If you’ve been walking through art galleries of works, you may have noticed how the same teachers and students from the school share some sensibilities and techniques. We found that something similar could happen with AI image generators.
Adobe is showing off the new Firefly Image Model 4, creating many impressive images. I decided to see how it stacked up against ChatGpt’s recently upgraded image generator. As a result, I envisioned two young but extremely talented art students who had not developed their own personal style. They approach the teacher’s methods and produce very good, but similar results.
I tested several prompts on two models to see what they came up with. Firefly’s work is on the left, and ChatGpt images are on the right.
You might like it
Portrait
I started with portrait prompts, as realistic people are probably the most in demand AI images. I asked both AI tools to make a close-up portrait of a redhead woman with blue grey eyes and a light smudge of freckles.
The two virtual characters look like cousins, if not siblings. The texture of the lips, hair, and hat shape are almost the same. Firefly’s “photos” could have been done on a warm day based on the outfit, but otherwise the similarities are surprising. Without prior knowledge and metadata, it would be difficult to know which AI models produced which results, but they were clearly trained in photo databases containing some of the same people.
A complicated scene
Second, I wanted to see how they compare in complex, busy scenes. As a fan of B-films decades ago, I asked two AI tools to “create a sci-fi lab for chaos.”
There were some notable divergences here. I purposely put a few different things in at the same time. Firefly focused on robots, while ChatGpt highlighted the alien aspect, but it is possible that some aliens are also robots. Both worked well for filling images with activities in a variety of ways. But I give Chatgupt an edge, partly because of the alien brains and partly because of the way scientists run for their lives.
Breakfast time
Feeling a little far away, I then decided to see how the two perform when they cook their (digital) breakfast. Food can be difficult to get right with AI. When an error creeps up, it is always very obvious. So I wanted to see what they showed me.
Both models wanted to show off their berries. Other firefly options appeared to have a harvest-filled track leaning towards the plate. And it seems that ChatGpt is a stereotypical young child who willingly consume berries until it explodes. Still, both pancakes look edible. However, convergence pops up again with the latte art. I didn’t specify what it should be, but ferns are a popular choice, but it’s worth noting that they are both fern art, with both having a heart at the top, but one of the firefly cups clearly had a lot of cinnamon spilled out before.
Legendary words
We decided to liven up the prompts in a bit more detail. In the final version, I asked Fireflies and Chatgupt “As I breathe a stream of fire that curls at the words “big dreams” in bold and ferocious letters, a majestic dragon perched on a snowy summit, its enormous wings are completely spread out.
There were trillions of paintings and descriptions of dragons, and the only detail I sought was the rainbow scales, which were majestic. Somehow, both Firefly and ChatGpt produced dragons with the same horns and a dinosaur-like tail around their face. To return to Art Student Philosopher, Firefly was clearly interested in landscapes rather than calligraphy of words.
Meanwhile, ChatGpt took the prompt’s bold, fiery letter seriously, making the firefly look really look like clip art. The dragon’s pose is also more dynamic and interesting. But again, they may have had two young painters standing next to each other, but the teacher gave guidance on how to see the light at dawn in the mountains.
Both Firefly Image 4 and ChatGpt can create beautiful, strange or unsettling images. It is much more difficult to know whether we can tell the difference between the two models. Both know how to make a human face. In fact, they can make related faces. Both know how to convey busy scenes.
These and other models like them have come to the point that choosing what to use is a matter of image quality and preference, and therefore a matter of budgets and other products from the company you want to use.
You might like it too
