this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
410 points (95.4% liked)

Science Memes

18123 readers
783 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] s@piefed.world 58 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

That is a suspiciously high resolution photo of a man who died in 1947. The odd camera focus, general glisteningness, (and odd framing?) and the lack of any matching results in reverse image searching makes me think that somebody may have used AI to produce an image of that which could easily be found with a moment’s search online. Is anybody able to find a source on this image?

[–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm pretty certain the this image is an AI retouch of this origional (click on the source for a much higher res version). It looks like it changed his nose, the texture of his skin, his outfit and a bunch of misc small stuff. Completely unnecessary slop.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Nah, it's gotta be something from this photoshoot:

image

The clothing matches closer.

Edit:

image

Google is alleging the first known version is 7 years old, which would predate AI - but I cannot open the link it only takes me to the community homepage.

Edit2: Reddit search is so shit, couldn't even go back more than 3 years. But I cannot locate this or a variation of it anywhere, and I've probably now seen more of Max Planck than most people alive so I'm a bit of an expert. It's most likely AI.

[–] s@piefed.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Re: your edit

Google will sometimes show results from Reddit but ultimately link to a different post. AFAIK, the content that Google says is on the page may actually be content that is either from related posts shown on the Reddit mobile site or from another post somewhere on the subreddit (or maybe just somewhere else on Reddit entirely?). The timestamp that Google gives seems to be from when the linked post was made (with some discrepancies as to when Google and Reddit decide to round up or down in terms of unit time)

Edit: I just searched for “Planck” on Reddit and immediately found this post, posted a couple hours before the Fediverse post

Edit 2: a commenter had almost the same exact line of thinking that I had lol

[–] s@piefed.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

To me, a new image rather than a touch up seems more likely. It just feels like there’s too much Gandhi mixed in the original post.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're most likely right. What an odd thing for people to do, it's almost more effort. The OP who posted it though doesn't seem to have any other AI things, so it's weird.

[–] s@piefed.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Fediverse OP probably nicked the image from Reddit or somewhere else, given that you saw Reddit links alongside this image in your web search

[–] BodilessGaze@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Google is alleging the first known version is 7 years old, which would predate AI - but I cannot open the link it only takes me to the community homepage.

There were definitely AI models for restoring images 7 years ago. I remember using https://github.com/jantic/DeOldify (which started in 2018) about 6 years ago to colorize an old photo album, and it worked well.

[–] wander1236@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago

The current state of digital makes it a lot quicker, cheaper, and more convenient to take high quality photos and videos, but I think the best widely available film still has the best widely available digital beat in terms of quality. If you get someone who really knows what they're doing to capture, store, and transfer a photo of a famous person from the first half of the 1900s it could be very high resolution.

That said, this picture looks pretty weird. His skin looks like modeling clay or plastic and the focal length isn't consistent.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I’ll try having a look, but keep in mind good quality film is generally much higher resolution than even digital today.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not just the resolution, the way it's lit and posed is very contemporary. You could rescan a good negative and get resolution like this, but that wouldn't account for the fact that it doesn't look anything like a posed photo from the 19th century.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Anyone who hasn't checked out the history of this awesome dude should definitely read up on it!

A quick (and very abridged) overview; he was born "Marx" but started going by "Max" in his early years. Was around during a very war torn time in Europe. Wikipedia says one of his earliest memories is troops marching during the Prusso-Danish war. He was also very musically talented. Had proficiencies in like six instruments, and even was a skilled singer!

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago