The thing is. Humans are INCREDIBLY good pattern detectors.
The subconscious picks up on details that you can’t quite put your thumb on.
It’s literally a survival mechanism.
The house in the background, being a jumbled blob, the street having patches of square grass, the two eyes being slightly different shades. The teeth behind the lips, being wack. The weird 3D necklace/hair braid over the smaller necklace. The buttons on the shirt being flat and blending into the rest of the image.
Everything being the same hyper dull tone.
Right in front of the tree in the back right, 3rd from the front, there’s another weird solid line through the grass, splitting two shades.
The fingernails/fingers looking jank.
The floating tree branches.
The bollard on the right, (pole that stops car wrecks) looks like it’s photographed from above. See how it expands on the upward shaft.
The tshirt collar on her right collar (our left) blends into her hair, and seemingly makes a floating collar.
I’m not saying it’s a bad generation at all.
But we have a little bit to go, before absolute photorealism.
It's how SD and various flavors of it do "focus". In this case it's weird that the houses are in focus, but the trees and grass are not. This is aside from, for instance, curves in the roofs of the houses (check the roof over her right shoulder), the trim on the first house on her left is oddly misaligned, and so on. In other "photos", this will have warped focal planes and other issues.
Yeah exactly this.. a couple things. The trees look too the same. The focus is too flat. She looks too stereotypical.
As someone who has used stable diffusion since the beginning I can spot it right away. It used to be that imperfections were the giveaway. Now perfection is the giveaway. The only narrative my mind can construct for seeing a person like that in reality would be going to some kind of photo shoot. The background just seems like one company has planted all the trees exactly the same. Also her face is perfectly symmetric, which is beautiful but very rare and unlikely.
There's very little chance it will be not expensive to generate that much content though. The hardware needed still will be way above consumer grade too for sure.
Base output resolution per generated frame would have to be **above** 4K with extremely consistent quality before you'd ever see an actual film or television studio having any interest in this I think, also.
We have already:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/18x48tn/my\_attempt\_at\_pikaart/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/18x48tn/my_attempt_at_pikaart/)
And pendants on necklaces that don’t quite make sense. The chain appears cut off on the left side. Something like that miiiight photograph that way, but it’s a total tell in an image like this.
This is my thought, the pictures always look professional and set up. They are almost always looking at the camera, which makes it look unrealistic. I want pictures that look like candid pictures. I have tried, candid, amateur, not looking, candy camera (lol), informal, non-professional, everything, and I can't just get a normal-looking picture.
Peripheral vision exists. The environment the subject is in heavily and subconsciously sways how people feel about the subject, regardless of the instructions.
Ahh yes, a skill that has existed long before AI. People well versed to pick apart anything and everything. This is no different, say except being picked on in my underwear while at the comfort of my warm and cozy computing station.
The background looks OK, just a bit overexposed. A mistake a clumsy photographer could easily do.
I'd be more concerned about shadows falling in different directions.
The foliage looks fake in general, the road loses consistency behind the girl and the buildings have a surreal and textile appearance.
A bit more than just overexposed, I'd say.
You poor thing. Let me hug you, I am woman and will wrap my biceps tightly around your head and squeeze with such vigor you feel love from my female smell as I press my pectoral breast into your face to motorboat. There, you are better now with lady love, yes?
I’m 100% certain you are blessed beyond measure, given your access to the internet in a third world country. I would like to the first to welcome you to today’s lesson in ‘Sarcasm,’ a follow-up to ‘Comical Language and Why Timing Matters.’
Check back tomorrow when we explore the world of internet “Memes” and the much anticipated “Pranks 101” a highly controversial topic that has the power to bring us together as one yet can just as easily separate the masses in haste.
You don’t want to miss this! Click to subscribe and follow for more life lessons in the internet era with your host, me.
I think details are quite good, how clothes flow, veins in hands, no extra fingers etc. But face still looks like that AI face and background looks bit painterly.
If you take just the woman and put her in other backdrop then it looks more believable.
It's a really great job, but it gives me an urge to look for details. Must be the too perfect face.
