Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums
MoraMoria

Phil's Print Club

Recommended Posts

Greetings.

I open this thread by reason of me messing around with the "FaceApp" and "Photoshop", in regards to the editing of faces. I think it could be fun to see the extent of the application, (combined with the skill you choose to invest, after applying the filters), as long as there is no malicious intent by the uploader. I also asked Phil directly, in beforehand, to make sure there's no problem in me opening the thread, and there isn't.

Just before posting anything here, whether comment or file, if you decide to do so, please make sure that you comply with the "Forum Rules & Regulations", and that you have permission by licence, and/or by the person/people who appear in the image, before uploading any content, including Phil. You must also send a preview of the images to him, so that he approves it/them, before you post it/them. (This measure was suggested by me.)

So, I myself will be posting some edited pictures of Phil to start the thread, (I only have like a dozen or so), and to make it more interesting, if you want, you can rate them in terms of how natural and real they look, because, if you keep applying filters, then, it ends up looking unrecognizible, so I tried to make them scarce.
If I'm not mistaken, this russian 'app' uses relatively current 'neural network computing' technology, which is far from perfect and has its limitations, which is why the images I'm uploading are the decent ones, and are different enough from each other.

(This is just fun stuff, so please, do not leave offensive comments, do not post 'detractor' content, and do follow the aforementioned rules.)

Response.png

Edited by MoraMoria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the edited pictures that I'll be posting here are taken from Phil's Youtube/Instagram/Twitter.

Here are the very first ones that I tried on this software, (FaceApp), and I believe they did not require "Photoshop" at all, although I'm not sure how many times one of them was filtered to get to that result. Normally, when applying the 'gender' filter, it ends up making the person look like a supermodel, and most of the time, regardless of the image used, they will look very similar as it highly exaggerates facial features and skin/makeup, (Specially when filtering to 'female'), which is why these ones surprised me. They do not look ridiculously fake, and I'm pretty sure I even know someone that resembles the second one.

So, what do you think, do these images seem genuine?

A1.png

A2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, its creepy as fuck to me to look at someones face, let alone another man, and think to edit it into a female.

On a side note, I think face app is for transgenders who want to see how they'd look when they transition completely over.

No offense to anyone, its just not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, LabRatAttack said:

Gotta say, its creepy as fuck to me to look at someones face, let alone another man, and think to edit it into a female.

On a side note, I think face app is for transgenders who want to see how they'd look when they transition completely over.

No offense to anyone, its just not for me.

Of course the "App" takes advantage of current times/trends to boost its popularity, and if you think about it, it's somewhat ingenious, since they developed a specific software at the right time.

And you could say that it looks "weird"/"creepy", it wouldn't be surprising, regardless of which face you choose to edit, (By the way, if you filter to 'male', it looks even worse.), but it's interesting to me, to see how the algorithm/program manages to "interpret" the face structure, and even angle of it, and modifies it, to accomplish a proper result.

There are some 'studies' that I have not looked enough into yet, but it regards how the angle of the face boosts physical beauty, (By normal standards). This is why you see that some of the photos are being slightly tilted to one side, depending on the image. I will submit another one in which this seems more apparent, and when I first looked at it, it got me wondering about some other things regarding the importance of the elements of photography, (even if they're subtle), that can make you portray what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, it's time for some other filters. As you can see, in these ones, I just altered the age and hair, several times. I was reluctant of posting the 'blonde-hair' one, because it wasn't properly integrated in the image, but I figured I might as well post it. I believe I also used 'Photoshop', but only a little, and to correct a couple of things.

B2.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so in these ones you can see the 'App' making an image that you'd probably not want, and two that you would. The one that you don't want to get is the one on the left, because it almost eliminates/covers almost all of the person's traits. I believe the shape of the face is accurate for the image that I took, but it applied too much makeup and softened the texture excessively. It's a surprise that it worked, taking into consideration that in the original image he's wearing the 'ATK-hat'.

The ones that you want to get are the ones on the right, because for some reason or another, it didn't went 'overboard', if you will, and kept basic face-structures somewhat "untouched". They required several filters.

B1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MoraMoria said:

Ok, so in these ones you can see the 'App' making an image that you'd probably not want, and two that you would. The one that you don't want to get is the one on the left, because it almost eliminates/covers almost all of the person's traits. I believe the shape of the face is accurate for the image that I took, but it applied too much makeup and softened the texture excessively. It's a surprise that it worked, taking into consideration that in the original image he's wearing the 'ATK-hat'.

