So I'm writing a series called "after the island" and it's on AO3 and it started out as one thing and rapidly turned into a series of stories about being queer in the '70s. Which inevitably will lead to a series of stories about being queer in the '80s. And everything that entailed, which was brutal. I'm not going to lie. I was born in the '60s and having the opportunity to write about people and places that aren't with us anymore has come to mean a great deal to me and I'll probably be writing this series until the day I die even if people stop reading it. Lol.
I just hope that the world never goes back to a lot of the dark places the queer community has been in my lifetime and I hope I'm able to get across the joy we experienced as well as the pain.
I also hope that should the world take a turn for the worse, these stories will be helpful to somebody out there the way they would have been to me back in the day.
I think I will always write this series with love and remembrance until I myself am in need of remembrance. ❤️
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I bumped into another Arsenal fan here in New York City today. Arsenal fans in America become immediate family because everyone in America just likes Manchester United or Chelsea.
We always greet each other like long lost relatives. ♥️
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
It has come to my attention that some colourised pictures of Peter Cushing have been making the round on Tumblr. Like these two, for example:
I saw those on my feed a few times and, yes, they look quite nice to be honest.
However, you should be aware of one important thing: Those pictures were colourised with generative AI.
Let me explain.
For those who don't know, I've been posted colourised pictures for a while on my blog. I colourise them using Photoshop's neural filters. I manually pick the colours and apply them on an picture that I then touch-up with the mixer brush. Colourising a picture could take from 20 minutes to a couple of hours, depending how much work needs to be done.
The results isn't always perfect, but if I like how it came out, I'd post it on here.
This is a process that I find quite enjoyable, to be honest.
While neural filters may use AI, they don't work the same way as generative AI, in way of colourising a picture.
What's the difference, you may ask? While my methods use a lot of manual work, images colourised with generative AI are often either done in one click — or tap — or are entered into an AI model with a prompt asking the image to be colourised.
The thing is generative AI doesn't colourise pictures. It actually generates a colour version of the submitted image.
While the results may look good, it's not — so to say — the same image with added colours.
Also, generative AI will "enhance" the colourised images, and by that I mean inventing details that don't exist in the original images.
Many people I know to share those images are quite opinionated on the subject on AI, and are often not aware that what they share was modified with AI.
Therefore, I've decided to share with you all a few pointers to spot AI use in those images.
Let's start with example #1:
Here's the colourised version and the original image side-to-side.
Already, some of AI usage are quite evident to my eyes:
- The lighting is the colourised version is different, more dramatic, than the original's.
- The contrast is stronger in the colour version, to the point that we can no longer distinguish the lapel of Peter's jacket that was quite visible in the original's.
- The colour version has this unnatural smooth texture while the original has high level of JPEG artefacts.
- The colour version has sharper details: more wrinkles visible, individual hair, eyelashes, crisp eyes, the lips are even more defined. The list could go on.
Now, here's a split version of the two images:
The difference in details is quite noticeable. AI even interpreted JPEG artefacts as being wrinkles.
Just look at the fingers. See those lines going along them? Those are JPEG artefacts. Also, notice how the knuckle in the colour version has creases while none are visible in the original.
Now, here's example #2:
The colourised version looks better here because the original picture was of quite good quality.
However, here's a couple of signs of AI use:
Peter's left eye (on the right side of the image) in the original was in a shadow, making it look all black with no visible iris. The colourised version suddenly shows both eyes having visible irises. However the pupils are misshapen, more in the left eye than the right. Also, the lights in reflected Peter's right eyes are now different in the colourised version.
Then, there's the texture of the jacket's fabric. In the original version, it is surprisingly well-defined. You can see the weaving clearly. However, the colourised version lose all definition and looks rather, well, messy. Seems that the AI couldn't interpret the original's weaving correctly, and created whatever this is.
Now, here's an example of AI-enhanced image:
While it's not a colourised picture, I thought it deserved a closer look.
Already, I can see how smooth the enhanced image on the left is, in addition to the colours being more vivid — those blue eyes now look more disarming than ever. The hair is also quite detailed and the wrinkles are more pronounced — AI is always strong on those.
