D&D 5E Replacement art is up for Bigby's AI art on D&D Beyond!

[M.T. Black]

On a related note, a couple of friends think the above image (High Fae Mage) from the new Monstrous Compendium 4 was likely AI generated then touched up. The credited artist is John Stanko who has some wonderful credits.

What are your thoughts?

 

[bedir than]

View attachment 295806

On a related note, a couple of friends think the above image (High Fae Mage) from the new Monstrous Compendium 4 was likely AI generated then touched up. The credited artist is John Stanko who has some wonderful credits.

What are your thoughts?

If it is merely touched up it's now in the public domain.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

View attachment 295806

On a related note, a couple of friends think the above image (High Fae Mage) from the new Monstrous Compendium 4 was likely AI generated then touched up. The credited artist is John Stanko who has some wonderful credits.

What are your thoughts?

I can't see any signs of AI but I also am not the best at spotting it to start with. This is also magic art, which has had a no AI policy for a while.

 

[dave2008]

Considering how bad AI is with hands, you might have those switched.

Nope. I have them listed correctly.

AI is bad with hands if you give it no guidance. That is the difference between an amateur using AI and a pro using AI. Also, a pro is not likely to simply let the AI do its thing without touching it up afterward.

 

[dave2008]

I figured out what happened. I read "The new maw of Yeenoghu" as "The new art of Yeenoghu." Easy enough mistake to make even when your eyes aren't watery and swolen.

I should have said "Maw of Yeenoghu" to make it more clear. Sorry! Corrected now.

 

[dave2008]

View attachment 295806

On a related note, a couple of friends think the above image (High Fae Mage) from the new Monstrous Compendium 4 was likely AI generated then touched up. The credited artist is John Stanko who has some wonderful credits.

What are your thoughts?

Amateur's AI art is fairly easy to spot. Pro AI can very hard to spot.

That being said, without knowing the artist work and style, I can't see anything that screams "this is AI" art. I have definitely see work like this that is not AI art. The only thing that feels a little off to me is her left shoulder, and maybe her head. Neither is beyond the realm of human interpretation IMO.

 

[pukunui]

The altisaur still looks ridiculous, but the other dinosaurs are improved.

I really like the new frost giant ice shaper and frostmourn.

 

[pukunui]

The new hill giant avalancher looks nicer ... as in friendlier.

The new Rime Hulk is less intimidating looking, though. (The AI issue here had more to do with the figure caught in its ice trail, though, I think - it had a very wrong-looking bow. This one is better on that front at least).

Here are the new firbolg primeval warden and fire giant forgecaller:

The stalker of Baphomet is still pretty freaky looking:

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

My main reason to think thst was that they said he would be redoing the art. That other artists did so suggests thst he was not cooperative, when his situation was on thin ice for this behavior...

It might also suggest that someone high up at WotC decided that to completely distance themselves from the situation, they hired other artists, despite the original artist offering to redo his work. I'd be careful of casting aspersions without evidence.

 

[mamba]

That being said, without knowing the artist work and style, I can't see anything that screams "this is AI" art.

the AI did not generate the image, it used an existing sketch to ‘enhance’ it