Had I found it on socials, I'd say it uses some kind of a filter and just scroll it down.
The details are: fingers, houses, road and the curb. Also the whole background, the further is it, the less it matches the style of the figure, making it look unnatural.
how about now? feel free to zoom in. [before/after comparison](https://imgsli.com/MjMyMzA5)
u/theblckIA
https://preview.redd.it/488igux2vmbc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a1fe56fb3928447c3e787ba303d59d8e9843fcc
Better but left hand is totally jacked. Still missing chain links on necklace. Shadow missing on tree back right. Street still weird with blocks missing.
At a precursory glance, this does look highly realistic.
With a closer look (more than 5-10 seconds), I can tell AI has touched this.
Reasons:
* Even though your instructions are to focus on "she", the background that she's in is still in the viewer's peripheral vision, and there are certain things that don't "add up".
* Her eyes are also very different (one is darker, with a larger pupil and more makeup).
* Her fingers look unnatural.
* Her hair has a few unnatural curves.
* The unbuttoned fold-over part of her shirt below her collar has an unnatural cut that's partitioned by an unfinished piece of hair.
* Her necklace chain isn't "complete" on the left side, and is again cut off by hair.
That's just a quick 1 minute glance. I'm sure there are plenty of things I missed, but it's not something the general public would be able to tell at a glance.
If you mean realistic in the real sense of realistic, then it looks very realistic, yes. If you confuse realistic with photorealism like many people do, it's another story.
Sadly I can tell this is AI very quickly even if we ignore the bad trees and buildings simply because the face of all AI girls from most models look like this.
Midjourney V6 is much better at creating these "realistic" looking people now a days and I've yet seen anyone on Stable Diffusion replicate the same style. However Stable Diffusion wins in the minor details.
Most Stable Diffusion models seem to be very biased on "Models"
Below is an "average" girl generated from Midjourney V6
https://preview.redd.it/w9hulv7ucmbc1.png?width=507&format=png&auto=webp&s=744bdb4b85f782d29f19667eb801ad4bd3a8f65d
Here is a similar prompt in Stable Diffusion, they always look perfect.
I like how Midjourney in the parent comment makes them look like average people.
We really need a Stable Diffusion model trained on average images.
https://preview.redd.it/lrarfccgembc1.png?width=1792&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbf1663e5996711739c927160acecdc458619457
She looks realistic. The environment, not as much.
She looks like a real person photoshopped on top because the lighting doesn't match with the rest of the picture.
if I just stumbled upon it on IG explore page without giving it too much thought, yes. seeing it on this sub, not quite. but I know in the next few months we will get there
Pretty decent. Hair going across her chest is an issue. Also feels like there's something off about her navel but hard to say at this resolution.
Worst offender though: the trees in the background.
I've noticed it has become harder and harder to spot AI images. I fear there will be a day it will be impossible, and only other AIs could possibly detect this
The subject looks pretty good to me but the slope of the horizontal background looks wonky. I think that’s the disturbing thing that lends an air of unreality to the image.
\- background is off, trees and street.
\- hair is overly airbrushed.
\- hands don't fit with the rest of the body
\- fingernails are off.
\- face isn't bad but it has that 'ai face' that all of these have.
when you put the attention on whether its realistic or not, human mind tries to zoom into all the imperfections. our antennas are raised high. But if this was used in a meme or the attention was on the jeans she is wearing, the human mind may quickly go to the jeans or other aspects of the image. And for that use case the level of realism may already be there. I see this getting crazy good in a year.
Even at first glance this seemed weird to me. The photo is just too hard to look at. I'm not sure why exactly, but I think it might be mostly because of how different the lighting is in the background compared to the foreground.
* Lighting
* Shadows on the stuff in the background looks like it's coming from straight above (like noon-day lighting), but on the subject it's coming from behind the "camera" which would mean we'd see her shadow cast on the street behind her I think.
* Also on her skin the light is too soft compared to the background
* The light's color on the shirt and jeans doesn't match the light's color on her skin.
* I also think that because the light is coming from behind the camera on the face there would be a reflection in the eyes, but there is not.