The ones that you want to get are the ones on the right, because for some reason or another, it didn't went 'overboard', if you will, and kept basic face-structures somewhat "untouched". They required several filters.

B1.png

This is still fucking weird bro..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 10:46 PM, MoraMoria said:

 

Just before posting anything here, whether comment or file, if you decide to do so, please make sure that you comply with the "Forum Rules & Regulations", and that you have permission by licence, and/or by the person/people who appear in the image, before uploading any content, including Phil. You must also send a preview of the images to him, so that he approves it/them, before you post it/them. (This measure was suggested by me.)

Response.png

Yeah, ummm...sooo you post a thread inviting people to play around with an app to alter images, BUT require them to send the images for approval before posting them? 

1) Send them where?

2) How long is this 'approval period going to take?

3)The forums have mods, right?  

Additionally, what's the point?  Say one spends an afternoon making a number of images they like, sends said images where ever...but do not "get approved".  Now what?  Personally, if I choose to spend time on an image to post on a forum for a thread that " has been approved", I feel it over reaching to REQUIRE the images to be sent for an additional second party approval before being able to post one's work.  I will at this time point venture to say that if one feels that requiring 2nd party approval for posting on a Public Forum to be a good suggestion, that person might feel more comfortable in a Whitelisted Community.

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElectricSheepDreams said:

  Additionally, what's the point?  

That's exactly what im asking. What the hell is this for? To get better at Photoshop? Your muse is Phil's face? Why beautify or turn Phil into a woman and practice on other things? 

I know Phil approved this, I just dont get the why. It just kind of wierd, especially with the intentions of "rating" these photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ElectricSheepDreams said:

Yeah, ummm...sooo you post a thread inviting people to play around with an app to alter images, BUT require them to send the images for approval before posting them? 

1) Send them where?

2) How long is this 'approval period going to take?

3)The forums have mods, right?  

Additionally, what's the point?  Say one spends an afternoon making a number of images they like, sends said images where ever...but do not "get approved".  Now what?  Personally, if I choose to spend time on an image to post on a forum for a thread that " has been approved", I feel it over reaching to REQUIRE the images to be sent for an additional second party approval before being able to post one's work.  I will at this time point venture to say that if one feels that requiring 2nd party approval for posting on a Public Forum to be a good suggestion, that person might feel more comfortable in a Whitelisted Community.

First of all, I already figured out that no one, or almost no one would post here, except for me, however if for some reason you want to, there is a way to do it. Taking this into consideration, I factored in that maybe someone would try to post 'detractor' content or whatever you want to call it, so I put forward this rule/measure that would at least reduce the possibility of it. You obviously would send it to Phil, via email or PM, with an overview of them, (doesn't need to be one by one).

Now for the second part: what is the point of it? The point of it, is not a serious thing, is just to post photos using the mentioned software, if you want. You might think that this thread is not as valuable as other in which you discuss/debate philosophical topics, for example, but there are currently 3376 that you can access to right now, and 4766 total threads that were created in the history of this website, some of which, are dedicated to ask a single question that was already answered, talk about the envelope/box of a pizza, talk about some food you ate, and post pictures of sharks.

I hope that after reading this, you allow me to post this thread, that was presented to the Admin. so that is verified, even if its purpose is not what you'd expect. And again, you have the free will to post or not to, or to decide to make the images or not.

8 hours ago, LabRatAttack said:

That's exactly what im asking. What the hell is this for? To get better at Photoshop? Your muse is Phil's face? Why beautify or turn Phil into a woman and practice on other things? 

I know Phil approved this, I just dont get the why. It just kind of wierd, especially with the intentions of "rating" these photos.

When I said 'rate' the image, I didn't mean it like what you're implying. Just as if the person that appears in the image looks real or not, because in most cases the 'App' doesn't do the job properly. And like I said above, you can do it if you want.

Why do I have to use Phil's face? I don't. I just did ones that involve Phil and decided to get permission to post them. As for the purpose of the thread, it's explained in the response to "ElectricSheepDreams", just above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Amityville said:

Mora, you are good at Photoshop dude.

Report the obvious trolls dude. Haters gonna hate.

Thank you.

So far, most of the work in these images has been done by the 'App', but I also use 'Photoshop' for other things, along with some video editing softwares for some unrelated projects.

This thread was just for fun, I didn't thought that people would react like this, and it's not like I'm forcing or demanding anything, I even made sure to get permission to start the thread.

