Community Chat

[monicakm]

@Tinkrbl44 

It's perfectly fine to enhance one's photo if they want to. There are lots of reasons photos should not be altered, like news facts, but I don't think that's one of them.  If that is ai, dang! In the olden days you could only believe half of what you see 🧐

[JoyFilled Warrior]

I wish AI would have an irrevocable, unalterable, untouched Watermark, visible to everyone.

But then, I wish ppl's nose would grow, & be obvious, with each non-truth they tell.

"If wishes for horses, beggars would ride."

[hopi]

So beautiful.

[beckyb1012]

Below is the other going around on Facebook accounts. All fake, Meghan is not going to give up photos unless it is to her favorite magazine People and for a paycheck. 

[Sooner]

Skin and hair look unreal, eyes are doll-like and unblimished on the lids, eyeliner looks painted and perfect, eyebrows always look either sketchy or painted on.  

Compare them to actual photos of people and you can see the painted and unrealness of the AI at this point in time.  In the future, probably now.  Especially the hair and around in AI, and the unnatural glow but then the world of too much shine (highlighter) now makes people look unreal in the first place.

All those people on the news who look like they have the sweats and it's just highlighter. . . 

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@monicakm wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 

It's perfectly fine to enhance one's photo if they want to. There are lots of reasons photos should not be altered, like news facts, but I don't think that's one of them.  If that is ai, dang! In the olden days you could only believe half of what you see 🧐

---

@monicakm 

ITA, but years ago when we devoured all the fashion magazines every month, the photos of models were AIR BRUSHED and made to look better than they actually did.  Remember those? 

For a while, we didn't even know they were air brushed.  

Then came Photoshop.

Then came AI.

There's probably even more than I've never heard of.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@beckyb1012 wrote:

Below is the other going around on Facebook accounts. All fake, Meghan is not going to give up photos unless it is to her favorite magazine People and for a paycheck. 

---

@beckyb1012 

You obviously haven't bothered to read People Magazine's editorial policy.  

[beckyb1012]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@beckyb1012 wrote:

Below is the other going around on Facebook accounts. All fake, Meghan is not going to give up photos unless it is to her favorite magazine People and for a paycheck. 

---

@beckyb1012 

You obviously haven't bothered to read People Magazine's editorial policy.  

---

I am just thinking of when Brad and Angelina sold Shiloh's photos to People back when she was born. 

It went to charity, $4 million.

[stellabystarlight]

The photo is probably AI, but Prince Harry has said that Lilibet has blue eyes just like his mother, Princess Diana, and that she resembles his mother.

[JoyFilled Warrior]

I think I read that Meghan & Harry (cant remember their Titles- oops, bad memory day)    have  been (understandably, imho)  nervous about the safety of their (famous family) esp children.

Having said that, I guess dozens of the many AI versions of Mom/Daughter Duos, floating around, seems AI's varying disguises fit the bill, allowing for some degree of incognito. 

      (The "Ole Shell Game.")