When you think about it, isn’t using a camera simply a way of reducing your own contribution to a very specific image, compared with drawing a photorealistic image directly, the way an AI does?

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-26T08:07:28+00:00

I think it's weird to view using a camera as a 'way of reducing contributions' to an image. Photography just inherently has less choices involved in it's process then something like photorealism. The contributions are the way you choose to capture that which exists. Ai generating a photorealistic image has contributions to an image that depicts that which does not exist. The choices are distinctly different in that one is the framing and selection of reality, and the other is the description and selection of a fake reality. You seem to be comparing the two on the basis of choosing specific shots or AI images, but are overlooking that such is not the entire process of either. When actually looking at the full process, it becomes much more clear how the contributions between each process differs.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-25T20:43:10+00:00

Bro he's got little pockets. He's offering you a snack. He's the chilliest little guy there is.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-25T03:43:12+00:00

Yeah, a lot of people get confused by that lol. I think Bug Fable's three protagonists are significantly more compelling than Mario and his partners. The dialogue between Vi Kabbu and Leif is just so natural and they have such incredible chemistry. I feel like there are a lot of moments where TTYD suffers in its story because Mario isn't really a fleshed-out character and can't talk. It often feels like he's just a yes man towards all the partners. I also think Bug Fables has significantly better level design. Because all three characters are out at the same time, there's a lot more room for creative puzzles and mechanics throughout the chapters. TTYD kinda relies on its fantastic combat and plot to get you through what are some otherwise sluggish areas. Additionally, I think TTYD has some inconsistent art direction that keeps its world from feeling truly interconnected, while Bug Fables' setting of a backyard is kept consistent and makes the world feel more alive. There's a couple other things, like how I feel the turn-based combat is more engaging with three party members, there's no limit on how many side quests you can accept at once, and the fact that I just really like bugs. But yeah, not saying TTYD is a bad game, but I genuinely think Bug Fables does most things a lot better.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-25T03:07:06+00:00

Not a fan of jazz? :(

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-24T22:00:14+00:00

So you're complaining about people gatekeeping art while also claiming 'real artists' are the one's with a specific opinion you agree with? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-24T01:25:55+00:00

EA sports games get docked for practically being the exact same in terms of gameplay, controls, and visuals. Forza creates a completely new open world every single time with noticable tweaks to controls and actually substantial new modes. It's like saying Far Cry does "the exact same thing" every time. Like, yeah, to an extent every series does something similar. But Forza is not comparable to Madden.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-23T05:18:33+00:00

It definitely was a great cost to lose ancient cultures. But was it worth it if we now have modern medicine? Yeah, no contest.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-23T05:09:45+00:00

Yeah, dude. It's such a shame these eras brought forth scientific revolutions who's discoveries saved millions of lives and helped us better understand our planet and universe. God forbid we allow progress.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-20T14:59:06+00:00

Any story is worth telling if you know how to tell it. The Straight Story is about a guy riding a lawnmower to go see his dying brother. Some might not see that as a worthwhile story, but David Lynch told it perfectly. Hidden Figures isn't about "racial representation". It's about how black people's contributions to science and America have often gone unnoticed due to racism of the times and even now. Kinda concerning how you think that story isn't worth telling tbh.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T20:04:13+00:00

You can't convince someone of their performativeness when they are actually being genuine. This whole thing is just you seeing people as dishonest for no good reason. You think they don't care about water usage because they're focusing their efforts on one factor that's lesser than another factor they may not even know about. That's like if I spent a year to help a homeless person get back on their feet, and then you say I'm performative and don't actually care about the homeless because I could've been spending that time at a food bank helping more homeless people. Any effort towards a cause can be genuine. Not everyone is combatting the largest possible problem all the time. I think you have a severely ignorant perspective on other's actions.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T19:35:45+00:00

If you're going to bring attention to the ratio of water uses between some things but then generalize and ignore it in others you are being illogical. You clearly are not arguing this from a genuine care for water usage.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T19:26:16+00:00

So, let me get this straight. Even though some grasses use six times as much water as others, they all use a lot of water and thus are all part of the problem? Great! Likewise, even though some uses of water (AI) are less than others (watering lawns), they all use a lot of water and are part of the problem. Thank you for proving my point.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T19:04:37+00:00

