←back to thread

TikTok just dropped a new realistic beauty filter

(twitter.com)
207 points ZephyrBlu | 10 comments | 27 Feb 23 03:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.883s | source | bottom
Show context
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[27 Feb 23 04:33 UTC] No.34952982[source]▶
Wow, I am so glad I'm not the parent of a teenage girl right now.

At the same time, I wonder if perfect filters like this might actually result in people rejecting beauty standards like this. I mean, if everyone can easily look this good online, if people start to think that it's impossible to determine the veracity of anything that wasn't done face-to-face, maybe people will just start rejecting it. Kind of like how I never answer my phone anymore from numbers I don't know because there is a 95%+ chance it's spam/phishing/etc.

replies(3): >>34953194 #>>34953395 #>>34954661 #
1. userbinator ◴[27 Feb 23 05:05 UTC] No.34953194[source]▶
I wonder if perfect filters like this might actually result in people rejecting beauty standards like this.

Maybe it's because I was used to an earlier era, in which photos actually had to be developed and were taken with something called film, but I suspect I'm not the only one who finds this sort of "beauty" very unnatural and even somewhat repulsive, almost uncanny-valley style. It's like they don't look like actual humans anymore, but more like androids pretending to be humans.

In other words, this filter doesn't look "realistic" to me at all.

replies(6): >>34953218 #>>34953449 #>>34953672 #>>34954117 #>>34955039 #>>34956583 #
2. ◴[27 Feb 23 05:09 UTC] No.34953218[source]▶
3. Semaphor ◴[27 Feb 23 05:46 UTC] No.34953449[source]▶
I found the videos earlier through a blogger. He called it a "barbie filter"
4. kurthr ◴[27 Feb 23 06:28 UTC] No.34953672[source]▶
They've been Yassified.

https://centennialbeauty.com/yassification-how-this-viral-tw...

replies(1): >>34955521 #
5. 2-718-281-828 ◴[27 Feb 23 07:59 UTC] No.34954117[source]▶
everytime i stumble on those tiktok clips with teenagers dancing awkwardly it seems to me more like humans pretending to be androids.
6. MikusR ◴[27 Feb 23 10:56 UTC] No.34955039[source]▶
I didn't know there was no manipulation done to photos taken on film. It's not like dodge and burn tools in Photoshop are named after real life process.
replies(1): >>34956857 #
7. aembleton ◴[27 Feb 23 12:13 UTC] No.34955521[source]▶
That article feels like it was written by GPT-3. Just something about its writing style.
replies(1): >>34960362 #
8. mcphage ◴[27 Feb 23 14:13 UTC] No.34956583[source]▶
> In other words, this filter doesn't look "realistic" to me at all.

It doesn't, but sadly this is early days.

9. userbinator ◴[27 Feb 23 14:34 UTC] No.34956857[source]▶
The difference is that most people didn't do that for photos back then.
10. kurthr ◴[27 Feb 23 18:50 UTC] No.34960362{3}[source]▶
Man doesn't everything generic... there's just a safe tone to HR correct writing that LLMs have?

I think this is from a couple of years ago so probably not, but things are getting meta.