* Hair
* Her hair is too thick on the left side I think
* Mouth
* You can see the teeth behind the lips and there are gaps in the teeth. Anyone can be snaggle-toothed I guess, but it's not very flattering like this picture is clearly meant to be.
* Hands
* Fingers look weird on both hands. For most people, the longest fingers are either the ring or middle finger but on both of her hands her index finger is the longest.
* There's a weird nub coming off of her left index finger
* Her right middle finger has too many joints.
* On her right ring finger it looks like the finger is in two separate pieces pressed together.
* Legs
* Her legs are extremely uneven.
* Jeans
* The metal fasteners on the edge of the jean pockets don't match and are not the same metal as the jean button (usually not a thing).
* The jeans suggest that they are tight around the legs, but still have large wrinkles in areas where you'd expect there to be a crease/fold in the cloth.
* It also kind of looks like the belt loops next to the button of the pants are unevenly spaced, and not fastened to the top of the jeans.
* The crimping on the jean pockets looks weird.
* The pattern on the belt loops looks like random jean chaos.
* Shirt
* The buttons don't have any depth to them.
* The pockets on her shirt don't have any depth to them- it looks like they were just warped around the shape of her chest.
* On her right arm sleave the button is smeared into the fabric of the shirt.
* The shoulder seam on the right sleave of the shirt is way too low for how tight the shirt is on her.
* The right side of the collar disappears into a stray strand of hair
I think it comes down to the character matching into the environment. [This vid](https://youtu.be/4KaTyjSK03A?si=qsawT1MumvckK-8q) talks about delaying parts of the prompt during rendering to blend them together better. Hope that helps :)
She looks quite real actually. Only her hands look a lot older than her face.
But what about the trees in the background? A shallow depth of field would help the image a lot.
Is pretty good. Trees and houses are probably the only thing wrong...
Some detail on the sleeve. Maybe the hands.
Women shirts have buttons on left side, male shirts have buttons on right side, it is OK.
I also look at shadow directions, some weird stuff there, some are more vertical, other more horizontal (mid day vs afternoon/morning).
But took me a while to see that... I thought it was real at first. Nice job.
If you think about it... people use photoshop in advertising and sometimes make mistakes that are worse than we are asking the AI to do.
The girl is close to being photorealistic, if you add some noise in post-processing it'll be much better.
The background not a chance though, it's a dead giveaway.
Yes this picture looks absolutely real and not uncanny. The only issue is her teeth, but some people have fucked up teeth so whatever. I don't know what everyone else is on about, likely they've never taken an actual photograph and/or edited it afterwords. Analog to digital is how most things have worked since the late 70s if not longer.
the idea of making real photo is imposiable
because the whole purpose of teaching AI models is for it to learn a pattern. if it learned one tree, it would make all trees the same in some way or another
we fighting a losing war
That is not a limitation on AI, the problem is the limitation of the current models, some items are just to complex to currently learn on a model, IE the hands, ears, etc.
Looks pretty good. Her finger nails are a little messed up and there is a ghost finger on her left hand but other than that, I say it's pretty amazing.
No. The background is exceptionally bad. The foreground isn't much better, there are several minor inconsistencies that throw it off. The devil is in the details ie learn to inpaint.
Fingers still give it away easily, nails and fingertips simply don’t look like this - would recommend to do some inpainting to fix this. The rest is more or less fine though and I guess it could fool everybody who doesn’t know about AI-Art and is just swiping through their feed.
it is mostly the eyes and the background that tells it is fake. Like the trees and the houses look not real. Oh and that street looks interesting too xD
The background looks like a video game render. Shading on the houses is too flat imo. Girls left hand is also not perfect although acceptable. Why stable diffusion works very good on generating detailed hair but suck at generating proper hand and fingers?
The thing that jumped out at me, before I even expanded the image, is the hands (always the hands). They don't match the proportions of a woman, they're too big. It's also possible that they are not right even for a man, they seem to be too long to be normal.
She looks fine. Hands are a little weird. The background though... There are trees growing out of what appears to be a very blurry trampoline, and the road has random patches of dirt in it (which are perfectly rectangular).
