You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job. Just because it’s not AI doesn’t mean it’s real.
But also the detector is probably wrong - it’s likely an AI image using a different model than the detector was trained to detect.
I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job.
It could, but the double spiral in the shell indicates AI to me. Snail shells don't grow like that. If it was a manual job, they would have used a picture of a real shell.
Edit: plus the cat head looks weird where it connects to the head, and the markings don't look right to me.
Agreed. The aggressive depth of field is another smoking gun that usually indicates an AI image.
Snail shells don't grow like that but this is clearly a snat, not a snail.
Even cnailshells would have to adhere to the basic laws of conchology though
Also the fact that the grain on the side of the shell is perpendicular to the grain on the top, and it changes where the cat ear comes up in front of it.
Very telltale sign of AI is a change of pattern in something when a foreground object splits it.
Not saying it's always a guarantee, but it's a common quirk and it's pretty easy to identify.
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
Your reference is ancient and dusty and it makes me feel old. Stop it.
There were a lot of really good images like that well before AI. Anyone remember Photoshop Friday?
There's a sort of... Sheen, to a lot AI images. Obviously you can prompt this away if you know what you're doing, but its developing a bit of a look to my eye when people don't do that.
They're often too smooth.
Can we bring that back?
The shell looks ai generated though, if it was photoshopped it would've been a snail shell used for the source image.