Rare Pictures - Official Topic

[CélineI'mAlive]

On 6/6/2026 at 6:44 PM, fab said:

🤣🤣🤣 so Celine have used ai in her tourbook ? 🤣 ok 

You can say whatever you want, but that photo is completely AI-generated. You might fool people who know nothing about computer science, but it's obvious even at a glance that this image is AI-generated. In fact, I knew it was AI before I even ran it through a detector. Also, Céline has never had freckles. Another matter is whether the image was based on an original photograph, but if it has been completely altered, it has virtually no value to a fan, since Céline has never had freckles at any point. It seems to me that you’re trying to gain attention you don’t have by misleading people with a supposed collection of HQ photos that are actually just AI-generated.

Edited June 6, 2026 at 10:39 PM by CélineI'mAlive

[CélineI'mAlive]

You’re one of those people who think images like this are real.

[rfkavanagh]

I'm not defending AI generation, but if your criterion for acceptable imagery is "100% original," then you shouldn't be willing to accept any of the official images, either.  Not one of them has been released without being significantly edited and enhanced via color correction, airbrushing, compositing, etc.  (Of course, I'm sure there have been some official candids and historical images that are original, but you know the point I'm making.)  Céline does not naturally look like any of her official images or album covers.  Nor does any other artist.  And when you go down that road, you may as well also call into question all the studio recordings that use splicing/editing, multiple takes, melodyne, autotune, etc.  And that's not even mentioning all the lip-syncing.

It's a slippery slope once you start trying to draw a line between reality and artifice in the arts.

[CélineI'mAlive]

On 6/7/2026 at 7:11 AM, rfkavanagh said:

No defiendo la generación de IA, pero si tu criterio para imágenes aceptables es "100% original", entonces tampoco deberías estar dispuesto a aceptar ninguna de las imágenes oficiales. Ninguno de ellos se ha publicado sin haber sido editado y mejorado significativamente mediante corrección de color, aerógrafo, composición, etc. (Por supuesto, seguro que ha habido algunas imágenes oficiales espontáneas e históricas originales, pero ya sabes el punto.) Céline no se parece naturalmente a ninguna de sus imágenes oficiales ni a sus portadas de álbumes. Tampoco ningún otro artista. Y cuando vayas por ese camino, también puedes poner en duda todas las grabaciones de estudio que usan empalmes/edición, tomas múltiples, melodyne, autotune, etc. Y eso sin contar todo el playback.

Es una pendiente resbaladiza una vez que empiezas a intentar trazar una línea entre la realidad y el artificio en las artes.

I respect your point of view, but I don’t agree. One thing is a photographer—that is, a person—showing their artistic style by editing a photo, and another thing is AI, which is a machine, applying its own edits, including its distortions. Photographic retouching done by photographers is always approved by Céline herself and her team; what is not approved is AI retouching.

Moreover, in many cases AI does not only focus on improving the photo, but instead reconstructs it entirely. It is one thing for one of Céline’s photographers to edit an existing photo, and another for it to be remade from scratch, including its distortions.

[CélineI'mAlive]

According to you, would these photos also be considered strange material? Well, here I’m uploading them for everyone’s enjoyment. 

[Thomas]

That photo of Celine and Rene is included in the book, and not everyone is a master at detecting AI upscaling at first glance. So considering it is not tagged I think it's fair to assume it was just a scan. I did, when I was scrolling through the topic.

This will only get harder as time goes on! I suppose for upscaling, if you get to a point that it's literally perfect and indistinguishable, then you *could* say it's just like being given a clearer hires original image. Perhaps that is less of a concern overall. Not the same for entirely made up images though, those will cause a lot of confusion - they already do now!

[blacktooth]

On 6/7/2026 at 4:42 PM, Thomas said:

That photo of Celine and Rene is included in the book, and not everyone is a master at detecting AI upscaling at first glance. So considering it is not tagged I think it's fair to assume it was just a scan. I did, when I was scrolling through the topic.

This will only get harder as time goes on! I suppose for upscaling, if you get to a point that it's literally perfect and indistinguishable, then you *could* say it's just like being given a clearer hires original image. Perhaps that is less of a concern overall. Not the same for entirely made up images though, those will cause a lot of confusion - they already do now!

The reality is that AI upscaling is getting so good that even experienced people can be fooled occasionally. 🤣 
 

[celine_dion_faces]

On 6/6/2026 at 3:44 PM, CélineI'mAlive said:

As Blacktooth says, the photo doesn’t actually appear in that book—in fact, you yourself have shown it. It doesn’t even appear on that page of the book. Also, it’s clearly visible that the photo is AI-generated. Celine’s face in that photo is distorted and shows coloring and pigmentation typical of AI. It’s curious that you’re usually against AI photos and now you’re not. Maybe just to be contrary?

Sorry, I have to disagree with you. That photo is actually in the tourbook. I have it in my collection. 

[CélineI'mAlive]

On 6/7/2026 at 10:42 AM, Thomas said:

That photo of Celine and Rene is included in the book, and not everyone is a master at detecting AI upscaling at first glance. So considering it is not tagged I think it's fair to assume it was just a scan. I did, when I was scrolling through the topic.

This will only get harder as time goes on! I suppose for upscaling, if you get to a point that it's literally perfect and indistinguishable, then you *could* say it's just like being given a clearer hires original image. Perhaps that is less of a concern overall. Not the same for entirely made up images though, those will cause a lot of confusion - they already do now!

Thomas, I respect your point of view, although I don’t share it. Nowadays there are many ways to verify whether a photo is AI-generated or not. The Complutense University of Madrid, for example, has a scanner to check it. That scanner is what I used to verify that photo of Céline and René. My position is that if this is a thread of unusual photos of Céline, then AI-generated images should not be posted under any circumstances, even if they are only edits. One thing is manual retouching done by the photographer and approved by Céline herself and her team, which forms part of the original image, and another is when AI completely recreates the image from scratch.

[CélineI'mAlive]

On 6/7/2026 at 5:00 PM, celine_dion_faces said:

Perdona, tengo que discrepar contigo. Esa foto está en el libro turístico. Lo tengo en mi colección.

Exactly with the same lighting, the same skin tone, etc., or something similar?

[CélineI'mAlive]

These are indeed true high-quality scans, not AI-generated ones that pretend to be high-quality files.

[Thomas]

On 6/7/2026 at 6:07 PM, CélineI'mAlive said:

Thomas, I respect your point of view, although I don’t share it. Nowadays there are many ways to verify whether a photo is AI-generated or not. The Complutense University of Madrid, for example, has a scanner to check it. That scanner is what I used to verify that photo of Céline and René. My position is that if this is a thread of unusual photos of Céline, then AI-generated images should not be posted under any circumstances, even if they are only edits. One thing is manual retouching done by the photographer and approved by Céline herself and her team, which forms part of the original image, and another is when AI completely recreates the image from scratch.

I think we know that Drove All Night would not post an AI photo unless they didn't realise. There are definitely tools to identify AI images but then are we expecting everyone to run a picture through these before sharing it, is that just how our lives are these days? I mean its a Celine Dion forum, its not a NASA data conference, it is OK for people to make mistakes and similarly OK for someone to correct them. But I think some understanding is needed if someone does post an AI image considering we have lived for decades without AI and most people probably assume an image they find is genuine, because until recently it most likely was.

[celine_dion_faces]

On 6/7/2026 at 7:14 PM, CélineI'mAlive said:

Exactly with the same lighting, the same skin tone, etc., or something similar?

This is a photo of the tourbook page I took a minute ago. So you can compare. 

 

[MaiconSC]

she doesn't have freckles on the original...

her eyebrows are larger in the AI upscale...

in the AI theres a shadow between the end of her eyebrow and her hair... that doesn't exist in the real pic...

 

anyways... it's clear when we compare side by side... do we have to do it for every single picture shared here? well, I don't have that time...

[blacktooth]

On 6/8/2026 at 2:56 AM, MaiconSC said:

she doesn't have freckles on the original...

her eyebrows are larger in the AI upscale...

in the AI theres a shadow between the end of her eyebrow and her hair... that doesn't exist in the real pic...

 

anyways... it's clear when we compare side by side... do we have to do it for every single picture shared here? well, I don't have that time...

I think the only problem here is the old woman 🤣 and I honestly don't understand why she get so upset whenever she sees an AI-enhanced photo. Technology will continue to evolve, and AI is now part of the reality of modern photography and image restoration. Rather than rejecting every AI-enhanced image outright, it's more useful to evaluate each image individually and consider how much has actually been changed. 

Anyway, this is a forum, and everyone should be free to share their opinions and perspectives, even when others don't agree with them. Healthy discussions are built on different viewpoints, and disagreement is perfectly normal. What shouldn't be normal is attacking, insulting, or belittling other members simply because they have a different opinion. People can debate ideas, challenge arguments, and express criticism without making things personal.

Not everyone will see topics the same way, whether it's AI-enhanced photos or any other subject. That's the whole point of having a discussion forum—to exchange thoughts and learn from different perspectives. If someone disagrees, they're free to explain why, but there should still be mutual respect among members. Constantly attacking people for their views only creates unnecessary hostility and discourages open conversation. We can disagree with each other without turning every discussion into a personal conflict.

[drove all night]

On 6/7/2026 at 9:33 PM, blacktooth said:

I think the only problem here is the old woman 🤣 and I honestly don't understand why she get so upset whenever she sees an AI-enhanced photo. Technology will continue to evolve, and AI is now part of the reality of modern photography and image restoration. Rather than rejecting every AI-enhanced image outright, it's more useful to evaluate each image individually and consider how much has actually been changed. 