Edited by MoraMoria
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MoraMoria said:

...Now for the second part: what is the point of it? The point of it, is not a serious thing, is just to post photos using the mentioned software, if you want. You might think that this thread is not as valuable as other in which you discuss/debate philosophical topics, for example, but there are currently 3376 that you can access to right now, and 4766 total threads that were created in the history of this website, some of which, are dedicated to ask a single question that was already answered, talk about the envelope/box of a pizza, talk about some food you ate, and post pictures of sharks.

I hope that after reading this, you allow me to post this thread, that was presented to the Admin. so that is verified, even if its purpose is not what you'd expect. And again, you have the free will to post or not to, or to decide to make the images or not.

...

Reading the entire paragraph in my reply, I feel would have cleared up your misunderstanding of the question.  IF images are required to be forwarded to a 2nd party for approved before posting them...what's the point? If someone takes the time to make images they are happy enough with to post on a Public Forum, I see no need to mandate that the images be held for review prior to being allowed to post them nor do I know of any other thread requiring people to submit their posts for approval prior to posting them.  As for this being a measure to weed out detractor submissions, I will point out that a great number of fan art posted on these Forums containing detractor references were approved and USED on streams until 3rd parties pointed these things out.

 

As for "allowing you to post this thread"...it's already posted and only Staff have the ability to remove threads once they are posted.  My reply in your thread says nothing about my approval nor disapproval of the idea stating only that it is felt that requiring images be submitted to a 2nd party for approval before being able to post them to be over reaching.  The OP states that " (This measure was suggested by me.) ". The Forums have Staff, who are more than competent to address any issues that may arise, as well as Rules that already outline the Code of Conduct.  I welcome input from the Staff concerning this matter. 

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

I put this measure forward, because it lessens the possibility of someone making an account and post 'detractor' content right away, or at least it would be easier to spot. I still think it is appropriate, given the circumstances, but if it really is a problem, I can ask Phil some other time, to derogate the rules 'de facto', and allow posting images without approval, even if the rules 'de jure' say that you need to get permission. Would this be better according to you?

And the other thing, me saying: "I hope that you allow me", is just a polite expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoraMoria said:

@ElectricSheepDreams

I put this measure forward, because it lessens the possibility of someone making an account and post 'detractor' content right away, or at least it would be easier to spot. I still think it is appropriate, given the circumstances, but if it really is a problem, I can ask Phil some other time, to derogate the rules 'de facto', and allow posting images without approval, even if the rules 'de jure' say that you need to get permission. Would this be better according to you?

And the other thing, me saying: "I hope that you allow me", is just a polite expression.

In the image from the OP, I see no approval for the mandate that images need be submitted for personal approval prior to their posting.  One hopes that the use of "derogate" is a typo and not the function of using a Thesaurus to sound more photosynthesis*.    Additionally,  'de facto'  ( without proof other than a blurb saying it's okay to post some random thread found to be " pretty damn weird to begin with" giving you the right to insert a rather draconian rule into YOUR thread while being present nowhere else ) is what your OP mandate is as it is 'outside of existing site Rules' making what you typed an oxymoron.

 

  Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see STAFF under your name. The OP thread requirement will remain a point of contention until such time as it Becomes a De jure ( something that exists as a result of Law aka Site Rules ) pronouncement made by STAFF.  Let Staff do their job until such time as you have the authority to do so.

dspapproval.png

dspbigwords.png

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

You see no approval of that, because I didn't bother to show you the entire conversation. Phil is responding to the entire conversation on the PMs, which includes the very rules I'm mentioning in the 'OP'. The response that you're seeing by Phil, is agreeing with what I put forward on the PMs, you're just assuming that he's only responding to a fraction of the rules.

If we say that the 'OP' rules are 'de jure', (which is what I implied), then for me, (MoraMoria), to add/modify those rules, in order to make posting more accessible, I would have to edit them, however the 'edit' option in the 'OP' already expired, and therefore, (unless I contact a Staff member to edit the 'OP'), any modification of them would have to be written in a new post, by me, making them not in the 'OP', and therefore making them 'de facto', since it's not in the first comment/OP/thread description. If you really want to be perfectly technical with the terms, I'll be sure to do so, when talking to you, but I assumed that what I said was intuitive enough.

And finally, Thesaurus has nothing to do with this. You're the one that is not understanding the meaning of the word, which I believe is appropriate in this case. [(LAW); Derogate: To officially state that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed because it no longer has any authority.]