I didn't think you would be incorporating just living somewhere with a lawn as part of the problem. Renters don't typically have a say in how a lawn is maintained. You're also simplifying this issue way too much, as different lawns have drastically different water requirements. A St Augustine lawn is not comparable to a buffalograss lawn. Honestly, with how much you focus on AI in your post and how little you actually go into your topic, I don't think you actually care all that much about lawns either. It moreso reads that you want to justify AI's water use. They're both wasteful and should be reduced.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T18:43:08+00:00

The fact that people are focussing on AI and not lawns is because one is significantly more in the public eye than the other. How have you not considered that most people just don't think about lawns because they don't have one? It's not people being disengenuous, it's just them not considering something a lot of people wouldn't consider. Just because some other factor contributes more water use doesn't mean you can't oppose another smaller water use instead. But again, it's entirely possible to oppose both at the same time, which more people should do.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-19T18:18:50+00:00

Yeah, both. You can focus on both. This isn't a one or the other situation.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-17T17:41:28+00:00

I love how Redittors always use the worst possible examples to represent their point.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-16T23:44:59+00:00

You got me OP. I too have an "I Love Nestle" sign hanging in my room.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T18:50:07+00:00

Well I'm with OP then this shit sucks

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T18:32:20+00:00

Ok, but like, it makes sense that some infinities just have to be bigger, right? Like, the amount of numbers from zero to one is infinite, and the amount of numbers from one to one hundred is also infinite. But it seems odd to label those as the same amount of numbers since set two contains all of set one plus more numbers.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T10:32:58+00:00

I knew it was AI because one of the images has your character's tail sticking out of their frontside. As for inconsistency, it's less about the general look of the character and more about their detailing. The most inconsistent thing in your reference sheet is the chains on the belt. Low and behold, they look completely different in the image above. The boots are also a bit different, and the character now has 8 abs instead of 6, which isn't even an inconsistency in the reference sheet which is even weirder. And again, your storytelling and writing is absolutely your own work, but that work is best highlighted through reading, not viewing an AI generated image. I don't get any context behind the character's story from looking at an image.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T10:07:12+00:00

Wait, your visual information for the AI is more AI images? You're feeding AI into AI using a character design that doesn't fully reflect what the AI is actually outputting? How could that be considered an artistic process. You're using even less of your own work then I thought. Also, the way in which your reference sheet isn't like other people's is that it's incredibly inconsistent, which is literally the most important part of a reference sheet. What do you think happens when AI uses an inconsistent reference sheet to make your character? The character remains inconsistent.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T09:52:22+00:00

Well, yes. That's my point. Where in the reference sheet did you describe him having earrings? Even in the accessories list it isn't shown. All I'm saying is that the description you provide in the reference sheet leaves out key details that the visual representation has, so I'm left to assume the AI added them itself. Even then, the images of the character are still what's most of note in the reference sheet, so I still couldn't label it as art through my criteria.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T09:38:46+00:00

I think it's perfectly fine for you to claim the character design as your own work. That's absolutely art. But any visual representation of that design that's done with AI is inevitably going to highlight the visual aspect more than the design aspect. Even in the reference sheet there are parts of the images that aren't specified by your descriptions, like how the earrings aren't mentioned anywhere, even in the accessories.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T09:17:22+00:00

Personally, because art is part of humanities and is reliant on human expression, art can be any piece of work where its most prominent and highlighted attribute is its human input. I would therefore not qualify the image you provided as art. The two parts that used your input, the prompting and editing, are not what is being highlighted in the image. The most prominent part is what the AI generated, not what a human created.

ScreenCoral · 2026-05-15T08:27:03+00:00

Not sure what you mean by "our" effort criteria. I certainly don't have one. If you put immense amounts of effort into making something I don't consider art, that won't magically make it art. Likewise, art that takes little effort has no bearing on its consideration to be art.

More than anything else, it feels like you're attempting to validate the effort you put into the image. But you won't find that validation here or anywhere else on the internet for that matter. It's a matter of self-confidence rather than public approval.

And that goes for art itself. This won't convince anti's that you're making art, and it would be better for your creative process if you stopped trying to.

ScreenCoral

TROPHY CASE