Here is the same prompt minus "digital art." https://imgur.com/a/aVbSxHe https://imgur.com/a/aVbSxHe You will still note that none of them are far shots, that

Here is the same prompt minus "digital art." https://imgur.com/a/aVbSxHe https://imgur.com/a/aVbSxHe You will still note that none of them are far shots, that no depicted character actually has fully green skin, and one of the four has nothing even remotely like leaves for hair. I mean, is it better? Sure. They're less ugly, though none of them are what I'd call great results. But they also aren't really doing a basically competent job of fulfilling the prompt, much less producing a particularly striking or interesting images. And my point is, outside of a few areas, this is what you get from Dall-E. Lots of misses, and if you're willing to put time into it and work on your results, a few hits. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten stuff from Dall-E that I think is great (I really like this "watercolor painting" for example: https://labs.openai.com/s/AQ7Wy5VHBWcLL5bJ5LbU5SuW https://labs.openai.com/s/AQ7Wy5VHBWcLL5bJ5LbU5SuW) but I think it misrepresents Dall-E to suggest that most of the time it produces basically good images. I'd say more like, "If you put time and attention into learning its quirks, in its best areas, it'll produce like one in ten images that are basically good." And, I mean, on some level that's incredible. You can produce 10 images in about three minutes in Dall-E and get some great stuff. But I think people mostly see the top 10% of what Dall-E produces.