AI Enchanced Photos

[blacktooth]

[Celine0384]

On 6/6/2026 at 9:23 PM, blacktooth said:

Thank you so much for that 😍😍😍

[blacktooth]

[Taking Chances]

On 5/22/2026 at 11:19 PM, Thomas said:

It's an interesting discussion that I like to read people's input on. I do have some thoughts.

You could put a tag in the corner like I did for my completely made up creations, I did that so people knew it wasn't an upscale or an unreleased shot. I think it goes someway to helping. But haters of AI will not settle for that, even a huge watermark across her face wouldn't cut it. The fact AI was used at all is enough for that work to be worthless/slop/disrespectful. And I am not talking about drove all night who you quoted, who has valid opinions and deserves to have her say. I am sure you have come across it yourself, it's an automatic hatred because the word AI is used, without even looking to see where it was used or why.

"Photoshopping" has been carried out since the invention of photography, long before computers. I was learning recently about photographers in the 1900's who carefully edited slides and painstakingly etched away or painted over wrinkles and improved hairstyles to make people look better and remove imperfections. Then it became easier and quicker with the invention of computers. Now what would have taken hours can be done in seconds, using the latest advancements in AI. Is it any better painting over a negative with acrylic paint than airbrushing a magazine cover with a computer and mouse? Or having AI improve a screenshot or a magazine scan in seconds? Not really, it's still editing an image to create an illusion, it isn't real. How can one illusion be acceptable and the other not?

Photoshopping became so standardised that it's part of life, a magazine cover without any airbrushing is so rare that it would probably only be done to make a statement against unrealistic beauty standards. It's almost unheard of. In fact, the haters of AI probably enjoy a million Celine photos that are airbrushed and photoshopped from all throughout her career. I would argue that editing Celine's nose smaller, reducing her chin, making her look 30 years younger is MORE disrespectful than someone using AI to envision a new album concept, a poster or a DVD cover. And yet we have seen it in official photos as recent as the Paris 2026 announcement, I'm not sure they could be any more airbrushed if they tried.

Yes I realise there is a whole separate argument about using Celine's image and the rights to use it. And there is definitely a difference between scanning in an old magazine and restoring it to making a completely made up image of Celine on the Moon, for instance. I think there will be specific laws brought in to address it. Not because someone made a poster, I think Celine as an incredibly progressive and open-minded person would find things like that very interesting, I think she would be amazed and impressed. But because of the people who put her in a bikini or stockings and lingerie (I'm sure we have all seen those on Facebook, they are not acceptable on this forum).

 

I've been meaning to reply this post for a while, but I just now got around to it. 

I think the comparison to Photoshop is fair up to a point. Photography has never been a purely objective record of reality. Long before computers, people were retouching negatives, painting over prints, staging scenes, and altering images to create a desired effect. Digital editing simply made those processes faster and more accessible.

That said, I think the discomfort some people have with AI is not entirely irrational either. Traditional editing usually starts with an image that actually existed. AI can go further by generating entirely new content that never existed at all, sometimes without a clear line between restoration, enhancement, and fabrication. For some people, that shift feels significant.

Where I struggle is when people treat the mere presence of AI as automatically making something "slop" or morally worthless, without considering how it was used. There's a meaningful difference between restoring an old magazine scan, creating a clearly labeled fan-made album concept, and generating deceptive or sexualized images designed to mislead people. Intent, transparency, and context matter.

To me, the real ethical question isn't "Was AI involved?" but "What was it used for, and was the audience being misled?" If someone openly says, "This is an AI-assisted fan creation," I don't see that as inherently more disrespectful than decades of heavy retouching and airbrushing that have been widely accepted, including in official promotional photography.

People are free to dislike AI aesthetically. They may simply prefer untouched photographs, and that's a valid preference. But I don't think the technology itself is automatically the dividing line between acceptable creativity and unacceptable creativity. The way it's used is what matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blacktooth]

On 6/9/2026 at 9:21 PM, Taking Chances said:

I've been meaning to reply this post for a while, but I just now got around to it. 

