AI Enchanced Photos

[Jumongmarzo1678]

As a further test, I uploaded some low quality screenshots from a couple of Celine's music videos and asked for it to turn them into real photos taken on a modern day digital camera. I think the results from this was good.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Can I Ask What Is The Prompt You Used On It I Wanna Try It Out omgg This Is Looks Very Good

[Thomas]

It was just a very basic prompt such as:

 

"Edit the image so it appears to be taken on a modern and professional DSLR camera. Do not change the pose. The model is youthful and her skin is smooth."

 

I was having to add the part at the end because it was very good at recognising Celine and was putting her modern face on the image instead, or her face from say 2015. In fact, even from extremely poor screenshots at like 240p, it would know it was Celine. But a lot of the time it prefers to put her older face on it automatically, unless you tell it she is young.

[Thomas]

A few more HQ upscales:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2025 at 02:47 PM by Thomas

[Thomas]

I know a lot of people don't seem that interested in the graphics section or this AI topic so this discussion might not get much traction, but I would still love to know people's opinions on the use of AI in graphics and where you personally draw the line in editing pictures of Celine. Especially now the latest models are able to produce incredible results and this will only get better in the coming years.

 

If I present 3 images below. The top image is the original image found on the forum in low quality, the second one is AI enhanced to be as close and accurate to the original as possible, the third image is an AI edit to remove the background.

 

Which of the images are you OK with, if any?

• Do you think taking an old and blurry photo and making it look crisp and new is OK, providing it has absolutely NO changes and appears just the same as the original but it better quality?
  

• Do you think changing certain parts of it is OK if it makes the image nicer to view, such as fixing creases and rips, removing text from old magazine covers, restoring it accurately? The kind of thing Photoshop has been doing for decades anyway, just automatically via AI.
  

• Do you think it's OK to go nuts and change outfits for fun, make up new backgrounds, change her hair, create new scenes?
  

• Or do you think the image should be kept 100% as it was, even if the quality and resolution is very poor?
  

I would love to know what people think and why!

 

 

 

[Ben]

I really really like what I see here. Very impressive. As long as it is clearly stated as AI I love it so much!

 

Can anyone do something with pictures from the musicvideo of Then You Look At Me? I think she looks so incredible good and sexy in that outfit but I don't find proper pictures online... and I tried chatgpt. sometimes it tells me it is against the policy and sometimes it produces horrible pictures like these:

 

 

thank you so much!

Edited December 21, 2025 at 08:38 PM by Ben

[Thomas]

It seems to struggle a little bit with the metal plate thing in front of her neck, but here are a few.

 

 

 

[Ben]

wow thank you so much! These are so good! Thank you!!!!

[Davey84]

It seems to struggle a little bit with the metal plate thing in front of her neck, but here are a few.

 

 

 

 

I think her boobies got enhanced too! but these looks amazing! Thank you! I love the one of the Belong shoot too!

I don't mind enhancing old photo's, but I dislike when it starts to alter Célines features!

[Thomas]

Well I didn't ask for that!

 

What are our thoughts on un-studiofying or un-photoshopping images? I have done this manually in the past for fun, but does it seem too much? I imagine the original image taken by Andre Rau was much closer to the AI image, since she ironically looks more human and realistic. But then it was photoshopped to the version we know.

 

Is un-photoshopping it just for fun and letting our imagination go wild or is it disrespectful to the photographer?

 

[Thomas]

The flip side is to just have some fun, such as imaginary outtakes from the ANDHC shoot.

 

 

 

 

[Celine Fan 77]

These last ones are so impressive Thomas!

[CélineI'mAlive]

I've been testing the new Gemini 3 Pro (Nano Banana) to see how capable it is to remove text and graphics from old magazine covers, single covers etc. There are lots of rare photos that have been used in magazines and posters over the years so the experiment is to see how easily it can clean them up and how good the result is.

 

You can judge if you think the results are satisfactory. I know a lot of people do not like any kind of AI editing and also a lot of people have fun doing this work manually and find a lot of enjoyment in this work, it is not to detract from that but rather to see how it compares and if it can be a useful tool in restoring old images.

 

All of these were created automatically in a few seconds, which I think is very impressive. A graphic designer could then take the results and use them as good base to fix any errors.

 

 

Examples:

 

 

 

 

Starting with the Japanese phone card images.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, as Céline’s archivist, I feel I have a love–hate relationship with it, because sometimes when I download photos, the AI is so good that fake AI-generated images slip through. That said, it’s still an incredibly useful and impressive tool. To be honest, Thomas, I’ve been very pleasantly surprised by what this tool is capable of doing. It offers so many possibilities!

