Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?name=... for waist morphing?
Glancing across the thumbnails immediately screamed uncanny valley. However, and I can't believe I'm about to defend it (remember, I'm that 30+ year "morpher")...
Although exceedingly rare, I've known a handful of women with these ridiculous waist to hip ratios.
"Morph" wise, the photos appear very consistent in proportion. Typically photos will vary. I'm not seeing obvious artifacts either, though I didn't look exhaustively (if you want me to examine particular images closer, ask me). Modern filters and now AI are starting to make it much more difficult to spot the signs and easier to create consistent results with more complicated details.
This image in particular makes me think real. It appears photorealistic, and all the details, especially the imperfections (that AI typically removes) look right.
Maybe, but straight ol Photoshop could easily do that without AI with the plain backgrounds and the image looks a low res version that's been upsized to more pixels.
This image in particular makes me think real. It appears photorealistic, and all the details, especially the imperfections (that AI typically removes) look right.
Well, couple things:
1) You're right that inconsistency between video and still is a problem. But most the enhancements are subtle enough not to make this an issue. I think in many cases, they're an optimized version of the model.. as if the model completely nailed her pose with as much waist suppression and as hard a flex as possible.
2) I couldn't guess at a number. I really do believe that it's most women who have a large public profile though. Certainly ones who work with dedicated photographers.
3) It's really easy to mask your work. It's hard to take a skinny girl and make her look buff. It's really easy to take a buff and lean girl and make her look larger and more aeshetic. Here's a quick edit that I made in about 3 minutes. I'm not a professional photographer or a photo editor. I imagine that someone could pixel peep this, but it would probably pass Goob's examination, despite it being a really busy background with a ton of straight lines...
And here's a link to the OG to compare. I just grabbed a pic at random that seemed challenging-ish to work with.
Haha thanks! I used Photoshop. Duplicated the layer. Used "Liquify" to make her arms thicker, her glutes bigger, her thighs wider, and her calves larger.
After that, I used the erase tool, tracing around the muscles edges, to get rid of the distortions caused from liquify.
Soft agree on the reflection.. I barely messed with her left arm. I pulled out the whole left side of her torso to make her a bit wider, but I think that mirror image would still be pretty accurate.
Agreed on the right side tricep, its a bit too angled to look really natural. Although I have seen some women - esp Julia Fory - who have insane arm width like that. Lots of men do. It's not really in step with the rest of her physique though.
I actually thought that I messed up when I looked at the TV screen next to her right bicep and how it's all stretched and distorted, but that's a detail in the original shot. Just a warped mirror.
Anyway, just showing that this is pretty easy to do these days, even for a total amateur like me.
Excellent job. Though why/how does a "total amateur" have access to Photoshop?
Without scrolling down (and not seeing the original), I immediately downloaded your attempt and opened it in my image editor to circle areas that appeared to have been pixel shifted.
but it would probably pass Goob's examination
Let's see how it passes mine.
I limited myself to 2 minutes of spotting and circling. Then I returned to the thread looking for an original. I downloaded that, layered it under the circles, saved each version and converted those to video...
EDIT
I don't know if the video isn't working for anyone else, but if so, here's the images as well...
Circled original
Circled enhancement
Chainer★:
Here is another candidate: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?name=...
100% fake.
Real butt...
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2660483/
Fake butt...
With the above example of morphing Bianca Avram, this shows to me is that that without the original as reference, there are cases where it can be hard to spot. One easy morphing indicator is typically background warping, which isn’t really present in here. Yes, little things out of place, but nothing that would be an obvious indicator.
With the above example of morphing Bianca Avram, this shows to me is that that without the original as reference, there are cases where it can be hard to spot. One easy morphing indicator is typically background warping, which isn’t really present in here. Yes, little things out of place, but nothing that would be an obvious indicator.
Actually, not so. Background warping is only ever present if the person was lazy.
Even decades ago before programs had advanced much and before layers or warping were a feature, careful copy and paste, resize, plus patience and determination were enough to preserve the background.
Even an amateur can carefully duplicate the background, erase the background from the top layer(s) entirely and never worry about background warping during the entire process. The bottom background layer can be cinched in so under the layers above, even if their dimensions shrink or change, the background underneath is intact and complete.
Foreground crossovers, object (or person) intersections, jewelry... hair... hair can be an absolute nightmare. Even for someone skilled and experienced, those have traditionally been the gotchas. But software keeps getting better and making things easier.
Edit...
Oh, and lighting can be an absolute pain and entirely kill feasibility before starting on a project. I always look at the lighting before starting.
Here is another candidate: https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?name=...
It also looks like a fake profile some of the photos are from gymrat_sw.
Are we 100% sure the original wasn't tweaked? That upper inner thigh bulge looks unusual to say the least.