I think the comparison to Photoshop is fair up to a point. Photography has never been a purely objective record of reality. Long before computers, people were retouching negatives, painting over prints, staging scenes, and altering images to create a desired effect. Digital editing simply made those processes faster and more accessible.

That said, I think the discomfort some people have with AI is not entirely irrational either. Traditional editing usually starts with an image that actually existed. AI can go further by generating entirely new content that never existed at all, sometimes without a clear line between restoration, enhancement, and fabrication. For some people, that shift feels significant.

Where I struggle is when people treat the mere presence of AI as automatically making something "slop" or morally worthless, without considering how it was used. There's a meaningful difference between restoring an old magazine scan, creating a clearly labeled fan-made album concept, and generating deceptive or sexualized images designed to mislead people. Intent, transparency, and context matter.

To me, the real ethical question isn't "Was AI involved?" but "What was it used for, and was the audience being misled?" If someone openly says, "This is an AI-assisted fan creation," I don't see that as inherently more disrespectful than decades of heavy retouching and airbrushing that have been widely accepted, including in official promotional photography.

People are free to dislike AI aesthetically. They may simply prefer untouched photographs, and that's a valid preference. But I don't think the technology itself is automatically the dividing line between acceptable creativity and unacceptable creativity. The way it's used is what matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that's a very balanced way of looking at it, and I mostly agree. The comparison to Photoshop makes sense because image manipulation has existed long before AI. People have been restoring, retouching, enhancing, and even altering photographs for decades. The tools have changed, but the idea of improving or modifying images is nothing new.

What I find interesting is that some people react more strongly to the word "AI" than to the actual result. If an old photo is cleaned up, sharpened, color-corrected, or partially reconstructed to make it more presentable, many viewers wouldn't object if the same work were done manually in Photoshop. Yet the moment AI assists with the process, some immediately dismiss it as worthless or deceptive without considering how it was used.

I completely agree that transparency matters. If someone is presenting an AI-assisted restoration or fan creation as an authentic historical photograph, that's misleading. But if the creator is open about the process, then I don't see why AI should automatically be treated as unethical or disrespectful. Like any tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly.

At the end of the day, I think context and intent matter far more than whether AI was involved. People are free to prefer untouched photographs, but I don't think the mere presence of AI should be the sole factor used to judge the value or legitimacy of a piece of work.

To be honest, this discussion has also made me reconsider sharing my artwork here. It feels like no matter how much effort goes into creating or restoring something, some people have already decided that anything involving AI has no value. Because of that, I think I'd rather keep my work to myself or share it only with people who genuinely appreciate it.

What I find particularly ironic is that some of the same people who constantly criticize AI-generated or AI-assisted artwork will still spend time looking through it, commenting on it, and sometimes even saving it for themselves. 
 

This will be my last post here. 😄

Thank you, @Thomas for creating this thread and giving people who enjoy making artwork a place to share their creations. I've had fun contributing and seeing the creativity of others.

Unfortunately, I've come to realize that not everyone appreciates this type of content, and that's perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences. For me, however, I'd rather spend my time sharing my work with people who enjoy it rather than constantly debating whether it should exist in the first place.

I wish the best to everyone who continues posting here, and I hope this thread remains a place where creativity can be shared and appreciated. Thanks again to everyone who supported, commented on, or enjoyed my work along the way. 😊

[Taking Chances]

On 6/10/2026 at 6:17 AM, blacktooth said:

To be honest, this discussion has also made me reconsider sharing my artwork here. It feels like no matter how much effort goes into creating or restoring something, some people have already decided that anything involving AI has no value. Because of that, I think I'd rather keep my work to myself or share it only with people who genuinely appreciate it.

This will be my last post here. 😄

I sincerely hope it was not my post that made you feel like you don't want to post your work here. That was not my intention! I just wanted to reflect on the use of AI in photography.

If I haven't already told you this, I love your work, and I think it's quite important to restore old photos. In fact, this particular thread is one of my favorites threads on the entire forum because the amazing work you and some of the others members are doing. 