Anyway, this is a forum, and everyone should be free to share their opinions and perspectives, even when others don't agree with them. Healthy discussions are built on different viewpoints, and disagreement is perfectly normal. What shouldn't be normal is attacking, insulting, or belittling other members simply because they have a different opinion. People can debate ideas, challenge arguments, and express criticism without making things personal.

Not everyone will see topics the same way, whether it's AI-enhanced photos or any other subject. That's the whole point of having a discussion forum—to exchange thoughts and learn from different perspectives. If someone disagrees, they're free to explain why, but there should still be mutual respect among members. Constantly attacking people for their views only creates unnecessary hostility and discourages open conversation. We can disagree with each other without turning every discussion into a personal conflict.

Alright, all others are in your opinion allowed to speak their opinion, only "I am the problem"?! How disrespectful!! 
And you don't "understand", why I dislike AI-pictures??!! When I read your other comment where you made fun of me because you wrote that I even defended already fake pictures as being real - how mean is that?! I don't know what pictures you mean - but I trusted people telling me that those weren't AI. As Thomas already wrote, I would never intentionally post AI images or defend them as being real! 
How mean can someone be, to not only spread fake pictures deliberately, and tell others they are real - but also make fun about people?! - And then you ask me, why I get angry on that matter???!!!
And why emphasize my age?!!! Since 2008 I'm member in this forum, putting together and sharing a lot of content with others, helping others with information as constructive as possible - never ever have I been insulted up here like that before! 
I'm a fan of Céline since 1988 and collecting pictures since then. Through tragic circumstances I lost my whole, huge picture collection some years ago, since then I started to build it up again partly very laborious, first in the "jungle of photoshop-pirates", and now even worse with the AI ones. Those people who feel the urgent need to COMPLETELY change pictures of well known photosessions and put them out there, claiming them as "rare". Those who create fake "new" material without watermaking the results. - Well, meanwhile I don't find it funny to always ask myself: "Can this picture be real or AI?" (and based on the reaction of other fans I'm definitively not alone with this!). 
I get angry about people spreading FAKE pictures, not what you call "enhanced"/quality improved. I dislike completely made up pictures with made up details that didn't exist in the original ones, like more hair or different hair color or changed eyes, different clothes, different people, …. That's what I deeply dislike as it's fooling people AND mostly as it's deeply disrespectful towards Céline and the photographers she's working with. Apart from the fact that it's violating copyright of photographers, because I am convinced that no one who changed pictures radically asked for permission or bought the copyright. 

 

Edited June 9, 2026 at 11:17 AM by drove all night

[Cullinan_13]

On 6/7/2026 at 7:56 PM, MaiconSC said:

she doesn't have freckles on the original...

her eyebrows are larger in the AI upscale...

in the AI theres a shadow between the end of her eyebrow and her hair... that doesn't exist in the real pic...

 

anyways... it's clear when we compare side by side... do we have to do it for every single picture shared here? well, I don't have that time...

The pictures are near enough identical. For those saying the photo is 'completely fake' - you are wrong. It has simply been enhanced to restore the details of the image and whoever did it has done a pretty fantastic job. I also don't like the fact we are addressing people as 'old woman!' Let's have some respect on here please.

[Cullinan_13]

And for those saying Céline has never had freckles : please be for real 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[blacktooth]

On 6/9/2026 at 9:25 PM, Cullinan_13 said:

The pictures are near enough identical. For those saying the photo is 'completely fake' - you are wrong. It has simply been enhanced to restore the details of the image and whoever did it has done a pretty fantastic job. I also don't like the fact we are addressing people as 'old woman!' Let's have some respect on here please.

 

Charlie Cullinan, "Have some respect?" That's rich. Respect is earned, not demanded. Perhaps she should try showing some respect to others first instead of acting as though she runs the place and everyone must agree with her. 

[blacktooth]

On 6/9/2026 at 7:04 PM, drove all night said:

Alright, all others are in your opinion allowed to speak their opinion, only "I am the problem"?! How disrespectful!! 
And you don't "understand", why I dislike AI-pictures??!! When I read your other comment where you made fun of me because you wrote that I even defended already fake pictures as being real - how mean is that?! I don't know what pictures you mean - but I trusted people telling me that those weren't AI. As Thomas already wrote, I would never intentionally post AI images or defend them as being real! 
How mean can someone be, to not only spread fake pictures deliberately, and tell others they are real - but also make fun about people?! - And then you ask me, why I get angry on that matter???!!!
And why emphasize my age?!!! Since 2008 I'm member in this forum, putting together and sharing a lot of content with others, helping others with information as constructive as possible - never ever have I been insulted up here like that before! 
I'm a fan of Céline since 1988 and collecting pictures since then. Through tragic circumstances I lost my whole, huge picture collection some years ago, since then I started to build it up again partly very laborious, first in the "jungle of photoshop-pirates", and now even worse with the AI ones. Those people who feel the urgent need to COMPLETELY change pictures of well known photosessions and put them out there, claiming them as "rare". Those who create fake "new" material without watermaking the results. - Well, meanwhile I don't find it funny to always ask myself: "Can this picture be real or AI?" (and based on the reaction of other fans I'm definitively not alone with this!). 
I get angry about people spreading FAKE pictures, not what you call "enhanced"/quality improved. I dislike completely made up pictures with made up details that didn't exist in the original ones, like more hair or different hair color or changed eyes, different clothes, different people, …. That's what I deeply dislike as it's fooling people AND mostly as it's deeply disrespectful towards Céline and the photographers she's working with. Apart from the fact that it's violating copyright of photographers, because I am convinced that no one who changed pictures radically asked for permission or bought the copyright. 

 

I understand your concerns about completely fabricated AI images being presented as real photos. In fact, I agree that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, especially when significant details have been altered or invented. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't place all AI-related images in the same category. There's a difference between creating an entirely fake image and enhancing an existing low-quality scan to make it cleaner or sharper.

That's precisely why we have a separate thread dedicated to AI-generated and AI-enhanced images. Yet AI images have already found their way into this thread, making it increasingly difficult for people to distinguish between authentic photos and AI-created content.

As for mentioning your age, that wasn't my intention. I respect the fact that you've been a member of this forum for many years and that you've contributed a great deal to the Céline fan community. We may disagree on AI, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the time and effort you've invested in preserving and sharing Céline-related content.

At the end of the day, we're both fans of Céline. We simply have different views on where AI enhancement becomes problematic, and that's okay.

Just a little piece of advice: don't be too sensitive. Not everything is meant as a personal attack, and you may not always know other people's intentions or feelings.

[MaiconSC]

On 6/9/2026 at 10:25 AM, Cullinan_13 said:

The pictures are near enough identical. For those saying the photo is 'completely fake' - you are wrong. It has simply been enhanced to restore the details of the image and whoever did it has done a pretty fantastic job. I also don't like the fact we are addressing people as 'old woman!' Let's have some respect on here please.

that's why I put them side by side... it's difficult to compare because they're almost identical... what's fake is the parts created by the AI upscale...

Edited June 9, 2026 at 04:57 PM by MaiconSC

[MaiconSC]

On 6/9/2026 at 10:28 AM, Cullinan_13 said:

And for those saying Céline has never had freckles : please be for real 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

if you just read what I wrote in my post, I said she doesn't have freckles ON THE ORIGINAL PICTURE...

if you're saying this directed to me, you're implying I said she doesn't have in her life... then you're putting words in my mouth...

Edited June 9, 2026 at 05:00 PM by MaiconSC

[Cullinan_13]

On 6/9/2026 at 5:56 PM, MaiconSC said:

if you just read what I wrote in my post, I said she doesn't have freckles ON THE ORIGINAL PICTURE...

if you're saying this directed to me, you're implying I said she doesn't have in her life... then you're putting words in my mouth...

No I wasn’t directing it at you. @CélineI'mAlive said “Céline has never had freckles” 

Edited June 9, 2026 at 06:59 PM by Cullinan_13

[Unison Addict]

On 6/10/2026 at 1:58 AM, Cullinan_13 said:

No I wasn’t directing it at you. @CélineI'mAlive said “Céline has never had freckles” 

Yeah her freckles are mostly visible when she wears no make up, or a minimalist makeup. I’ve seen other photo which I believe from 1999 where she had minimalist makeup and her freckles were visible.

[Unison Addict]

On 6/9/2026 at 8:52 PM, blacktooth said:

 

Charlie Cullinan, "Have some respect?" That's rich. Respect is earned, not demanded. Perhaps she should try showing some respect to others first instead of acting as though she runs the place and everyone must agree with her. 

Yeah but referring someone as an “old woman” is just too much and straight fully disrespectful as age can be really sensitive to some people. 

[blacktooth]

On 6/10/2026 at 10:11 AM, Unison Addict said:

Yeah but referring someone as an “old woman” is just too much and straight fully disrespectful as age can be really sensitive to some people. 

You're right that some people may find age-related remarks disrespectful. My intention wasn't to attack her because she's older; it was to call out what I saw as a condescending attitude. Looking back, I probably could have made the same point without bringing age into it. 
That's why i said RESPECT is EARNED not DEMANDED. 

[Davey84]

Can we PLEASE leave the discussion to this?! Every member on this forum should be respectful towards another member.

Yes in this day and age it can be very annoying to determine if a photo is real, AI enhanced or generated by AI. This thread is for real pictures only! You can post AI enhanced or generated ones in this thread: