Can AI art be referenced or is it filled with subtle mistakes?
>>7168785I can tell when artists use it even in trad. https://www.instagram.com/p/C6lGBV5NoLT/?hl=en
>>7168792>https://www.instagram.com/p/C6lGBV5NoLT/?hl=enAre you saying she's using AI? How can you tell? Also why is she acting like "that" in the video? Goddamn I hate these people.
>>7168797Not him but I think she's using an offscreen reference she prompted from ai and pretending like she's doing imagination drawing. I can't describe it exactly but I can also sense the ai in that image. Generically good composition, soulless, narratively nonsensical
>>7168797First it's a gut/intuition reaction, I have painted for well over a decade, know art and artists well, I've stress tested AI too(10k+ gens) This has more in common with generative AI than human art, even though they painted it, they've copied AI tells. The lighting is very real "photo/3d" like on totoro, including some parts lit in unappealing ways(abrupt harsh line in the middle of the chest at the 3rd window) that an artist considering the form would not do, the melty window shapes are also unusual for someone skilled enough to paint real light like that from imagination...Totoro's design. His hand(should be claws no?) is strange and very amateur looking. There is also an issue with the opposite hand... where is it? why is the arm so long on the left of the image? common AI mistake.The environment design. That "bridge"? with random poles that do nothing.The fence, broken up, random, tilts abruptly to the right of the boy, unappealing, like a tangent, why would an artist as skilled as this do that? they wouldn't. A random set of stairs on the left wtf? the house melting into the hill too, with some odd foliage jutting out of it.The choice in composition, it' not completely bad, but it's pretty straight on, very much like what you get when asking for a painting of a boy looking at totoro without specifying any pose. also his outfit, AI loves giving these boys white shirts and a backpack without specifying it in the prompt. The artist's* past paintings looking completely different too, this is a huge departure.*is it really her or some dude faking the whole thing? I looked at quite a few videos, and none show her doing any lines or brush strokes for more than a second or two...
>>7168785you shouldn't reference from people either. some of them are defective and look ugly. Only reference from Michelangelo's David and nothing else. Other "human" form is impure and degenerate, full of monkey genes.
>>7168797NTA but that picture is just visually unappealing.The colors don't mesh well neither does the overall composition or the construction especially on that house which looks super tiny for that perspective.It's either really bad art with good-ish fundamentals or AI assisted. Pick your poison.I'd go with AI too given the inconsistency between her rendering and perspective. But it could also be that she's phoning it in (same thing when you think about it).
>>7168785depends on your skill level. it can be a similar exercise to fixing/critiquing a bad piece. Artist in pic related merged two AI images which the final product seems pretty neat and shows he is decently skilled, but it can be a crutch and restrict your creativity if your not careful.
>>7168785Referenced for what? AI was trained on photos and artworks. If you need reference to understand how something is put together, or what it looks like from a particular point of view or under certain lighting conditions, you might as well look at the real thing if at all possible, or else study good (unedited) photographs. I you want to develop your aesthetic sensibilities or learn how to work in a particular medium, study the works of the masters.The only reason to use AI is to cut corners; to outsource your creativity, aesthetics, design, composition and rendering to a machine. A real artist would never do this. This is the path of someone who wants the rewards and accolades without the process of actually doing the work. It is a shortcut and the person using it does not learn anything or develop any skills.And yes, AI images are filled with subtle mistakes and "irrationalities." If your question is sincere, the answer is no.
using AI = getting cucked. being a slave to reference = getting cucked too.
>>7168785>or is it filled with subtle mistakesGee, anon. One wonders.
>>7168785this "use ai as reference" bullshit is just another way for ai people to try and get their foot in the door. Be stubborn, don't give them an inch, fuck off slopmongers.
I've used Bing for color studies and color ideas, it was useful for that before they banned and blocked everything and made the engine produce worst quality images. For anatomy or anything with perspective is a terrible tool.
It was a good tool to make color studies and experiments quickly, now it's gone.
Just don't copy the actual elements, none of them.
>>7168863>flip + lasso + liquify + soft eraserthis is more rote graphic design than "real" artthis requires 0 talent and hardly any creativity...
>>7169004>"real" artWhat is "real" art?
>>7169055in this board's case it's usually a drawingor artwork that requires some form of vision, creativity and craftsmanship and usually relays some interesting information through visualsI put "real" in quotations to avoid triggering anons like you but graphic design does have its own board >>/gd/ and most of the posts there unironically have more artistic input than that pic which looks like a 14 year old's first time using prompts/photoshop thinking they're deep
A lot of AI is self-evidently pretty convincing at this point, such that it can fool even a careful observer, and it's pretty cringey to pretend there's some special sauce that separates an AI image from, say, a photograph. Yes, you can use it as a reference, just don't be a slave to it and use other references as well. But that's what you always should have been doing with photo ref anyway.
>>7169115Saw this: https://cara.app/explore and thought it was AI at first.
>>7169115>such that it can fool even a careful observerHow would you know? You're obviously not one.
>>7169004yeah I just think there cool pics I can attach to my schizo posts on /x/
>>7168792its pretty obvious just from how someone acts if what they drew is AI. Like if they're so amazed at what they just made as if they're seeing it for the first time or had no idea what it would look like at the end, or they desperately want attention for drawing something great.
>>7168792so can you really just make fake videos pretending to draw and make money that way? Its that easy?
>>7169345attach a mid to high attractive woman to them and you my friend have struck gold
>>7169345people already do that. just draw light enough and overexpose so the camera can't see the light pencil or non-photo blue and it tricks normies into thinking you can do a finished ink with no sketch. tons of "photorealistic" rendering drawings are done this way too
>>7169252keep coping begtard
>>7168785If you understand anatomy and perspective well enough, then sure.If you're /beg/ then stay the fuck away from AI until you know what the fuck you're doing.
>>7168785sounds like a crutch for lazy, unimaginative retardsthere is literally zero point in doing so
>>7168785>AI does pencil drawingIt's so over for crosshatching 3rd world fags.
I want to use ai for backgrounds, like this >>7168987>>7168989>>7168991and then paint over them so I copy the composition and colors. Not because I can't draw, but because I am creative and I don't want to spend hours deciding where to put clouds.
>>7170818meant to write>but because I am uncreative
>>7170818Depends on the style, I found that if I want the stylized cartoon style Bing won't generate good backgrounds if they don't feature some characters. The perspective is also all wrong, it's very limiting tech. Good for color picking, I learn a lot actually, it gives me ideas of how to digitally paint.
>>7171709>BingInstall local stable diffusion for real work. Digital editing and detailing in img2img is the win.
Bad color Bad lightingBad compositionBad textureBad detailsBad tasteDo you want to absorb this into your work? Do you want to be accused of being a bot because everybody knows what the typical machine output looks like? Do you have absolutely no integrity as an artist? Yeah? Copy ai
>>7168785AI art tend to have the same composition, got plenty of small detail mistakes, cut off at weird points, hide limbs, repeat the same rendering, have no sense of perspective/depth, anatomy is passable sometimes but mostly wrong.Learn to create your own references and don't bother drawing from AI.
>>7175399Skill issue.
>>7168785if its not on paper or canvas it isn't art, period
>>7168785CAN'T THIS FAGGOTS JUST LOOK LIKE, EVERYWHERE??, LIKE, NIGGA JUST LOOK A PHOTO, NIGGA JUST LOOK AT PEOPLE LOOK AT YOURSELF THEY ARE RIGHT THERE
>>7175570
>>7168792Women.
>>7169345yes but there's easier money to be made provided you're a woman
>>7168785Think about it this way - you've got thousands upon thousands of images to refer to from professionals that you can trust. Why would you ever trust the AI to get it right? Especially when it starts to feed off itself by means of scraping sites littered with generative AI imagery?If you can be bothered to spend hours at a time looking at art, it should be art from actual artists that actually had something in mind, not an algorithm spit out by a computer.As you can see with >>7168830Artists are better at detecting this than you might think.
>>7168792>1 till 100Very good, sir. I rate 99. Minus one for no bob and vagene
>>7168830If you just scroll down her instagram she has a video showing her using ai as reference. She definitely does it.https://www.instagram.com/p/CkvTmguDmRL/If you scroll back before august 2022 her work is very different but still traditional.I also think she started using a projector at some point because a lot of her process videos have the wrong proportions and suddenly get fixed halfway through.I think she was basically maxed out at perma beg but had thousands of hours using trad materials so she is good at combining ai + projector + traditional.Honestly this is one of the first things I thought about for traditional artists benefitting when i saw ai.
>>7168785I am a complete beg and I made this with AI to reference from. Is it OK?
>>7178977I mean is it ok to reference from if you are a complete beg?
>>7178977I am not going to show off AI referenced image to other people I just want to practice without referencing porn.
>>7168785If you're going to use references, why not? You're already using somewhat of a crutch instead of fully learning your subject and being able to pull from knowledge.
>>7168785Learn from life and photography.