[Thomas]

Yeah I'm basically on the same wavelength. I can see how useful it is and how fun it can be, but also how deceptive. I do really like the conversation though about where people draw the line. It's fun to use it and imagine scenarios but not everyone tags their work as AI and we'll definitely be relying on embedded watermarks and meta data shortly, because it will be completely undetectable by the naked eye. And of course there is the legal thing about using someone's image. If a fan does it for fun, it's probably not the end of the world, people have been photoshopping things for years and changing hair and outfits and backgrounds and designing up album covers and concepts (not as believable, of course) but it's just as easy for someone to use it maliciously.

 

What I really hate is when I watch a video on YouTube and it has been "upscaled" and it's really awful, and I wonder how anyone could prefer it. Sometimes it is so bad! And then I can no longer find the original video, and people are re-sharing the AI version, and I worry the original is lost forever...

 

I've seen a few posts on Instagram this week, one in particular was advertising a Celine comeback concert in London which used an AI picture. It was just a made up story and the image was convincing, but all the comments are either fans saying "OMG that's amazing" and being really excited and others are questioning "Is this AI?". No where could I see the person saying it was AI, so in a way it is tricking the fans. Probably not on purpose! But when it looks so real, that is bound to happen.

[CélineI'mAlive]

Yeah I'm basically on the same wavelength. I can see how useful it is and how fun it can be, but also how deceptive. I do really like the conversation though about where people draw the line. It's fun to use it and imagine scenarios but not everyone tags their work as AI and we'll definitely be relying on embedded watermarks and meta data shortly, because it will be completely undetectable by the naked eye. And of course there is the legal thing about using someone's image. If a fan does it for fun, it's probably not the end of the world, people have been photoshopping things for years and changing hair and outfits and backgrounds and designing up album covers and concepts (not as believable, of course) but it's just as easy for someone to use it maliciously.

 

What I really hate is when I watch a video on YouTube and it has been "upscaled" and it's really awful, and I wonder how anyone could prefer it. Sometimes it is so bad! And then I can no longer find the original video, and people are re-sharing the AI version, and I worry the original is lost forever...

 

I've seen a few posts on Instagram this week, one in particular was advertising a Celine comeback concert in London which used an AI picture. It was just a made up story and the image was convincing, but all the comments are either fans saying "OMG that's amazing" and being really excited and others are questioning "Is this AI?". No where could I see the person saying it was AI, so in a way it is tricking the fans. Probably not on purpose! But when it looks so real, that is bound to happen.

I completely agree with you, Thomas. The problem isn’t using it to edit photos, but rather using it with bad intentions. I understand that ChatGPT and other AI systems need to have some kind of limits so they don’t fulfill requests they believe could have harmful purposes, but the real issue is when someone creates an AI from scratch and doesn’t impose these limits.

Precisely what you mention about the original videos being lost forever is truly a shame and a real concern. For example, I have a huge number of Céline videos in VOB format (DVD quality but structured as if they were just another video file). They actually look great—almost HD. I don’t understand this trend of restoring videos with AI, when it would really be enough to upload the original VOB to YouTube.

In my case, I’ve found many VOB files online, extracted from old Céline DVDs, and I can assure you that their resolution is much better (almost 1080p) than that of the remastered versions on Céline’s official YouTube channel, because those remasters, as I imagine you know, lose detail in the videos.

 

I actually found a 2,000 GB (2-terabyte) external hard drive at home, and I’m putting everything I can from Céline on it in VOB format and in its original version, without any kind of remastering. That way, in the future, it can serve as a huge library for everyone, where the original, unremastered material can be found.

In fact, I’ve now managed to get some recordings from a Céline TV program from the 1990s, recorded using one of those TV recorders from that era, preserving the original file. It’s almost 1080p and without any kind of AI reconversion.

Edited January 3, 2026 at 11:40 PM by CélineI'mAlive

[CélineI'mAlive]

Look at these screenshots, for example, from a Céline promo-only DVD for nightclubs. From the 1990s, and without any kind of filter or AI modification. Look at their quality. “Look at these screenshots, for example, from a Céline promo-only DVD for nightclubs. From the 1990s, and without any kind of filter or AI modification. Look at their quality.”