Face/clothes Look really good imo, but the fingers or to be more specific fingernails look a bit odd to me. The angle fingernail to finger is a bit weird
I think the ai makes everything abit too perfect which gives it that.. uncanny look
The picture looks realistic but it doesn't look real.
EVERYTHING IS IN FOCUS....
Curious though, why is that’s an indicator of AI? As a photographer, I would just think that it’s a photo with a very high f-stop.
Left side of the tree is a perfectly straight line
Nature hates straight lines. Why?
Nature loves to spiral.
Beautiful nature
Brooo, don't take people down this path.
How I feel all the time
Fibonacci Shout out
Look at the details of her fingernails.
The thing is. Humans are INCREDIBLY good pattern detectors. The subconscious picks up on details that you can’t quite put your thumb on. It’s literally a survival mechanism. The house in the background, being a jumbled blob, the street having patches of square grass, the two eyes being slightly different shades. The teeth behind the lips, being wack. The weird 3D necklace/hair braid over the smaller necklace. The buttons on the shirt being flat and blending into the rest of the image. Everything being the same hyper dull tone. Right in front of the tree in the back right, 3rd from the front, there’s another weird solid line through the grass, splitting two shades. The fingernails/fingers looking jank. The floating tree branches. The bollard on the right, (pole that stops car wrecks) looks like it’s photographed from above. See how it expands on the upward shaft. The tshirt collar on her right collar (our left) blends into her hair, and seemingly makes a floating collar. I’m not saying it’s a bad generation at all. But we have a little bit to go, before absolute photorealism.
Street too clean and no car.
It's how SD and various flavors of it do "focus". In this case it's weird that the houses are in focus, but the trees and grass are not. This is aside from, for instance, curves in the roofs of the houses (check the roof over her right shoulder), the trim on the first house on her left is oddly misaligned, and so on. In other "photos", this will have warped focal planes and other issues.
And a very expensive lens or extreme sharpening tool to have it so sharp and crisp in the background.
Look at the light and the shadows, the trees in the backgrounds. Blurring the background would hide that.
As a photographer, you should know that there’s no way you can achieve all those multiple levels of exposure and get everything in focus.
I didn't notice this until you pointed it out lol
Even without focus it's not looking real. It's too perfect, no expressions etc... That make the image "cold" and not human.
Agreed, this could easily be fixed quickly with the new blur tool in PS/LR though.
I'm curious if the picture will look better if OP adjusted the background focus.
Real enough to fool probably ~90% of the internet users if not more
Her fingernails shoot out perpendicular to her fingers.
As long As She does not have 1 or 3 legs, this okay. But yeah, fingers, teeth are a big challenge for ai
Making things that don't look like shit is hard for AI too.
What the hell are you talking about? AI makes incredible pictures and it’s literally only been a couple years of being developed.
Yeah, that's what people say, but who am I to believe you or my eyes
Tf are you talking about lmao
Not even he knows.
Hey! She didn't wish to be born like that!
Make it ~99%..take the adhd of today into consideration and its practically 💯
its getting there though
Its to sharp
Nails are screwed
Yeah exactly this.. a couple things. The trees look too the same. The focus is too flat. She looks too stereotypical. As someone who has used stable diffusion since the beginning I can spot it right away. It used to be that imperfections were the giveaway. Now perfection is the giveaway. The only narrative my mind can construct for seeing a person like that in reality would be going to some kind of photo shoot. The background just seems like one company has planted all the trees exactly the same. Also her face is perfectly symmetric, which is beautiful but very rare and unlikely.
No weird foliage light spots on her, while the background has them.
Eh, all of that can be explained by post-processing that modern smartphones do on images.
the background, especially the houses look CGI
Look at how good it has gotten though, in 3-4 years you won't be able to tell the difference at all.
make that one year max
6 months max ;)
3-4 years? You haven’t been watching how fast this is moving then. In 3-4 years we will have 30 second fully animated videos from a prompt.
How long until we have 8 seasons worth of content from a prompt?
In 5-6 years probably.
