Awesome art! Reminds me a lot of Krystal, which is always a good thing ^-^

looks very AI assisted, any video process of the background? Could be wrong ofc but the artstyle is very close to AI im sorry to say that

loona_queen_of_simps said:
looks very AI assisted, any video process of the background? Could be wrong ofc but the artstyle is very close to AI im sorry to say that

Exactly what I was thinking

loona_queen_of_simps said:
looks very AI assisted, any video process of the background? Could be wrong ofc but the artstyle is very close to AI im sorry to say that

Could just be how they did lighting, you see this common pattern mostly with AI-generated stuff. But if you're talking about their art style, you can go way back to their posts a few years ago and say that definitely isn't made by AI

laptopgameing said:
Could just be how they did lighting, you see this common pattern mostly with AI-generated stuff. But if you're talking about their art style, you can go way back to their posts a few years ago and say that definitely isn't made by AI

it absolutely is the ai lighting that kills me because like i looked through the artists portfolio and they clearly aren't ai generated but the lighting is so sus no reason in this one

canabananalism said:
it absolutely is the ai lighting that kills me because like i looked through the artists portfolio and they clearly aren't ai generated but the lighting is so sus no reason in this one

Exactly, I was also thinking that the background in this one and the previous drawing are also somewhat sus. Not trying to be a hater, this artist clearly can draw and is good at it but the last two artworks have some details that do not entirely convince me.

Some of you are correct, this image looks suspicious. The background perspective doesn't seem right with the tree and horizontal lines. If we examine the hair and shading details closely, it feels like some parts are distorted and blurry. Comparing it to previous artwork, there appears to be an unexpected improvement. For me, it's unclear, but if they actually show a timelapse of the creation process for this piece, I would trust them.

farthinginyourpenny said:
Exactly, I was also thinking that the background in this one and the previous drawing are also somewhat sus. Not trying to be a hater, this artist clearly can draw and is good at it but the last two artworks have some details that do not entirely convince me.

You can find WIPs at the source.
the brushes are easily recognizable plus gaussian blur can do wonders to BG in art pieces

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54737646/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54616987/

canabananalism said:
it absolutely is the ai lighting that kills me because like i looked through the artists portfolio and they clearly aren't ai generated but the lighting is so sus no reason in this one

As for the lighting, unsure what you mean if its the colors or the fact it's rimlight but it looks normal to me and even more considering the artist has been around for a minute

dang this is really hot

trmk2 said:
You can find WIPs at the source.
the brushes are easily recognizable plus gaussian blur can do wonders to BG in art pieces

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54737646/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54616987/

As for the lighting, unsure what you mean if its the colors or the fact it's rimlight but it looks normal to me and even more considering the artist has been around for a minute

Oh well I'm happy to be wrong then

trmk2 said:
You can find WIPs at the source.
the brushes are easily recognizable plus gaussian blur can do wonders to BG in art pieces

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54737646/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54616987/

As for the lighting, unsure what you mean if its the colors or the fact it's rimlight but it looks normal to me and even more considering the artist has been around for a minute

For the lighting I think they meant that it looks like the one you get in AI generated furry images. Since AI stuff pretty much looks all the same it is just recognizable. Not "bad" lighting, just a bit stereotypical. As for the background I had more doubts for the dragon drawing, but the overall artworks look consistent with the artist's style so I was sure that there was at least some heavy editing by hand. Happy to know the artist is just that good.

trmk2 said:
You can find WIPs at the source.
the brushes are easily recognizable plus gaussian blur can do wonders to BG in art pieces

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54737646/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/54616987/

As for the lighting, unsure what you mean if its the colors or the fact it's rimlight but it looks normal to me and even more considering the artist has been around for a minute

that doesnt mean anything, they could have just taken the rough artwork inserted it into an ai enhancer and let ai finish up a rough sketch as seen in your examples, the artstyle is way too close to how 95% of all AI artwork looks like artstyle wise, the only way to solve this is a normal speedpaint or source file with all the layers and none of them merged, an artpiece like this has at least several multiply layers for the shading, it's easily solved if the orginal author is willing to share a file

bruh how i'm supposed to guess what is AI and what's not?
should I be worried that i don't see what's wrong with this image?

Looking at the image and the artist's style, the style is consistent. So there are only 2 possible scenarios. The artist used AI,Or the artist didn't use AI, and AI-generated images have become so good that they are already at the level of this artist (or many others), causing confusion and suspicion.

tmrp said:

Looking at the image and the artist's style, the style is consistent. So there are only 2 possible scenarios. The artist used AI,Or the artist didn't use AI, and AI-generated images have become so good that they are already at the level of this artist (or many others), causing confusion and suspicion.

Trust me, they haven't. There's a sketch of the image on the artist's FA, so it means that she did some 80-90% of the work, at least. She could have used some sort of enhancer which gave the image the suspicious blurs and lighting, but you definitely cannot get to that level by just inserting a prompt and let the machine shit out the image.

pr34beta said:
bruh how i'm supposed to guess what is AI and what's not?
should I be worried that i don't see what's wrong with this image?

Nothing to be worried about. If the image was AI assisted (I still have some doubts it was) it was still heavily reworked by hand by the artist. If that's the case it's still bad that it wasn't acknowledged by the artist but it explains why you could mistake it for a hand-drawn image (because it was mostly hand-drawn)

farthinginyourpenny said:
Nothing to be worried about. If the image was AI assisted (I still have some doubts it was) it was still heavily reworked by hand by the artist. If that's the case it's still bad that it wasn't acknowledged by the artist but it explains why you could mistake it for a hand-drawn image (because it was mostly hand-drawn)

I feel like you're exaggerating a bit. I really don't think I should say it (unless of course, more than 40% of the work was done by a bot)

It is rare for the artist to say what tools he used. I have rarely seen artists mentioning "made with X program" (which you can sometimes tell by looking at the Exif tags and it's not always the case/it's a PNG)

Now, the worrying thing is that people are already failing to discriminate when an art is made by an artist or by an AI, It seems that we have reached that point where AIs can already begin to be considered a danger for medium/high-level artists. And to your dismay (and no one's surprise), this will only get better.

A small detail (purists), we can't really say that he did it by hand (traditional), but that it was done with his skill (what we call hands), AND electronic tools (tablets, programs, etc.)

This is just like when factories and mass production arrived, artisanal work is going to become precarious (unfortunately), and if artists want to continue staying competitive (earning money), at some point they will be forced to implement AI in their workflows (it already happened with Rayark, the complaints were monumental), and if they do not update, the only probable scenarios are to achieve a niche in the market, or to be displaced by artists less talented than them, but who achieve better results, thanks to the implementation of AI in its drawing processes.

2024 It's going to be the year where this is decided (banning AI is useless at this point, all industries are already adopting them)

In the meantime, the picture has been deleted. And I wonder if it was deleted just because someone incorrectly thought it was AI generated...