It's legit. It's a "squeeze up" from her other leg pressing against her hamstring from behind. Kindof like when a kid does a rear bicep pose and with their free hand hidden, presses their bicep area to look super peaked. I don't think she's doing it intentionally though, I think she's just comfortable standing that way. Here she is doing it again...
The string has zero distortions. If this was fake, the string would be a dead giveaway and be distorted.
Chainer★:
I deleted the Ludovica Nobili profile for being fake (as in, that person doesn't exist and the pictures were morphs of someone else).
I guess the jury is still out on the waist girl? To me they seemed very fake so I'm surprised to see arguments in favor of it.
I saw the uncanny valley in the thumbnails of the "waist girl", but gave several images a quick perusal as well as found the legitimizing image cited above, and gave my honest assessment. I won't condemn images that I can't identify clear telltale signs with.
Chainer (or mods), if you want to ask me to deep dive to examine a particular image, link to one. When you link only to the entire gallery, I'll give you a preliminary perusal level assessment. Give me a single target and I'll look much closer at the individual image, use the image forensics tool at FotoForensics, and utilize the gallery to compare other images and videos against that one image.
Since you're (Chainer) still unsure, I picked the image that seemed most suspicious to me while having elements that aid examination: Her quads area looks odd (like a bad enhancement) and the background is very busy and detailed which helps identify image manipulation if present.
Verdict: It's real.
Why: I took all the steps; "look much closer at the individual image, use the image forensics tool at FotoForensics, and utilize the gallery to compare other images and videos against that one image".
Findings: The lines of the faux wood pattern on the wall aren't useful since they curve everywhere, but the fine grain pixel specs are super useful. If warping was used (and not carefully erased from the wall), the grains would be elongated and smeared. They're intact. Her waist as stated earlier is consistent across all the posts including her videos. The legitimizing image cited in my earlier reply increases credibility. While software exists to alter video as well (Adobe for example), it has a high entry price, high learning curve, and good results take great skill. All reducing the probability that you're going to find a casual Instagram account posting gym selfies going to all that trouble. Finally, the Error Level Analysis using FotoForensics appears unaltered. This explains how to interpret the results. If background erasure was done, it would appear in the ELA. This is best explained through demonstration...
Demonstration: I used an AI object removal app to manipulate the same image. I enlarged her waist, made a second pass to tie her hips into her new waist. And I made her thighs more slender. Despite AI providing few tell tales viewing the image (there are still artifacts along the image-left thigh), the ELA makes the manipulation obvious. The first thing is the resave degradation shown by the overall darkness, loss of contrast, and larger pixel blocks. Next is more difficult to interpret and it helps that I know what I did for comparison, the right edge of both upper legs are a dim blue. The right edge of the right leg should be higher contrast. It's change helps inform the change of the left leg right edge. I know that I needed to perform more passes on the right side of each leg than on the left side to get the desired results.
When I began as an enhancement artist (I'm never going to use the incorrect "morphing" term) I never expected to use the benefit of that experience decades later to screen for faked uploads, but here we are.
I can't give the mods my experience (nor am I the only person on the site with applicable knowledge), but I try to expound upon my reasoning and what I'm looking at and looking for to help educate each time I reply to threads like this. I also wrote the terminology guide linked just above. Maybe one day I'll distill all my replies in threads like this, fill in gaps, and post a thread guidebook... But AI Generative art and modern Photo Filters are quickly rendering such considerations increasingly obsolete.
Ayria Rutledge is a very interesting person regarding this topic, because she receives lots of accusations of editing. In my opinion it appears quite clear that she does NOT edit her photos and especially not her videos (it would be easier to detect from them, photos one cannot really know for sure, but I can't see signs of it). It seems like she has noticed all claims, and does what she can to put herself in positions where you cannot edit without it being noticed, in order to prove herself, like very often having some vertical straight objects right by herself, or e.g. wear wired earphones that move around in front of her while filming videos. She posts a lot of videos on TikTok and a bit on Insta too. Still, her physique is something special, both genetically (being short and having short legs, and a waist she can grab around with her hands, her torso looks unproportionally long) and of course through training and diet, so it's not that strange that some find it too good to be true. She clearly also knows how to pose.
So GOOb on Instagram just posted about Caroline Hobday who has just deleted her latest account after being exposed. Occurred to me, is a soft ban model here demoted for overall upload scoring, or do they generally drop down naturally after the soft ban?
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?name=...
There are some high voted stinkers on here that probably should be deleted anyway.
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/?name=... for waist morphing?
Glancing across the thumbnails immediately screamed uncanny valley. However, and I can't believe I'm about to defend it (remember, I'm that 30+ year "morpher")...
Although exceedingly rare, I've known a handful of women with these ridiculous waist to hip ratios.
