Comment

s@piefed.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

That is a suspiciously high resolution photo of a man who died in 1947. The odd camera focus, general glisteningness, (and odd framing?) and the lack of any matching results in reverse image searching makes me think that somebody may have used AI to produce an image of that could easily be found with a moment’s search online. Is anybody able to find a source on this image?

source

Sort:hotnew top

BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I’m pretty certain the this image is an AI retouch of this origional (click on the source for a much higher res version). It looks like it changed his nose, the texture of his skin, his outfit and a bunch of misc small stuff. Completely unnecessary slop.

source
- Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Nah, it’s gotta be something from this photoshoot:
  
  image
  
  The clothing matches.
  
  source
  - s@piefed.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Re: your edit
    
    Google will sometimes show results from Reddit but ultimately link to a different post. AFAIK, the content that Google says is on the page may actually be content that is either from related posts shown on the Reddit mobile site or from another post somewhere on the subreddit (or maybe just somewhere else on Reddit entirely?). The timestamp that Google gives seems to be from when the linked post was made (with some discrepancies as to when Google and Reddit decide to round up or down in terms of unit time)
    
    source
  - s@piefed.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    To me, a new image rather than a touch up seems more likely. It just feels like there’s too much Gandhi mixed in the original photo.
    
    source
    Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    You’re most likely right. What an odd thing for people to do, it’s almost more effort. The OP who posted it though doesn’t seem to have any other AI things, so it’s weird.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - BodilessGaze@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Google is alleging the first known version is 7 years old, which would predate AI - but I cannot open the link it only takes me to the community homepage.
    
    There were definitely AI models for restoring images 7 years ago. I remember using github.com/jantic/DeOldify (which started in 2018) about 6 years ago to colorize an old photo album, and it worked well.
    
    source
wander1236@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The current state of digital makes it a lot quicker, cheaper, and more convenient to take high quality photos and videos, but I think the best widely available film still has the best widely available digital beat in terms of quality. If you get someone who really knows what they’re doing to capture, store, and transfer a photo of a famous person from the first half of the 1900s it could be very high resolution.

That said, this picture looks pretty weird. His skin looks like modeling clay or plastic and the focal length isn’t consistent.

source
Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I’ll try having a look, but keep in mind film is generally much higher resolution than even digital today.

source
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Not just the resolution, the way it’s lit and posed is very contemporary. You could teach a good negative and get resolution like this, but that wouldn’t account for the fact that it doesn’t look anything like a posed photo from the 19th century.

source