Now, here's a split version:
We've gone for low-quality screen capture to something trying hard to look like 4K, and I thought the original image was already of decent quality. I must admit that the enhanced version does look good though.
Here's a close-up of one of Peter's pretty blue eyes. Suddenly, the enhanced version shows creases on the eyelid and we get more crow's feet — AI is also strong on those. AI even attempted to generate a caruncle — which I had to look up what it was called.
In conclusion.
I wrote this post just so anyone reading it may be more informed into spotting tell-tale sign that an image may have been colourised/enhanced using AI and whether they want to share it or not on their blog.
My left eye is entirely for show and my right eye isn't pulling its weight either. Bottom line? It's hard for me to spot the differences in these images.
I'm not a champion of AI but I don't put it past me to post it without realizing in a scenario like this.
Mostly, I'm really angry that there isn't enough focus on all the ways that AI can actually help people (medical imaging, Reading scans and catching tumors etc before a human can. Etc.)
I'm angry that the Earth is dying and the Earth is where I keep all my stuff. I'm angry that every time there's a massive heatwave that kills people, they're telling us to keep our air conditioner at 78 Fahrenheit while nobody is telling the data centers shit.
I could go on and on but I think y'all understand what I'm talking about.
Another all-nighter spent hunting for this short, and still absolutely nothing. So I emailed the director again, tracked down the producer and hit send on that too, and I've even found the cinematographer — now debating whether to go there.
This is a reminder to go into your settings, scroll down to Visibility
And make sure this is toggled on:
Your opinions on AI are up to you but nobody should be willingly training for-profit AI models without their consent or knowledge. Most forums bury these toggles in the settings on purpose to scrape data from you. Never assume a media company is on your side, no matter how pro-queer or pro-artist they advertise themselves to be.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
some people will look you dead in the eye after you tell them you would never date a man that slams doors, throws things, or hits anything when he's upset with you and go 'well...'
why should I (or anybody else) be expected to whittle down my absolute base survival instincts just because 'well, he's not hitting you, so it's okay'? You can't genuinely expect me to believe a man who doesn't have the self control to not break anything in anger has never thought of hurting me in anger once.
I mean, yeah, you could say maybe drawing the line at slamming a door is a bit much and I'd understand that. We've all done it. My point is you're a really hard person to respect or feel safe around if you have a repeated habit of your emotions taking control of the way you treat objects around you. Either you break something on purpose and don't regret it after to make a show of your anger, making you kind of a piece of shit, or you do it without fully meaning to and regretting it after, demonstrating a really poor sense of control over yourself. Either way, in my mind, that resets the clock for when it'll inevitably happen again.
and maybe next time it'll be just slamming the door. Or it'll be a glass. Or one of your things. Or, it could be you. that's my point.
This isn't supposed to be a fearmongering rant, I know I have an established anxiety problem and that's definitely shaped how I approach these kinds of standards
My point is, there's a widespread belief, usually among older people that gets passed down to their kids, that to be in love and in any marriage you have to have wanted to strangle the other person just a little bit, and that you should ignore the idea that someone would want to choke you out in the first place and focus instead on the idea that they 'chose not to' as a display of love. This is complete bullshit. I've always thought of that as not a matter of if, but when.
Obviously it's up to you where you draw the line. I'm just personally sick of this one boomer sentiment and if we're not the generation to break this cyclical belief I'm literally going to shit in my hands and get clapped or whatever the phrase is
Also, this goes for women, queer people, anybody. It's about the intent to harm, it's about entertaining the idea, anybody can do that.
My favorite thing about Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes is the sheer number of times that he just waltzes into Watson's bedroom when he's sound asleep. He doesn't knock. He just walks in and stares, or whispers at Watson, who always wakes up seeming bemused rather than surprised or momentarily frightened to be woken up by someone in his bedroom whispering at him.
And like also they just go to a bath house together sometimes, which I'm sure didn't have Implications(tm) in Victorian England. And the show decided that this Very Important Detail needed to be kept in.
Not that Conan Doyle would have known that gay men and bath houses are associated when he wrote Holmes and Watson in one. It's not like he was friends with Oscar Wilde or anything...