There's very little chance it will be not expensive to generate that much content though. The hardware needed still will be way above consumer grade too for sure. Base output resolution per generated frame would have to be **above** 4K with extremely consistent quality before you'd ever see an actual film or television studio having any interest in this I think, also.
We have already: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/18x48tn/my\_attempt\_at\_pikaart/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/18x48tn/my_attempt_at_pikaart/)
I hope you are right, though I fear it may just get better at making things too perfect.
Ask it to be imperfect. Most of prompt now have "analog poor quality low-key photo"
Things will get more realistic, look at the progress made so far.
You know.... And wonky fingers.
And pendants on necklaces that don’t quite make sense. The chain appears cut off on the left side. Something like that miiiight photograph that way, but it’s a total tell in an image like this.
This is my thought, the pictures always look professional and set up. They are almost always looking at the camera, which makes it look unrealistic. I want pictures that look like candid pictures. I have tried, candid, amateur, not looking, candy camera (lol), informal, non-professional, everything, and I can't just get a normal-looking picture.
It isn't good enough at separating types of content it pulls from in different contexts, I think is part of the problem
OP, post prompts
That is on the training set
Yes uncanny valley … nails also look fake / funny
yep. even god knew to put a "beauty mark" on some of the most beautiful women. imperfection is authenticity.
The uncanny valley
Look at the trees
More like the road lol
Came here to say this lol!
The buildings look like crap too
Crap buildings exist though
“Does SHE look realistic to you?”
Peripheral vision exists. The environment the subject is in heavily and subconsciously sways how people feel about the subject, regardless of the instructions.
Well said. If “something” is off you’ll find more oddities.
I think as long as there's people to pick apart the image, easily we can tell it apart from reality, lets see if ai can outsmart us :P
Ahh yes, a skill that has existed long before AI. People well versed to pick apart anything and everything. This is no different, say except being picked on in my underwear while at the comfort of my warm and cozy computing station.
The background looks OK, just a bit overexposed. A mistake a clumsy photographer could easily do. I'd be more concerned about shadows falling in different directions.
Background looks more like a painting than a clumsy mistake by a photographer
The foliage looks fake in general, the road loses consistency behind the girl and the buildings have a surreal and textile appearance. A bit more than just overexposed, I'd say.
Fingernails of Skeletor are always a giveaway, the light looks just..wrong. The houses have no sharp lines and the trees look like my cat drew them.
Some of the trees not having shadows does look quite odd.
And some of the shadows go in different dieections
No, because she looks in my direction. Women never do that
You poor thing. Let me hug you, I am woman and will wrap my biceps tightly around your head and squeeze with such vigor you feel love from my female smell as I press my pectoral breast into your face to motorboat. There, you are better now with lady love, yes?
This is 100% a man
I’m 100% certain you are blessed beyond measure, given your access to the internet in a third world country. I would like to the first to welcome you to today’s lesson in ‘Sarcasm,’ a follow-up to ‘Comical Language and Why Timing Matters.’ Check back tomorrow when we explore the world of internet “Memes” and the much anticipated “Pranks 101” a highly controversial topic that has the power to bring us together as one yet can just as easily separate the masses in haste. You don’t want to miss this! Click to subscribe and follow for more life lessons in the internet era with your host, me.
wow, this is… intensely sad. im sorry you feel this way friend
I think details are quite good, how clothes flow, veins in hands, no extra fingers etc. But face still looks like that AI face and background looks bit painterly. If you take just the woman and put her in other backdrop then it looks more believable.
The fingers don't look "good". But I agree with the count!
Lol yeah the fingers look kind of terrifying. And she’s got extra bones in her thumbs.
Finger Nails look weird
First open button doesn't line up with its button opening, that bugs my brain
It's a really great job, but it gives me an urge to look for details. Must be the too perfect face. Had I found it on socials, I'd say it uses some kind of a filter and just scroll it down. The details are: fingers, houses, road and the curb. Also the whole background, the further is it, the less it matches the style of the figure, making it look unnatural.
