Liquid Light Portrait Prompt of the Day Challenge: Prompt (customize to your taste and liking): Create: Liquid light portrait of [Human Subject], seamlessly merging with [Fluid Energy Form]. Luminous flowing textures, translucent layering, vibrant color gradients, soft glow highlights, cinematic contrast, smooth blending edges, surreal motion, high-end editorial aesthetic, ultra-detailed, no text, no logos. - Human: a young Black woman in her late twenties…, or a young Asian man in his early thirties with sharp... - Fluid: flowing ocean waves with glowing turquoise highlights or swirling black ink clouds dissolving into soft gray gradients - Have ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini fill in the brackets - Change the prompt to add text or logo if desired - Last image created using ChatGPT 2 Image What happens with this challenge: You get one focused prompt every day for 31 days — short, clear, and designed to nudge you out of habit and into exploration. Each prompt gives you a bite-sized reason to create, think, or try something new. Do it daily and you’ll build momentum: more ideas, more practice, and a growing confidence to take risks. No fluff — just consistent prompts that push you forward. Why it matters: Because tiny, repeated actions unlock big changes. These prompts aren’t just tasks — they’re invitations to expand how you see and do things. Over 31 days you’ll stretch your creativity, sharpen your skills, and discover new directions you didn’t expect. It’s not about perfection; it’s about showing up, learning, and collecting the gifts each prompt offers. Keep going — you’re meant for more. Let us know any ideas you want us to consider for 31 Mays of Prompts. Our Skool Community: 👉 Born Idea - https://www.skool.com/born-idea-4437 Now let's see what YOU can imagine and bring to life. 👇

❓On LinkedIn - does your contact link work? ❓On YouTube - does your website link go to the right place? ❓In your email signature - do you have a link to the current thing you're promoting? ⁉️ On your Skool profile - do the social/web icons work? Is what they lead to cringe or great? Is there anything missing? And if you're feeling extra brave... have you Googled yourself lately? 👀 Last year I did exactly that. Found active lead magnets that were from a whole different business 🤦‍♀️ Funnels that should have been unpublished eons ago. Website pages that were obsolete. 😳 So embarrassing!! Luckily nobody noticed... ...or did they and were just so appalled I never heard from them? Potential clients who just went to someone else? We'll never know. But what I can tell you is that those massive funnel leaks got plugged then and there. As we step into a new month, it's a great time to just walk through your ecosystem as a prospective buyer and see what they see, what they experience, etc. Even better, buddy up with someone (or a bunch of someones) and walk through each other's ecosystems. And, coincidence of coincidences, inside Funnel Forensics there is a whole squad of funnel detectives to meet and team up with. 🕵🏻‍♀️ Join us :)

We’ve been running a handful experiments with ChatGPT Image 2 — image tests, composition swaps, and prompt chops that teach faster than a week of guessing. If you want better image outputs (and fewer wasted renders), these study results will save you time. What we posted: A gallery of test cases showing the same base prompt run through Image 2 render, iteration or edits: composition recrops, material swaps, lighting tweaks, and object replacements. Quick refresher — what ChatGPT Image 2 adds (short & usable): • Direct image edits with instruction language: you can upload an image and tell the model what to change in plain language (swap fabric, change pose, remove background object) — not just regenerate from scratch. • Region‑aware edits: point to or mask a specific area and ask for targeted changes (recolor a jacket, replace a prop, refine a face) while the rest of the image stays intact. • Better compositing intelligence: Image 2 keeps lighting and perspective more consistently when you ask it to insert or replace elements, reducing the “pasted” look. • Faster iterative tweaks: combine short, layered edit instructions (e.g., “tighten crop → warm rim light → swap shoes”) to get to a final faster than full re‑renders. • Guidance on style continuity: ask it to match a specific finish (matte, latex, satin), and it will prioritize material behavior across edits. What surprised us (real notes): • Region edits are massively faster than full re‑renders when you only need one small change — but they’re only as good as the instruction precision. • The model preserves global light far better than Image 1, but it still needs nudges for specular consistency on shiny materials. • Small wording changes matter: “make the jacket satin with soft specular highlights” vs “make shiny jacket” produced very different, and repeatable, results. Top practical tips from the study: 1. Start with a precise visual goal — one sentence: “Make this portrait read like a glossy magazine cover with satin jacket highlights.”