I find it frustrating now with the use of AI people are posting pictures of models that turn out not looking like the model at all. For example I saw a great Monkey lamp looked awesome in the picture so I used a spool of filament and 28hours of print time to realize it had the wrong feet and only 3 fingers but the picture showed it with 4 fingers.
So now we have to look very closely at the slicer image to make sure it is what it is supposed to be.
The never ending discussion….
Make sure to report this model so the uploader cannot get any reward points.
If everyone reports models like this and the uploaders get no reward points, they will stop doing it.
However, this countermeasure is not ideal as it is done after the fact, after users had been tricked into printing and wasting filaments and time.
The solution is for @MakerWorld to the enhance the Image Rules one step further by requiring the cover image be a real photo of the printed model. No AI image, no render, no design drawings, etc.
The Image Rules are meant to protect users from being tricked into wasting time and materials. The users who are the most vulnerable to such tricks are those who are not aware and decide based only on the cover image. So in practice and real world reality, requiring the cover image to be a photo is the only way that can achieve what the Image Rules intend to do.
I tried to report this
but no report cause other than “intellectual property violation”
or i missed to way to report it ?
Coincidentally, I just saw the notification on MakerWorld that they sharpened the wording of the point award rules. Nothing concrete in there but when looking at the rules, was it always this precise?
That’ll be the day when they actually enforce it.
Yes, absolutely. But they did crack down on all of those “fast” print profiles that popped up in the beginning.
Still, it is an endless arms race unfortunately…
If you go to the model page, and click at the 3 vertical dots to the right of IP Report, it will open a small window for you to select Report Model. Click at the Report Model, you will have a list of Reason for Reporting to choose from. I would choose Misleading Content in your situation.
Might not have been worded like this before, but it has been the case that models that break the rules can be taken down and all reward points associated with such models will be taken away.
my browser seem to miss some translation from Chinese 
: not exactly incitating for potential reporters
I could choose the 2nd line or the 5th 
lI would slightly disagree. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with using render on the cover (as long as it shows “the reality” and the model contains real photos, of course). Just an example from one of my model - I decided to use a render from Fusion on the cover.
while a little further away there is another real photo …
Is this a problem or not?
The question is why I actually used a render… well, on the one hand, I wanted to try it out, and on the other hand, I liked the light better in the render - the “temperature”, reflections, etc. I can’t replicate any of that in real life at home - I don’t have a professional photo studio and I’m not planning on getting one… On the other hand, this is probably the only case (I think) where I used a render for the cover… but I really like it 
Imho, the BASIC problem is not in AI and renders, etc. (although I don’t deny that in many cases it can be). The problem is that users don’t think - don’t use their brains – they just press buttons (note – this is not an insult to OP in any mean, please). If you use at least a little bit of your own common sense, supported by basic distrust, you will never send a model to print without examining it thoroughly…
At least I don’t… I always study the model in the slicer, pretty thoroughly actually, look at the details, see if and where support is generated, whether it makes sense, and if necessary, change the orientation for printing - it happens that the model can be oriented much better than it is in original 3MF. I often find that the supports are not the best - the wrong type, for example. It’s not always the designer’s fault - the slicer may have changed (it happens) since the model was created, etc. Anyway, I always change the print speed, material, and pretty often other slicer parameters … very, VERY rarely I use 3MF as it came.
And if you find that the model is nonsense, then you simply don’t print it. Sometimes it’s a difficult decision, because the model looks awesome… but what good is that beauty if instead I get spaghetti or something else ugly? I have XY “beautiful” models downloaded from MW that I’ve put aside because they simply won’t print properly (or at least that’s what I think). Not at all as the author presents them, but even I can’t do anything with them (modify) to be sure/trust that the 24+ hour print is worth it…
So I’m really not sure that the render is the root of all evil…
If I really have to find someone to blame, then I would point the finger at Handy App… that’s the source of what I consider harmful (imho) “… don’t think, just press the button and print and smile”. It gives the impression of a "vending machine” - you’ll instantly get what’s behind the glass - no work, no thinking .. except that with 3D printing, it doesn’t quite work that way.
It’s sad because their opponent [spammers/sloppers] is using much better tools than bambu is, and like, tools are important… You can’t fight automated uploading agentic AI with a Y2K era human based reporting system…
I didnt read your whole post, but I did look at the two pictures. While its completely personal preference and just my opinion, I would not even download the model and skip right by it based on the first picture, however the second picture actually looks better to me than the render and it looks like a good representation of it. The main reason I would skip by? Too many models are crap and misrepresented that it’s affecting my choices. I may not be in the minority.
I also dont like pictures with all the YouTube type 1995 era internet webpage crap all over it. Show the printed model, decorate your description.
This also got me thinkining, with containers like bowls and such, put some consistent sized items near them to give a real world idea of how it was intended. I’ve seen some “toothbrush holders” that could hold 400 toothbrushes.
I don’t have a professional photo studio. I’m also not a natural photographer. What I do have is my phone camera (Pixel 7), a couple of cheap lights and a backdrop from Amazon.
This is what my “studio” looks like:
That’s my kitchen island. IIRC I spent perhaps $60 all told. I use GIMP (free, open source) to do colour corrections etc. Here’s a processed photo taken with this setup:
It’s not perfect, and I can see room for improvement, but it’s doing the job it needs to.