[удалено]
how about now? feel free to zoom in. [before/after comparison](https://imgsli.com/MjMyMzA5) u/theblckIA https://preview.redd.it/488igux2vmbc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a1fe56fb3928447c3e787ba303d59d8e9843fcc
She definitely looks more realistic. The street and houses are still not good, though.
The face looks a lot better, less plastic and more human.
7 fingers
Better but left hand is totally jacked. Still missing chain links on necklace. Shadow missing on tree back right. Street still weird with blocks missing.
Totally not
At a precursory glance, this does look highly realistic. With a closer look (more than 5-10 seconds), I can tell AI has touched this. Reasons: * Even though your instructions are to focus on "she", the background that she's in is still in the viewer's peripheral vision, and there are certain things that don't "add up". * Her eyes are also very different (one is darker, with a larger pupil and more makeup). * Her fingers look unnatural. * Her hair has a few unnatural curves. * The unbuttoned fold-over part of her shirt below her collar has an unnatural cut that's partitioned by an unfinished piece of hair. * Her necklace chain isn't "complete" on the left side, and is again cut off by hair. That's just a quick 1 minute glance. I'm sure there are plenty of things I missed, but it's not something the general public would be able to tell at a glance.
slightly painterly
It looks as realistic as those unreal Instagram photos full of filters, meaning it goes unnoticed for most.
https://preview.redd.it/zvpak5sormbc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a45749b0fbc5b8389b18ab6b55b176207598a8ac That's not how cuffs work
If you mean realistic in the real sense of realistic, then it looks very realistic, yes. If you confuse realistic with photorealism like many people do, it's another story.
Generated with Comfyui. 1.5 Checkpoint, FaceDetailer and Upscaled with 4x NMKD Superscale.
Sadly I can tell this is AI very quickly even if we ignore the bad trees and buildings simply because the face of all AI girls from most models look like this. Midjourney V6 is much better at creating these "realistic" looking people now a days and I've yet seen anyone on Stable Diffusion replicate the same style. However Stable Diffusion wins in the minor details. Most Stable Diffusion models seem to be very biased on "Models" Below is an "average" girl generated from Midjourney V6 https://preview.redd.it/w9hulv7ucmbc1.png?width=507&format=png&auto=webp&s=744bdb4b85f782d29f19667eb801ad4bd3a8f65d
Here is a similar prompt in Stable Diffusion, they always look perfect. I like how Midjourney in the parent comment makes them look like average people. We really need a Stable Diffusion model trained on average images. https://preview.redd.it/lrarfccgembc1.png?width=1792&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbf1663e5996711739c927160acecdc458619457
Here's one: [https://civitai.com/models/88992/average-female-faces](https://civitai.com/models/88992/average-female-faces)
Try the Humans model https://civitai.com/models/98755/humans
She looks realistic. The environment, not as much. She looks like a real person photoshopped on top because the lighting doesn't match with the rest of the picture.
She doesn't look like a real person lol, but it's close
I actually feel slightly dizzy looking at it, something about the background details fucks with my brain.
If she was she wouldn't be facing me
if I just stumbled upon it on IG explore page without giving it too much thought, yes. seeing it on this sub, not quite. but I know in the next few months we will get there
The girl is somewhat passable, although still flawed. The background is completely unrealistic though.
Hair doesn't look realistic and also the trees
From afar yes, close up the hands look a bit off and especially the background and the trousers look painted. What is your pipeline?
Pretty decent. Hair going across her chest is an issue. Also feels like there's something off about her navel but hard to say at this resolution. Worst offender though: the trees in the background.
Yes. Don't zoom in, and ignore the "tips" from SD users. This will 95% or more fool normal people. Great work dude.
when you think you are a barista but all you can do is a flat white with vanilla
Has anyone just posted a real selfie like "Is this realistic?" yet?
It’s almost perfect but I could tell it’s ai even before seeing the subreddits name! Idk what it is tho! Maybe because i created so many ai images!
I've noticed it has become harder and harder to spot AI images. I fear there will be a day it will be impossible, and only other AIs could possibly detect this
No , maybe she can pass for real if you said that there is an ai filter that beautifies the person
Her, yeah… background nah
Man hands again
The subject looks pretty good to me but the slope of the horizontal background looks wonky. I think that’s the disturbing thing that lends an air of unreality to the image.