As for the very vocal people disliking AI, I say they will just have to adjust. AI is a tool, and its not magic that just creates these images on their own without guidance. AI needs a person to tell it what to do, usually along with manual editing. Some people don't seem to understand the value it, which I honestly think is crazy. Let's take a crazy comparison, people also hated the Internet when it was new, and AI in general is comparable to that because of it's vast use, and because of how new the technology is. 

So again, please don't stop sharing your work. Seeing these amazingly restored images, or new projects created has been really great, and I don't want it to stop just because some people can't see the value in AI yet. AI is not bad, it's just a leap in technology.

We are also in the "AI Enhanced Photos" thread, and I haven't seen anyone make anything or post irresponsibly with their AI creations. Usually it's restorations. Sometimes it's new images. Just go back before AI became a thing, remember how many badly photoshopped images there was on celebrities in general. People will always use their creativity to make something, and they did this before AI was a thing.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry to see you go from the topic @blacktooth. As AI advancements continue to happen and it becomes more and more integrated into our lives, I think a lot of people will come to appreciate what it can do. Thanks for sharing your artwork with us, feel free to return any time of course.

---

One of my favourite photos, it was one of the promo pics I was sent by the official fan club when I wrote to Celine about 25 years ago, thinking I would get a personal reply...stupid kid lol. They sent a few photos and postcards to say thanks for writing, which was still nice of them!

Click for HQ:

[Thomas]

A couple of beautiful pregnant Celine outtakes from the Thierry Maxime Lori photoshoot in 2001.

Click for HQ:

[blacktooth]

On 6/10/2026 at 5:45 PM, Taking Chances said:

I sincerely hope it was not my post that made you feel like you don't want to post your work here. That was not my intention! I just wanted to reflect on the use of AI in photography.

If I haven't already told you this, I love your work, and I think it's quite important to restore old photos. In fact, this particular thread is one of my favorites threads on the entire forum because the amazing work you and some of the others members are doing. 

As for the very vocal people disliking AI, I say they will just have to adjust. AI is a tool, and its not magic that just creates these images on their own without guidance. AI needs a person to tell it what to do, usually along with manual editing. Some people don't seem to understand the value it, which I honestly think is crazy. Let's take a crazy comparison, people also hated the Internet when it was new, and AI in general is comparable to that because of it's vast use, and because of how new the technology is. 

So again, please don't stop sharing your work. Seeing these amazingly restored images, or new projects created has been really great, and I don't want it to stop just because some people can't see the value in AI yet. AI is not bad, it's just a leap in technology.

We are also in the "AI Enhanced Photos" thread, and I haven't seen anyone make anything or post irresponsibly with their AI creations. Usually it's restorations. Sometimes it's new images. Just go back before AI became a thing, remember how many badly photoshopped images there was on celebrities in general. People will always use their creativity to make something, and they did this before AI was a thing.

Please don't worry—your post wasn't the reason I felt discouraged. In fact, I understood your point and appreciated the discussion. What has been disappointing is seeing how some people immediately dismiss anything that involves AI without taking the time to understand how it is actually being used. Your support and kind words truly mean a lot. They remind me that there are many people here who appreciate the effort and passion behind these projects, and I'm very grateful for that.

[Celine0384]

On 6/13/2026 at 2:50 PM, Thomas said:

A couple of beautiful pregnant Celine outtakes from the Thierry Maxime Lori photoshoot in 2001.

Click for HQ:

Thank you for that ! 😍 so beautiful !!!! 

[Celine0384]

On 17/06/2026 at 02:32, blacktooth said:

Ne vous inquiétez pas, votre message n'est pas la cause de mon découragement. Au contraire, j'ai compris votre point de vue et j'ai apprécié la discussion. Ce qui est décevant, c'est de voir comment certains rejettent d'emblée tout ce qui touche à l'IA, sans prendre le temps de comprendre comment elle est concrètement utilisée. Votre soutien et vos gentils mots me touchent beaucoup. Ils me rappellent que beaucoup de personnes ici apprécient les efforts et la passion qui animent ces projets, et je vous en suis très reconnaissant.

you do a wonderful job, you fill my eyes with wonder with each of your creations and image improvements. I will always support you, I am a huge admirer. you are a beautiful person.  my boy! 😋