AI-generated celebrity porn is here!

I have

 

is there a way to stop it changing the face

 

I tried Lita Ford... it went about as well as I expected.

 

lol

 

Fun of the day




​

 

OF "Upgrade"
​

 

It's gonna be crazy to see how we can use AI create whatever we want. I use midjourney here and there and it's wild what it can do.

 

Sorry I couldn't resist....

 

Never say sorry for this. She looked extremely fuckable last night.

 

A late Autumn special with some lovely redheads

Julianne Moore


Kate Winslet


Rachel Hurd-Wood


Francesca Capaldi


Isla Fisher


Larsen Thompson


Katherine McNamara


Molly Ringwald


Madelaine Petsch


Jessica Chastain


Gillian Anderson


Sophie Turner

 

Still not recovered from Gillian's appearance...







But there are some bonus images

 

Reduce Gilly's tits 25% in size, then, Gilly has floppy tits, not hanging tits. Even way back in "The Turning" her tits flopped over. And lighten her areola even more, and blend them in, you can see in the vacation bikini pics, the implants have stretched her areola.

Nat's tits arent that big, and you can see from her deep cleavage (sic) dresses, her nipples are farther outside, check her topless bikini pics. I'd also make her legs/hips skinnier, with slightly more saddlebags. there's plenty of room between those thighs.

Not denigrating your work, I always appreciate a thoughtful critique.

BTW, if you want to train for Salma Hayek, use Samantha Fox's body. Both same height/weight, boob size and style, nipples/areola almost identical, and body shape as well. If not Sammy, then use Appolonia Kotero from "Purple Rain". she and Salma's body types are amazingly similar, and the tits are spot on.

 

1990's

2004 bifa

2018 pic, showing her implants (I believe she got them in late 2013/early 2014 for the Straightheads movie)
((long argued by many, yay/nay))

(IMO) Gilly natural style tits. I'd also include Rachel Weisz to be very similar, but she always tries to hide hers or pose them so you dont see them standng straight on. (Because, the retards in movies think women have tits like 16 year old girls. Mores the pity.)

It seems to me, the best use of computer creating images would try to be as exact as possible. otherwise it (IMO) always appears juvenile, like the old cut-in fakes stuff. But that's just my opinion. (I very very rarely browse generator threads on any forum, but I thought I'd give yours a shot. Hope I havent bothered you too much.

 

The AI does what it wants from simple instructions, believe me, you haven't taught me anything about what Gillian looks like, I'm pretty well documented myself
For me, the implants, date after the film, just before or between her last children, in the opening scene, before the shower, she clearly doesn't have them.
And I think it was a very good investment... And good work, like for Kate Winslet or Salma Hayek.

 

Yes. It's easy to make changes when you're creating an drawing from zero. But it's more difficult with real photos. The AI isn't that good yet (or the prompts aren't that clear ).
Sometimes it doesn't recognize a piece of clothing and mixes it with the body, or it adapts the boobs to the shape of a jacket, or takes the buttons as nipples...
Besides, it's not free, so there's no point in trying a lot if it still has some flaws. It's getting better day by day, but right now I say "if the drawing looks decent, don't touch it."

Anyway, I used to do my edits in Paintbrush So this is a huge improvement from those days.

 

Interesting to learn. You'd think an edit would be easier than a full creation, but apparently, meeting a known integer is more difficult than simply throwing shit at the wall and having a real person decide what looks best. Computers can be strange beasties. What do you mean it's not free? isnt it stable diffusion running on the creators system?

(I stole a copy of corel (win 3.1), then a copy of paintshop (win 3.1), then pro(95), then photoshop 3(95) lol.) Never stooped to paintbrush that I remember.

I was going thru a folder of Boatfan scans the other day. heh.

 

Based on the context it seems like a lot of the posters to this thread are using online AI generators instead of using stable diffusion locally. The have various costing structures, but in the end it comes down to: use GPU, pay money. There are a lot of them and all have strengths/weaknesses but all of them are difficult compared to local execution, assuming you have the hardware (a fairly modern NVidia GPU with at least 8 GB of video memory) to run it. You also need to know a lot more about computes than you might want to know.

Having said all that, it's true that modifying an existing picture well is a lot more difficult that generating "from scratch" for all the old faker reasons. Mostly, you have to get the colors right, and even when you do, it will still look wrong because clothes change the body shape enough to make reflections in the wrong place for a nude. I did a quick Hailee impainting pic that came out "OK," but even though the transition is really nice between the real and fake part, her top was squishing her boobs in a way that makes the fake look more fake. What appears to be the transition is not anywhere near where it was changed. Otherwise, AI make sit a lot easier to deal with things like skin color and texture.
​

 

Well anyone can do this one?

 

Jessica Stroup "ohh ohhh ohhhh!!" moany hard sex face.

 

I wish I could make her squeeze the bedsheets.