CGI? I’m sure it is. But what is the giveaway?

[Packard]

I keep running across photo-realistic images that I am certain are Computer Generated, or so far from the original photo to be considered CGI. 

But I cannot figure out what exactly is telltale.  When I study the image closely it seems over-sharp, and the bokeh does not seem realistic.

(Bokeh) is the out of focus dots of light that appear in the background of a photo, or donuts of light if it is a catadioptric lens (mirror lens). See image below the portrait.

So what is it that makes me believe that this is a CGI and not a natural photograph?

A natural portrait with conventional bokeh:

 

[Sparktrician]

It looks like an image that was shot using a VERY wide aperture which generated the large bokeh balls.  The model's hair is in tight focus - except for the small "tail" (bottom right).  It also appears to have been very carefully processed, just short of being over-processed.  The model's details (hair, wrinkles) are in sharp focus.  I am not inclined to call it CGI.  The metadata has been deleted, though.

 

[peter halle]

I would venture a guess it is computer generated.  Look at the very left edge of her check at the lighter outer edge.  Continue up and that lighter edge also exists in the shadow of her hair.  The mole on her check appears to be indented and that smile crease looks awfully deep for someone who doesn't have much flabby skin.  Her eyes and eyelashes look plastic to me.

 

[peter halle]

I just showed that to my wife and asked the question and she said fake as shirts instantly.

At least we agree on something (just kidding dear...)

 

[Crazyraceguy]

I have absolutely no experience with (or knowledge of) CGI, but my time with Photoshop sees how this could be done, from the original.
I would say that the obvious features have been over-sharpened, for the effect. Then, something must have been exaggerated too much on her cheek, and it got softened. There is a noticeable blur area.
As usual though, someone missed that section of hair, in the lower right. (like when people modify the main subject in the photo, then miss the mirror, pane of glass, or shadow, which should reflect the same changes.

 

[Packard]

I instinctively and immediately thought “CGI”, and I did not notice the shadows of the hair until pointed out to me.

The bokeh looks funny, but my experience was mainly with film cameras.  Depth of field is far greater with digital cameras, and the bokeh in the out of focus areas would normally take on the shape of the aperture, which in most 35mm and roll film cameras are hexagon or octagon shaped.  So the slightly elliptical shapes seem wrong.

In the end, I think it was that the image was over-sharpened, and and looks more so, if you enlarge the image around the eyes.

 

[woodbutcherbower]

Just though I’d call by and mention that in certain parts of Scotland (notably South Ayrshire on the West Coast where my daughter lives) - the word ‘bokeh’ means to throw up.

 

[bertv]

I think the model in the first pix is Gisele Bündchen and it is a real photo, though quite overprocessed HDI and that bokeh may have been added by some filter.

 

[Vondawg]

I’d need to see more……..please

 

[Packard]

All of these images seem CGI-ish in the same way and all were harvested from Apple’s News app and all were from one advertising campaign.

Other ads in that app do not seem CGI-ish (Is there a real word for this?)

And here is an enlarged section of the original photo (repeated above):

 

[smorgasbord]

CGI is Computer-Generated Imagery, which these (probably) fall into, but there's also the newer "Gen(erative) AI" imagery. The latter typically works off a textual description while the former could start with human drawing or procedural algorithms.

What's kind-of funny is I ran the first image through a face ID program and got the model/actress Jessica Serfaty. There's some resemblance, but that image isn't her.

What's scary is that Gen-AI can also do voices and video. Here's a video from Blacktail Studio, in which he describes how a scammer copied his website (BlacktailStudio.com) to a fake one (BlacktailStudios.com) to scam someone into ordering a table she never received. Cam of the real Blacktail Studio then ordered one as well and strung the scammer along. The scammer actually Gen-AI'ed a video of Cam to Cam saying he was working on that fake table!
=Sjij7hhOjYCFDVlt

 

[Packard]

It is interesting to note that the forensics departments in some jurisdictions have abandoned their digital cameras and have gone back to film, which is probably not as easy as going back to vinyl records which only requires that you get a turntable.

The reasoning behind that push for analog (film) photography is because some clever attorney got his client a not guilty verdict based on an “expert” saying that the images submitted were manipulated.

Clearly digital photography makes CSI record keeping much simpler.

There was a case several years back where Newsday, a Long Island newspaper was sued by a photographer for using his images, heavily manipulated in a graphic art image which Newsday used, and for which the original photos were not credited, not authorized and for which no payment was made to the originator of the art.

Newsday’s defense was that it was so heavily manipulated that the original photo was unrecognizable.  As I recall, Newsday lost that case.  It was a long time ago and well before A.I. was even a dream.

 

[Joelm]

All of them look CG to me.

Most of the images the eyes (iris, pupils, cornea) are all deformed.

The skin looks flat. Means skin shading, lighting and textures are not up to par.

The womens faces are too symmetrical. Telltale sign of sculpting one side and having it automatically mirrored to save time.

I could be totally wrong and someone went super heavy handed with photos hoping touch ups but I doubt it.

 

[Packard]

All of the CGI-suspect images above from my host site (IMGUR) were deleted. The one image that remains was posted using URL.

Is IMGUR banned? Not recognized?

 

[peter halle]

All of the CGI-suspect images above from my host site (IMGUR) were deleted. The one image that remains was posted using URL.

Is IMGUR banned? Not recognized?

You might have to use url o straight off you computer / device at less than 1 MB size. Perhaps we’ll get a better answer in the other thread you asked about it.

 

[Administrator_MAFA]

@Packard See above - all your images are back!

 

[Packard]

@Packard See above - all your images are back!

Yes they are! Thanks!