[CélineI'mAlive]

Look at these screenshots, for example, from a Céline promo-only DVD for nightclubs. From the 1990s, and without any kind of filter or AI modification. Look at their quality. “Look at these screenshots, for example, from a Céline promo-only DVD for nightclubs. From the 1990s, and without any kind of filter or AI modification. Look at their quality.”

[Davey84]

The flip side is to just have some fun, such as imaginary outtakes from the ANDHC shoot.

 

these look really realistic!! Incredible! If you'd said these are real outtakes, I would have believed so!

 

Although I do hate AI generated Céline pictures... I actually used the one where's she's sitting on the sand as my screenlock wallpaper! thanks Thomas!!

[henriiques]

The flip side is to just have some fun, such as imaginary outtakes from the ANDHC shoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They turned out perfect, congratulations!!!

 

Did you do the same with the ATW & LTAL cover?

[Thomas]

Yes I did make some in the style of the LTAL cover, and some from the album shoot. I imagine her hair was tied back for the cover shot, maybe in a bun or ponytail. But I have also imaged her hair down in other shots. Click on them for the HQ version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[henriiques]

Yes I did make some in the style of the LTAL cover, and some from the album shoot. I imagine her hair was tied back for the cover shot, maybe in a bun or ponytail. But I have also imaged her hair down in other shots. Click on them for the HQ version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you tried making an uncropped version of the ATW cover? I've tried hundreds of times and it hasn't worked!🥹

 

[Thomas]

Yes it's difficult to expand that photo as there isn't much for the AI to work from, even using reference photos it often doesn't look like Celine. Here are some I thought were OK. And some from the pool shoot, as we don't have many from that.

 

Click for the full size HQ:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CélineI'mAlive]

Good quality, Thomas!! I have a question. This is AI?

 

Thanks!!

[Thomas]

It has been AI extended on both sides, the original image doesn't show her knees or as much background.

 

[CélineI'mAlive]

[nombre de la cita=Marca temporal de Thomas='1767869768' publicación='2472136]

Ha sido extendido por IA en ambos lados, la imagen original no muestra sus rodillas ni tanto fondo.

 

[/cita]

Thanks, Thomas! To be honest, I had had that photo I sent you in my archive for months, because I thought it was real. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Davey84]

@thomas such a shame this is so expensive, otherwise it would have been very cool for you!

 

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/326955001504

 

[Thomas]

pretty cool!

 

But it's so much to pay for an autograph made out to someone else, I always wondered why you would want something signed "To Maria" or whoever, when you are called Brian. Always seemed a bit odd!

[blacktooth]

I've been testing the new Gemini 3 Pro (Nano Banana) to see how capable it is to remove text and graphics from old magazine covers, single covers etc. There are lots of rare photos that have been used in magazines and posters over the years so the experiment is to see how easily it can clean them up and how good the result is.

 

You can judge if you think the results are satisfactory. I know a lot of people do not like any kind of AI editing and also a lot of people have fun doing this work manually and find a lot of enjoyment in this work, it is not to detract from that but rather to see how it compares and if it can be a useful tool in restoring old images.

 

All of these were created automatically in a few seconds, which I think is very impressive. A graphic designer could then take the results and use them as good base to fix any errors.

 

 

Examples:

 

 

 

 

Starting with the Japanese phone card images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been doing this since last year, but there's a big difference in our results. You seem to be getting 4K resolution, while mine tops out at around 1500 pixels—even when I specifically prompt for '4K.' Are you using Gemini 3 Pro as an Adobe Photoshop add-on?

[blacktooth]

pretty cool!

 

But it's so much to pay for an autograph made out to someone else, I always wondered why you would want something signed "To Maria" or whoever, when you are called Brian. Always seemed a bit odd!

 

 

Try this!

[Thomas]

I love that photoshoot, it's one of my favourites.

 

I do use the Photoshop plugin but yes this has limited output resolution as you say, the magazine covers were restored with the plugin version. But it's not so good for high res.

 

For 4K you have to use Nano Banana Pro version and this is available from a few sources, but I use Higgsfield AI as I like some of their other apps, particularly their skin enhancer which I find to be more realistic. But you can get it from other places, I think Freepik offer it and also the higher tier of Google subscriptions that give you an API key.

 

I read that if you create an API key on the Google AI Studio at the moment (https://aistudio.google.com/api-keys) it will give you $300 free credits to try it out for 90 days, which is enough for thousands of photo generations. I have not used their version but that could be worth a try!

[Thomas]

Yes I can confirm you can create an API key on Google AI Studio and they will let you try it for 90 days without charge. There are options on the side for resolution and you can choose 4K.