What is going on with the Shadow of the Weird Wizard art? Bad art, AI, a mix of both?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
What is going on with the Shadow of the Weird Wizard art? Bad art, AI, a mix of both?
What is going on with the Shadow of the Weird Wizard art? Bad art, AI, a mix of both?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It looks to me more like a case of "let's give a medieval painter photoshop" than au
Notice how the little dragons' front paws are copied and pasted across one another.
Low-budget art, not AI. Every component looks like it's got a different artstyle. (The dragons look like 3D models, the fire looks like an effect or brush you could download somewhere, the background looks like a rough draft, etc) There are many, many problems with AI-generated images at they exist today, but an inconsistent style is not one of them. Honestly, trying to get it to deviate from strict but mediocre adherence to a style is a trial in itself. I have attached an AI slop image for reference, so you can familiarize yourself with the myriad signs an image was made by AI.
I suspect whoever made or commissioned the art you've posted was either running low on cash or time.
Is it possible that the individual "characters" were AI-generated, and then pasted together to form a vaguely cohesive scene?
there's no evidence of that
Witch is purposefully hiding hands
Background farm has weeird lines and nonsensical roads.
Witch & dog look to be standing
Fire effect is drawn later to hide her hand. It is also extremely shitty.
Likely that some AI has been used here.
cut and paste operation feels likely.
It's a possibility, but I do not think it is a likely one. They lack the strangeness and flaws present in AI images. The dragons are uncanny, but nonetheless are well-detailed and consistent, for instance. The witch's design is largely uninspired, but her eyes look like actual eyes and her teeth are actual teeth, unlike the witch in the AI image I posted. The dog may look odd, but it's the oddness of someone having painted over a photo of a dog.The fire looks shitty, but it's the kind of shitty fire *I* (a talentless fool with the artistic merit of a kitchen shelf) could whip up with a few seconds in GIMP using a brush downloaded off the internet.
Also, speaking from experience here, it can take quite a while to coerce an AI into giving you exactly what you want without immediately obvious flaws. It would genuinely be faster and easier to find some public domain stuff and slap 'em into one poorly composed image.
>The dragons are uncanny, but nonetheless are well-detailed and consistent, for instance
But have weird hands, details blending into each other, and that general AI consistent detail level all over. It's so bad there are only 7 unique feet between them because one is a copypasta.
>The witch's design is largely uninspired, but her eyes look like actual eyes and her teeth are actual teeth, unlike the witch in the AI image I posted.
But has touch ups to cover up the hand, a neck that looks like it's hiding the seems between two separate pieces, is bizarrely recoloured meaning they likely didn't do it themselves. She's also got a sack at her feet that has the most classic sign of AI image generation, details disappearing and blending into other textures. The rope becomes the crease of the bag.
The whole background is a nonsense mess too.
To me the witch looks like a photoreferenced cosplayer/LARPer, probably digital paint right over the reference. I assume the hands weren't in the right position and the referencer couldn't draw new hands out of nothing.
"Artists" mogged on by AI. No wonder they are worried about losing their jobs when their main qualification is flipping burgers all their life.
kek why is everyone in the pic so happy
it's bing, they're just playfighting
No it's both. They AI generated individual things and then collaged them together. Look at the eyes of the dragon, its teeth, its tail spines, the legs of the back one. Look at the dog's mouth, the hastily corrected hands of the girl, the way the orange highlights don't remotely match anything, the exterior versus interior edges of the girl. This is what it looks like when someone knows the basics and uses an algorithm to do all the hard work for them, then slaps it together.
What makes it even more baffling that the rest of the art in the book is fairly decent, which makes this particular piece so eye soring.
It doesn't help that is was used as the presentation card of the magic chapter, of all things.
What the actual frick, Rob.
Magic having terrible art is a tradition.
>Fire trail effects just look like something from mspaint
>human hands deliberately hidden
You already know what it is.
>Make Grimdark setting that's loved by conservatives
>decide to tell them frick you and try to appeal to sjws and wokies
>make a shit product no one buys
The Kickstarter did better than all the SotDL ones combined and Schwalb being a lefty isn't anything new
well well well, there it goes
>What is going on with the Shadow of the Weird Wizard art?
Looks like a bad photoshop using AI images.
The background, dragons, and witch with the dog & bag, are all drawn in a completely different style. You can tell the witch *explicitly* used to belong to some other image due to the poor blurring on her cape. The Dragons I'm pretty confident are AI: they have different numbers of toes and while the 'look' similar they both have different wings.
The only hand drawn thing in this image is that embarrassing orange spray.
Apparently this was confirmed as AI.
It wasn't. It got a strong maybe and is getting replaced.
>I pay a guy to tell me what I want to hear so I don't have to spend more money
>also I use this software that is infamous for being completely and totally unreliable and I'm doing what it says
>case closed
This guy is so, so dumb.
And the art is getting replaced.