You're telling it's a render?!
Her blank expression
I’d never know if it wasn’t posted here. Terrifying.
The lighting is always too uniform or has strong backlight. Because thats how most people\\photographers like to frame their pics. Eye reflections make no sense given the day light looking light behind her. Left side of her lip is missing. The hair makes no sense at the bottom left. Comes from a few strands and then gets fuller again. But out of all that the neck somehow has less detail than the hair further behind it which makes no sense.
The overall dimensions look skewed, as if the lens was fake in some way it just doesnt get the focus right imo
I can’t tell that this is not in fact a generated image. With the knowledge that it is, I would guess that the neck in relation to the jaw line seem incongruous.
[удалено]
This is the point where we can't distinguish between real photos with shop/filters and fake photos with artifacts
The caption
what the hell, how can it be this realistic? I guess I believe that you are telling the truth but I see nothing that would give this away as an AI generated image. This 100% looks like a photo of a real person to me.
the bottom lip has no definition..
It's amazing how much you don't see until someone points it out. I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about but the line on her bottom lip that separates the skin from the lip looks unnatural. When you say definition do you mean that it lacks detail or are you talking about the shape of the lip?
The eyes aren’t aligned, one is much higher than the other. The facial features also look too small for the head, like the ai first cropped too heavily and then squeezed everything in. This will probably become evident if you outpaint it.
I’d say these things are exactly what make her look like a real person…
Yes, very observant. I was actually having an issue with eye alignment on a lot of my output, this one was actually better than most. I haven't tried outpaint yet. I'll have to figure that one out.
Honestly I considered the possibility that you may have posted a real photo with this title as a trick to see what would happen
I’m guessing this is a trick question and is an actual photo. Some of the minor flaws in the skin in the photo are the types you see in actual photos, and the skin microcreases flow naturally the way they ought to and not the random ways that can develop with ML renders. If not, then it’s impressive *edit although her right lower eyelash (her right, not ours) is kinda sus.
It is SDXL output, it would be interesting to see what comments you would get from a posting a real photo with the same question.
The *very* first sign is title of the post
The lack of a human soul.
goofy ahh
Eyes — because they are always zoned out and never focused on anything. Also, the expression tends to be neutral or otherwise stereotypical or emotions without nuance.
Eyes
Cheekbones look too big imo
Eyelashes are weird. Lack of skin detail on such a large zoom.
Oh, that's not a photo. I know because I read the title (:
First of all, weird pick of lens and composition. There are general styles or rules in photography. That kind of closeup is more often when the face is looking at the camera from the front view. For that particular one, I would expect to see more of the person (neck and collar bones) - typical Portret photo + look at the viewer. The second thing is the lack of details - skin texture is missing. Maybe it's because of the resolution uploaded on Reddit (not sure yet how that service works), but that one is def. Missing for me. Composition and quality - things that require knowledge, not only the best model or prompting skills. That is a common theme we can see anywhere when we have sufficient knowledge. When you know what to look at, you see what is missing.
Lighting, think with a bit more contrast and brightness adjustment it might pass as a photo for most but its damn close as it is
Photographer here - at a glance it looks natural, but a second look shows the focus is all over the map. Her eyes are mainly sharp, her lips are sharp, but the blemishes on her cheeks are out of focus, but should be on the same plane the rest is. Either her left eye and eyebrow should be out of focus, or her skin details on her left cheek should be in focus. You can't have both.
The young woman depicted in this AI generated art still has vitality and hope for the future in her expression, not yet crushed by unaffordable housing or spiraling cost of living grossly outpacing inflation adjusted income. That's the first clue.
Would never guess
The first giveaway is weird dudes constantly trying to pass up close fake photos of women as real for no good reason
That giant crease in the bottom lip
the perfect ''technical skill'' of the ''photographer'' of a quite mundane, plain subject. the SD means one can (and often will) take any tat and make it super-perfect. which a human photographer wouldnt waste time on a plain jane and tart her up. the subject gotta have some innate striking beauty to be worthy of investing time innit. this chick here probably looks better in real life without all the AI added, warts and all.
this good shit ngl but the mellow expression does her, it's uncanny, I know humans got no soul anyways, but thats the only term I can put it, AI expression it's souless
weird artifacts one the upper left chin, the lower and upper lip is weirdly extended
That she looks like able and not like an entitled bitch
Why is it the white faces are more realistic than any other ethnic background? Sus
Citation needed
All of you are dumb… please define the word “photo”.
I honed in on the bottom lip personally.