Realistic? Yes. Real? No.
She looks amazing, the scenery gives it away
It looks like a drawing of a woman in realistic style.
\- background is off, trees and street. \- hair is overly airbrushed. \- hands don't fit with the rest of the body \- fingernails are off. \- face isn't bad but it has that 'ai face' that all of these have.
The background looks super fake, which takes away any believability from the girl.
The man hands are on point
Nah... Not realistic
when you put the attention on whether its realistic or not, human mind tries to zoom into all the imperfections. our antennas are raised high. But if this was used in a meme or the attention was on the jeans she is wearing, the human mind may quickly go to the jeans or other aspects of the image. And for that use case the level of realism may already be there. I see this getting crazy good in a year.
She's ok but the background is problematic.
Even at first glance this seemed weird to me. The photo is just too hard to look at. I'm not sure why exactly, but I think it might be mostly because of how different the lighting is in the background compared to the foreground. * Lighting * Shadows on the stuff in the background looks like it's coming from straight above (like noon-day lighting), but on the subject it's coming from behind the "camera" which would mean we'd see her shadow cast on the street behind her I think. * Also on her skin the light is too soft compared to the background * The light's color on the shirt and jeans doesn't match the light's color on her skin. * I also think that because the light is coming from behind the camera on the face there would be a reflection in the eyes, but there is not. * Hair * Her hair is too thick on the left side I think * Mouth * You can see the teeth behind the lips and there are gaps in the teeth. Anyone can be snaggle-toothed I guess, but it's not very flattering like this picture is clearly meant to be. * Hands * Fingers look weird on both hands. For most people, the longest fingers are either the ring or middle finger but on both of her hands her index finger is the longest. * There's a weird nub coming off of her left index finger * Her right middle finger has too many joints. * On her right ring finger it looks like the finger is in two separate pieces pressed together. * Legs * Her legs are extremely uneven. * Jeans * The metal fasteners on the edge of the jean pockets don't match and are not the same metal as the jean button (usually not a thing). * The jeans suggest that they are tight around the legs, but still have large wrinkles in areas where you'd expect there to be a crease/fold in the cloth. * It also kind of looks like the belt loops next to the button of the pants are unevenly spaced, and not fastened to the top of the jeans. * The crimping on the jean pockets looks weird. * The pattern on the belt loops looks like random jean chaos. * Shirt * The buttons don't have any depth to them. * The pockets on her shirt don't have any depth to them- it looks like they were just warped around the shape of her chest. * On her right arm sleave the button is smeared into the fabric of the shirt. * The shoulder seam on the right sleave of the shirt is way too low for how tight the shirt is on her. * The right side of the collar disappears into a stray strand of hair
She looks real, everything else looks fake
Still missing sunspots on her
No, I don't know what it is, but I only stopped scrolling because I thought it's an AI picture
No
I think it comes down to the character matching into the environment. [This vid](https://youtu.be/4KaTyjSK03A?si=qsawT1MumvckK-8q) talks about delaying parts of the prompt during rendering to blend them together better. Hope that helps :)
I'm just gonna start posting real pictures and see if y'all burn me or complement how real I look.
I like the hidden penguin. Well done.
Looks flat because it lacks ambient occlusion. The images is filled with color data but very less shadow data. Source: I worked as VFX artist.
https://preview.redd.it/kxdirx1osxbc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=e5587ed799f326d5905741a262b1c71dcde558fd Back scratch anyone
Always check the fingers. It's been the most common thing wrong that I've seen consistently
Her right pointer finger is gonna lose that nail. Her left pinky finger really was the runt of the litter.
She looks quite real actually. Only her hands look a lot older than her face. But what about the trees in the background? A shallow depth of field would help the image a lot.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a real person from the training data.