I'm not using "big words", and the only way for you to say that me, using this word is incorrect, would be by saying is that I'm technically not doing so 'officially', since as I said, rules 'de jure' would still be intact. But if you really want to be like that, go for it.

Derogate.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MoraMoria said:

@ElectricSheepDreamsYou see no approval of that, because I didn't bother to show you the entire conversation. Phil is responding to the entire conversation on the PMs, which includes the very rules I'm mentioning in the 'OP'. The response that you're seeing by Phil, is agreeing with what I put forward on the PMs, you're just assuming that he's only responding to a fraction of the rules.

 Post the part where he agrees to  requiring images be sent to him for 2nd party approval before posting as you have laid out to be 'the Law' that applies to this one thread among the , what did you say there were? Oh yes 3376 or 4766 threads here.  Only ONE of those requires forum members to submit their post to a 2nd party for approval before being allowed to " Drag files here to attach, or choose files".  I was giving you an out that you have chosen  not take.  Special Pleading is usually seen only among Apologetics, but if the shoe fits....hahaha don't even go for the Kalam, lmao.

The Kalam: Detractors have posted images. This thread is for posting images.  Thus Detractors will post images in this thread, lol.

*

derogate

 
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Wikipedia.

derogate

verb abase, asperse, be derogatory, belittle, besmirch, bespatter, blacken, blot, brand, bring down, bring into discredit, bring low, bring shame upon, calumniate, cast a slur upon, cast aspersions, debase, decry, defame, demean, demote, denigrate, depreciate, depress, deprive, detract, detrahere, diminish, discredit, disgrace, dishonor, dispraise, disprize, disrate, humble, incur disgrace, lessen, lessen the reputation of, lower, make ashamed, make little of, make lowly, make smaller, malign, misprize, not do justice to,pull down, put down, reduce, revile, ridicule, run down, scoff, shame, smirch, sneer at, speak evil of, speak ill of, speak slightingly of, stain, subtract from, sully, taint, take something from, tarnish, traduce, underestimate, underrate, underreckon, undervalue, vilify, vilipend, weaken
Associated concepts: derogation of common law, derogaaion of deed, derogation of rightSee also: blame, brand, condemn, contemn, debunk, decry, demean, denounce, deprecate, diminish, discommend, disgrace, disparage, humiliate, lessen, libel, malign, minimize, smear

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

derogate

 to curtail the application of a law or regulation or a grant.

Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

You're not uderstanding what I'm saying. On the PMs, I proposed to make this thread with said rules and asked if it would be appropriate, and the response was positive, (you already saw it in the 'OP'). So I did, I made said thread with said rules.

Then, you said that one of the rules I proposed was draconian, (I only suggested that rule because 'trolls' come to these forums more than in other forums), so then I responded to you that some other time I would contact Phil to derogate said rule, yes, derogate.

After doing this, are you still not satisfied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly . SHOW these pms where the Rules are changed for this thread and this thread alone as you say and I'll waltz off on  my merry way.

I understand De facto, De juro, Special Pleading and The Kalam argument  nine ways to Sunday.  Back pedal all you want and find me there waiting for you.  Better to retract your mandate if you do not actually have approval for issuing it.

simplest solution= Posting this mandate agreed upon by an Admin, period. End of story.

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

I'm not saying 'trolls' will post images, I said 'trolls' could post images. Don't even try to 'straw-man' what I said.

So you posted all the synonyms of the word "derogate" and some of the definitions, therefore I'm assuming that now you know what the word means, and how I was using it.

And about your request, you want me to show you the PM that I sent to Phil stating all of what I said, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MoraMoria said:

@ElectricSheepDreams

I'm not saying 'trolls' will post images, I said 'trolls' could post images. Don't even try to 'straw-man' what I said.

So you posted all the synonyms of the word "derogate" and some of the definitions, therefore I'm assuming that now you know what the word means, and how I was using it.

And about your request, you want me to show you the PM that I sent to Phil stating all of what I said, again?

Strawman? hahaha did you even read my posts or just skim for keywords?  I referenced known events from the repeated instances of fan art that had been  uploaded to the forums, approved and used on stream as way of demonstrating the fault in your 'OP plan'.  Hardly a 'strawman' when there is repeated  instances of it.  