"Morph" wise, the photos appear very consistent in proportion. Typically photos will vary. I'm not seeing obvious artifacts either, though I didn't look exhaustively (if you want me to examine particular images closer, ask me). Modern filters and now AI are starting to make it much more difficult to spot the signs and easier to create consistent results with more complicated details.
This image in particular makes me think real. It appears photorealistic, and all the details, especially the imperfections (that AI typically removes) look right.
I'm revisiting Amber (chxrryxft) after seeing:
I think her small waist is a distraction away from what I realized must be the culprit: A "Brazilian Butt Lift".
While her waist size remains the same in the before and after of the video, her butt isn't humanly possible without surgery. It's not just the size, it's the shape and the lift.
Her surgically enhanced butt only creates the illusion that her waist is smaller in the after because the ratio is so disproportionate.
However, there are plenty of other models on here with Brazilian Butt Lifts, and the surgery hasn't disqualified them.
I added the "butt implants" tag to several of her pics.
Also, last time I looked at her for this thread, I missed the below image with her wearing a corset:
Now that I know she corsets, that helps further explain her waist. Corsets don't just make the waist smaller when worn. They can be used to train the waist to become smaller even when the corset isn't being used. Never as small as with the corset on, but potentially far smaller than before corset training.
What about Vanilla Livitski? Feels like almost all of her still images have been edited.
IMO her pics seem legit when you compare them to her videos
What about Vanilla Livitski? Feels like almost all of her still images have been edited.
STRONG likelihood. I'm too tired to elaborate right now, so ask if you want specifics. It appears the "burn tool" is used for "definition" as well which always looks like crap, but she might be using body makeup after this and another video I watched. Left side inner bicep shadow is unnatural. Lightning isn't going to do that. Abs "definition" same thing.
IMO her pics seem legit when you compare them to her videos
Legit as Fun House mirrors.
I'm glad you mentioned that; I was thinking that as well.
In the other video I mentioned above (but didn't link to) I did notice something particularly odd. The muscle separation between her delt and upper arm had that same uncanny valley that had me thinking body makeup or "burn" effects tools (I cannot speak with any authority on video effects tools that would do this, my experience is limited to manipulation of static photos).
Here's the peculiar part: it would be apparent at some angles and absent in others. I'm unconvinced that her delt separations are so singularly unique as for it to just be her natural delt separations, but I'm admittedly at a complete loss to explain it... AI overpainting maybe?
Regardless of techniques, the shadows to emphasize muscle separations aren't authentic and look fake because they are fake (she's got a generally soft physique and just isn't ever going to look particularly ripped without dropping considerably more bodyfat).
And while the videos uploaded by tempp show realistic arm proportions, you're correct that nearly every photo (I looked through 1/3 to 1/2 of the total number starting from the top) has been considerably enhanced. Suddenly her arms are supposed to be nearly the diameter of her legs? Your bullshit detector is working just fine Chainer.
Although to my knowledge it's a "one-off", are we really going to begin allowing AI Lions now? Where's the line for "manipulated" photos?
Some of the Natasha Aughey AI images from a Facebook account have made their way over here and gotten subsequently deleted. Her youtube account points to different FB account. The one with the AI images is linked to a Patreon account that bears her name though, which also has some of the same AI images. It is mischief that these images have made their way over here.
Oh yeah, no question.
I feel like it's easy to know when something is obviously fake. Like we all follow a bunch of muscle girls on Instagram, we're familiar with the overall vibe and diversity of photos.
Smartphone cameras are amazing in 2025, so if all the pics are grainy or blurry or whatever.. there's a problem.
Some women do have impossible proportions. I've seen Teffany Sam in person, and it's true, her legs are freakishly big. She looks like a walking enhanced photo.
But she's one person with remarkable genetics, an absolutely wild PED regimen, and most likely site injections into her legs.
The idea that "Ludovica Nobili" is going to have a bigger ass and thighs than her, but not compete and not have a large following and apparently never leave the gym and also not shoot videos.. it's obviously not happening.
I'll tell you what we're going to see. Some on here might remember "Gabby Arcade," the unremarkably muscular guy who used a very crude and repetitive face tune program to make himself look female.
This was obviously fake. Gabby never left the basement. Gabby had no wrinkles. Gabby had the same face that you saw in the Snapchat filter. I've never seen a more obvious catfish, but the simps still ate it up and he's got 24k followers on Instagram.
Why? Because "Gabby" had a fun attitude and told the dudes what they wanted to hear. He presented a fantasy of a brawny, nerdy girl who really knows how to joke around with guys. I imagine that a lot of guys knew it was fake, but.. also found it hot and fun and didn't care. IDK people will go to strip clubs and convince themselves that the strippers love them.
Anyway, as AI gets stronger and better, I think we're going to see an army of Gabby's real soon.