And then there’s this photo taken in my buddy’s DnD gaming room located in a dark basement. Didn’t bring my lights, just used the ambient light from the door. Also used my Pixel. My buddy was holding up a painting he had done right behind the gate. All very low-tech, lol.
This is unedited:
I did some simple colour adjustments in GIMP. Bumped the saturation, added a vignette. Took all of five minutes.
Real photographers will look at it and note the problematic lack of focus around parts and maybe question my choice of processing. They’d be right on all accounts because I’m not a photographer. But eh, for my purposes, it works.
I’m not saying I’m awesome at photography, far from it. Just that you can still take good pictures without a lot of kit.
The model you linked to is on the English MW website. Why is there a translation from Chinese? 
@Twitko These arguments have been rehashed over and over in other threads so I won’t respond to them here. But your mention of the Handy app reminds me that I forgot to put that as one the the reasons MW should require the cover image to be a photo of the printed model.
MW has the fast growth and the highest monthly acitive users among the platforms. Handy app undoubtly contributes to that. Handy app users should be able to look at the cover and know what a printed model looks like. They should not have to scroll among images and trying to view and determine which one represents what a printed model looks like. To make the Handy app truely convenient as it is intended to be is one more reason that the cover image should be a photo.
MW has an advantage that it is not using in this race. This race is not on neutral territory, but on MW’s own platform. MW can dictate the rule of the race to give itself a homefield advantage. For example, MW can require the cover image to be a photo. This will cut down on the number of images that MW has to scan because it only needs to check the cover image no matter how many other images are uploaded.
By doing so, MW also makes it much easier for users to help. Users only need to look at the cover image and report it if it is not a real photo. They don’t have to open the model page and look at all the images and determine if there is one image among them that may be a real photo.
For some reason this topic makes me think of fast food commercials. The food always looks great in the commercials and on the menu boards, then when you actually get the real thing it barely looks edible.
I fall in the camp of show me the real thing, an actual pic of the printed item, no render, no doctored photography, but what it really looks like .
When I upload a model, it says that at least one of the images must be of the actual printed model. I agree that it should stipulate that the cover photo must, has to be, of the printed model. That’s what I always set up for my images, though I do occasionally also add a screen shot from Studio at the end of my images provided… in some instances that’s useful. But AI 3D renderings should be banned completely. IMHO.
I “get it” that some people want their images of their prints to be aesthetically pleasing, as that could add to the eye catching appeal as folks browse the thousands of models. I also respect the work that some put into their sets that they use for the photos they take. That requires thought, time and effort.
Personally, my lighting is whatever happens when I take the photo with my phone… some that I’ve used my snooker table as the base are horrible when it comes to colour balance, especially since my light shades above it have a combination of dark green tint along with clear glass. My concern is about trying to show what the thing actually looks like as an object. Final colour in the printed model will be determined by whatever filament the person ends up using.
Just an opinion. Everybody has one, which is why they’re free to give. And everyone doesn’t need to agree.
Absolutely agree the picture must be of the printed model. As printed, uncluttered background, good focus and lighting. I want to see what my print should look like, not what the designers head thinks it should look like. If designer spends 4 days cleaning up and smoothing the print and wants to show how good it can look, show both pics, but the as printed is the only honest one. I don’t care how good someone is with Adobe or other picture editing, this is about the print.
If I see a model pic looking like the one in the op post I skip right past it, clearly not an as printed!
The thing is…what the camera sees and what people see aren’t always the same.
Photographers who know how to adjust things such as ISO and aperture and white balance etc. etc., can make settings changes so that the photo they take is representative of the actual thing. If we’re saying an unedited photo is the “real” photo, then by that logic the photo the camera professional took (and adjusted to match what their eyes see), is therefore fake and unrepresentative of reality.
Take for example another photo I took. This is unedited, straight out of the camera.
The only person who could say with certainty that this image is “real” would be me because I took it. I was there. I was holding the parts and pressing the camera button with my nose. I can say with absolute fact that this photograph doesn’t match the actual colours. It’s dark and dull. My skin doesn’t have a purple tinge to it (I swear I’m not an alien). The pink heart is actually hot pink.
So this is the image that people would like to see? The interpretation of reality as per my phone?
Here is the colour corrected version. This looks like what I saw while I was taking the picture. This, to me, is more closely aligned with reality.
(Full disclosure: I did apply blurring/smoothing on my finger wrinkles because I’m sensitive about them. Everything else was untouched)
If I had gone in and changed something about the model itself, that would be a cause to cry foul. But I didn’t. I thought about smoothing the rough over-extrusion on the cake but that’s just the way it printed.
Okay, so let’s talk the Trojan Horse photo. Yes, I went heavy on the colour for that one. It was a bad example. I was going for a “Troy Burning At Night After A Very Unwise Decision” vibe. “Reality” was somewhere between the washed out grey of the “unedited” photo and the ultra-saturated “when is the fire department getting here?” final photo.
Anyways, just my take on things. I hope I’m not coming across as angry or defensive because that’s not what I’m meaning. I just like a good discussion 