 

As for 'derogate', yes I know the many meanings which I chose to call you out because used in 

4 hours ago, MoraMoria said:

. I still think it is appropriate, given the circumstances, but if it really is a problem, I can ask Phil some other time, to derogate the rules 'de facto', and allow posting images without approval, even if the rules 'de jure' say that you need to get permission.

 

2 hours ago, ElectricSheepDreams said:

One hopes that the use of "derogate" is a typo and not the function of using a Thesaurus to sound more photosynthesis*.    Additionally,  'de facto'  ( without proof other than a blurb saying it's okay to post some random thread found to be " pretty damn weird to begin with" giving you the right to insert a rather draconian rule into YOUR thread while being present nowhere else ) is what your OP mandate is as it is 'outside of existing site Rules' making what you typed an oxymoron.

Oh, I'm sorry which meaning do you feel makes your new case better?

Definition of derogate
transitive verb

: to cause to seem inferior : DISPARAGE
derogating another's achievements
intransitive verb

1 : to take away a part so as to impair : DETRACT
… a few instances of inaccuracy or mediocrity can never derogate from the superlative merit of Homer and Vergil …
— Oliver Goldsmith
2 : to act beneath one's position or character

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derogate

 

I'll wait.  I know how hard it can be to build a 'strawman' when your opponent rebuts you at ever turn.  Please just admit you were wrong and I'll go back to happily posting the Minecraft thread.

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

No, this is the 'straw-man': "Detractors have posted images. This thread is for posting images. Thus Detractors will post images in this thread, lol.". I don't hold this reasoning, and you suggesting that I do is the 'straw-man'.

The definition I'm using, again: [(LAW); Derogate: To officially state that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed because it no longer has any authority.], which is exactly what I would be doing, unless you say that is wrong because it's technically not "officially".

I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or just want to be like that on purpose. I've talked to you before and you were polite, but now you're absolutely losing it, and 'borderline' insulting me. I would've shared the original PMs a long time ago, but now you're really 'pushing it'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MoraMoria said:

@ElectricSheepDreams

No, this is the 'straw-man': "Detractors have posted images. This thread is for posting images. Thus Detractors will post images in this thread, lol.". I don't hold this reasoning, and you suggesting that I do is the 'straw-man'.

The definition I'm using, again: [(LAW); Derogate: To officially state that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed because it no longer has any authority.], which is exactly what I would be doing, unless you say that is wrong because it's technically not "officially".

I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying or just want to be like that on purpose. I've talked to you before and you were polite, but now you're absolutely losing it, and 'borderline' insulting me. I would've shared the original PMs a long time ago, but now you're really 'pushing it'.

Losing it? 'borderline insulting'? :Pushing it" for asking questions that could affect the forums as a whole?    Guilty as charged.  I seek to expand the forums not add restrictions of my own choosing that bottleneck an already struggling Site. Though I doubt a mod would see any of your claims as being the least bit valid as my replies have remained on track and civil enough that an honest mod would dock folks for their slander.

Edited by ElectricSheepDreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElectricSheepDreams

Ok, so answer this:

1) Do I hold this reasoning?: "Detractors have posted images. This thread is for posting images. Thus Detractors will post images in this thread, lol.", (notice you using the word: "will"). And if I don't, would suggest that I do, be a 'straw-man'?

2) The definition that I'm using for that word is: [(LAW); Derogate: To officially state that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed because it no longer has any authority.]. So is it, or is it not appropriate for me to use it, when that's exactly what I would be doing, (state that a rule no longer needs to be obeyed because it no longer has any authority), unless you want to argue that I'm not doing so officially?

3) You, mocking me using said word, saying that I'm using some website just to sound better, and even posting some 'meme' image, despite the word being used appropriately, would it be considered relatively 'boderline' insulting/mocking?

4) You being so fixated on the word that I used, that you even copy-pasted a list of the synonyms and some of the definitions, after I gave you the proper one and explained to you how it was being used; saying that there is no 'straw-man', when you suggested that I hold the position quoted in point "1)" when in fact I don't; being sure that you're rebutting what I said, when I'm using the proper definition, written in the dictionary; and on top of everything, demanding that I show you the PMs, after acting towards me so pretentiously, even after I told you that I would contact Phil some other time, to derogate a rule, making posting more accessible; would this resemble 'losing it'?

Edited by MoraMoria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one looks slightly weird because the filters messed up the surrounding area around the face, and I had to edit it on 'Photoshop'. That's why you can see that the background, specially the door, looks off.

C2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...