Wow, a really old Favorite of mine. Didnt expected to see an AI version of Irina here. Really underrated Waifu. I just think her breasts are a bit more bigger in the anime but great image.
It is. On their patreon the wording is clear that they use specific loras and a lot of their posts on Twitter have a similar style to this one.
I see. I looked around the artist's sites, and I found no indication of their work being AI. Plus, I couldn't find any typical AI mistakes, but I suppose my eyes aren't as attuned as others' might be...
I see. I looked around the artist's sites, and I found no indication of their work being AI. Plus, I couldn't find any typical AI mistakes, but I suppose my eyes aren't as attuned as others' might be...
Admittedly I'm not great at differentiating a fair amount either, but I haven't seen any proof to show me their stuff isn't AI generated. Their patreon has language that suggest they do AI stuff mainly and their deviantart profile mentions being into AI stuff too and many of their uploads there are 1024x1024 so it seems to me another sign to be that it's AI stuff.
They probably are just very attentive for any errors or something. If there's proof that confirms otherwise I won't have a problem deleting this.
I see. I looked around the artist's sites, and I found no indication of their work being AI. Plus, I couldn't find any typical AI mistakes, but I suppose my eyes aren't as attuned as others' might be...
In addition to the "I will share with you my own private Lora's that I use including my style" on their patreon and the "Average AI enjoyer" on their deviantart, I found two images with small errors. In this image you can see the sidelock on the left merging into the shadow and in this image the nails are weird. It's worth keeping in mind that as image models advance, we should expect the kinds of mistakes models are making today to become less frequent.
Having looked into it, the ambiguity here seems to be intentional. The "Average AI enjoyer" used to appear on their twitter but has since been edited out. Further, they tried uploading some stuff over on danbo and, when confronted about it, stated (twice) "I'm not saying that I generate pictures or draw them, I let people think the way they like." Imo this seems like a kinda scuzzy way to go about things so I'm probably not gonna upload any more from them.
Having looked into it, the ambiguity here seems to be intentional. The "Average AI enjoyer" used to appear on their twitter but has since been edited out. Further, they tried uploading some stuff over on danbo and, when confronted about it, stated (twice) "I'm not saying that I generate pictures or draw them, I let people think the way they like." Imo this seems like a kinda scuzzy way to go about things so I'm probably not gonna upload any more from them.
I'm not surprised. There's quite a number of people making AI images that try to pass it off as their own original works, which is very annoying and sometimes only makes it harder to differentiate.
The money thing is a matter I don't like, but it wouldn't be as bad if they would just be honest about it everywhere instead of acting like how they did in their danbo comments, trying to (badly) muddy things like that.
I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that from the horizontal perspective right to left, it looks sloped due to the left trees looking beneath the right trees? If yes, I can also reason that the ground, up until the river, is sloping down (and therefore, this picture makes sense perspective wise).
Well, I mean, at least that's how I saw this image when I generated it.
Personally I think backgrounds deserve leeway. Asking for a 100% perfect background with AI is something of an impossibility to say the least.
I totally agree, especially with AI backgrounds! Though I also think that backgrounds should make sense, which is why I was concerned for a sec about the background possibly breaking the rules of eyesight.
As newer models come out and improve, I have little doubt that AI backgrounds will also improve too, however I would say expecting every detail to be correct every time isn't reasonable.. at this time anyway.
The background in this image doesn't look that bad to me, even if it may not be 100% correct.