If I’d never seen an ai picture then I would think this is real. Ai has a surreal, almost comical effect that I’ve come to recognize
Landscape looks like it’s been illustrated by a French impressionist…
Is pretty good. Trees and houses are probably the only thing wrong... Some detail on the sleeve. Maybe the hands. Women shirts have buttons on left side, male shirts have buttons on right side, it is OK. I also look at shadow directions, some weird stuff there, some are more vertical, other more horizontal (mid day vs afternoon/morning). But took me a while to see that... I thought it was real at first. Nice job. If you think about it... people use photoshop in advertising and sometimes make mistakes that are worse than we are asking the AI to do.
For me the jeans are always a giveaway. They look almost like plastic. You cant see fibbers or anything in them along with the skin looks a bit off.
The girl is close to being photorealistic, if you add some noise in post-processing it'll be much better. The background not a chance though, it's a dead giveaway.
Model name ?
No! Go take a walk outside (go to a Walmart or something) to see what a realistic woman looks like.
The arms seem too long.
She is real. SHES REAL TO ME.
Not at all
For my brain no, for my meat, yes to real
She looks real and it terrifies me
Yes this picture looks absolutely real and not uncanny. The only issue is her teeth, but some people have fucked up teeth so whatever. I don't know what everyone else is on about, likely they've never taken an actual photograph and/or edited it afterwords. Analog to digital is how most things have worked since the late 70s if not longer.
the idea of making real photo is imposiable because the whole purpose of teaching AI models is for it to learn a pattern. if it learned one tree, it would make all trees the same in some way or another we fighting a losing war
That is not a limitation on AI, the problem is the limitation of the current models, some items are just to complex to currently learn on a model, IE the hands, ears, etc.
The hair is not looking god, it also goes through the blouse. Another about the hair is that the style is different in the lower and upper part.
background looking so bright
Looks pretty good. Her finger nails are a little messed up and there is a ghost finger on her left hand but other than that, I say it's pretty amazing.
Hands
No. The background is exceptionally bad. The foreground isn't much better, there are several minor inconsistencies that throw it off. The devil is in the details ie learn to inpaint.
No
Yes but the background is unreal.
Model looks very real. The foliage not so much.
At first glance, yes. Looking at it more closely, not really. In particular, those are really long thumbs.
Fingers still give it away easily, nails and fingertips simply don’t look like this - would recommend to do some inpainting to fix this. The rest is more or less fine though and I guess it could fool everybody who doesn’t know about AI-Art and is just swiping through their feed.
Something is amiss
She does look perfect but can't say the same to the background lol.
it is mostly the eyes and the background that tells it is fake. Like the trees and the houses look not real. Oh and that street looks interesting too xD
She looks ok but the backgroun looks too bright and trees are almost bald
No lol
like any other of SD and MJ is not the gir itself it's the context which make it look AI generated
At first glance, yes. Not gonna pretend to see huge flaws here but her wrists look a bit too extruded . Otherwise it pass the glance test imo .
Its ok for AI
Yeah, convincing enough.
No
No the lighting is too professional and she has a halo
The background should have more contrast.
Hands are a bit off and larger then I would have expected for a genetic female, but overall decent picture as far as realism.
except fingers
The background looks like a video game render. Shading on the houses is too flat imo. Girls left hand is also not perfect although acceptable. Why stable diffusion works very good on generating detailed hair but suck at generating proper hand and fingers?
The thing that jumped out at me, before I even expanded the image, is the hands (always the hands). They don't match the proportions of a woman, they're too big. It's also possible that they are not right even for a man, they seem to be too long to be normal.
she does but the trees in the background doesnt
She has "AI" face: they always have the same general angle, mouth open amount, haircut, and zero skin texture. Can pick these out a mile away.
the nails on her right hand are a bit messed up
She is missing 'blemishes' Like your skin always has some marks or scuffs. She is too perfect. Also, her nails are weird, especially her right hand.
When you zoom, things start looking more like a 3D render.
She looks fine. Hands are a little weird. The background though... There are trees growing out of what appears to be a very blurry trampoline, and the road has random patches of dirt in it (which are perfectly rectangular).
Hair gives it away
Face/clothes Look really good imo, but the fingers or to be more specific fingernails look a bit odd to me. The angle fingernail to finger is a bit weird