The reigning world champions were at risk of elimination as England made several counterattacks on Argentina throughout the match. England forward Anthony Gordon scored the first goal of the match at the 55th minute to take a 1-0 lead.

Danny Chacon, an England fan attending a watch party at the Olde Ship British pub in Fullerton, was hopeful about England continuing their path in the World Cup as a team that was favored to beat Argentina.

“I truly believe that in order for England to keep going on that success is to get lucky at the right moment and rely a little bit on that superstar power,” said Chacon. “The rest of the team is doing fine, I’ve seen Anthony Gordon doing fine, but on their set pieces they need to do a little bit better.”

Argentina responded five minutes before the 90th minute when midfielder Enzo Fernandez scored off an assist from Lionel Messi to tie the game 1-1. The match went to nine minutes of stoppage time, and defender Lisandro Martinez scored the winning goal to send Argentina to another World Cup final.

It marks the first time that a team wins back-to-back World Cup titles since Brazil accomplished the feat in 1962.

Mike Barges, an Argentina soccer fan that watched the match with his family at Roscoe’s Famous Deli, was excited to see Messi take the team to another World Cup final.

“They are a wonderful team and I love their country,” said Barges. ” I came with my family that has always rooted for Argentina and we can’t wait for another World Cup title.”

Argentina and England have a rivalry that dates back to the 1966 World Cup and is considered one of the most hostile in football. The rivarly featured many controversial and dramatic tensions between both teams. Before the match began, crowds at Atlanta Stadium booed both national anthems, drawing a lot of frustration and backlash online.

It was a tough loss for England as they sought their first championship appearance since 1966.

Argentina came into this tournament with a 3-0-0 record winning all group stage matches against Algeria, Austria and Jordan. They outlasted Cape Verde and Egypt in the Round of 32 and 16 with 3-2 wins. Argentina’s previous game was against Switzerland in the quarter-finals where they came out victorious 3-1 in extra time.

Argentina will face Spain in the World Cup final Sunday, July 19 at noon, while England will face France in the third-place match Saturday, July 18 at 2 p.m.

Spain is advancing to the World Cup final for the first time since they won the tournament in 2010. Spain are led by midfielder Rodri and striker Mikel Oyarzabal and have had incredible defense, winning 5 of their 6 games going into this semifinal matchup and only drawing with Cape Verde 0-0. Their star forward, Lamine Yamal, has become the second-youngest European player to reach a World Cup final and the sixth-youngest player in the tournament’s history.

Within the first 10 minutes, France had immense pressure offensively, something they have done the entire tournament. Both teams were eventually split with Spain’s defense being able to quickly handle France’s counter attacks.

In the 19th minute, Spain was awarded a penalty after a foul inside the box and Oyarzabal scored the penalty in the 22nd minute. This marked the first time France has trailed all tournament long. A big loss for France occurred after the goal as they subbed out center back William Saliba, a great defender for France leading into this game.

After this goal and the hydration break, Spain had continued to stop France’s offense, consistently intercepted passes and allowed little offense past midfield. When France was in their opponent’s box, Spain was able to stand their ground by continuing to notch up their defense. Spain had 56% possession and completed 227 of their passes compared to France’s 193 passes at the end of the first half.

Eric Siraki, a neutral fan watching the game at the LouLou French restaurant in Santa Monica, believes that Spain played phenomenally.

“They’re absolutely dominating, complete performance from them, simple and calm as you like. France is nowhere to be seen,” said Siraki.

In the second half, Spain continued their strong defense inside their own box, continuing to run a 4-2-3-1 formation and countered offensively in the 57th minute as defender Pedro Porro scored, marking a 2-0 lead. Spain applied ongoing pressure on both sides of the ball, preventing France from building any momentum.

France had multiple chances, but all three of their shots were off target through the 78th minute as Spain continued to defend in their box. Spain’s defense was able to contain France’s best players. Mbappe received a yellow card in the 86th minute, Michael Olise finished with no assists and Ousmane Dembele had only three shots, with one off target and two saved.

Spain has not lost to France since 2021, a trend that continues to lean in Spain’s favor as they beat France 2-0 and denied them another entry to a World Cup final.

Spain will face the winner of the Argentina versus England match on Sunday, July 19 at 12 p.m., while France will face the loser in the third place matchup on Saturday, July 18 at 2 p.m.

Argentina came into this game hoping they would be the favorite to overcome Egypt in scoring goals. However, Egypt’s strong defensive tactics and fast approach at chasing the ball made Argentina a much weaker team throughout half of the match.

The game took off with Egypt’s defender Yasser Ibrahim scoring the first goal at the 15th minute to give Egypt a 1-0 lead. Five minutes later, Argentina was awarded a penalty kick after Egypt forward Haissem Hassan stepped on the right foot of Argentina defender Nicolas Tagliafico, but Egypt goalkeeper Mostafa Shobeir made the save.

During the second half, Egypt midfielder Mostafa Ziko scored the second goal at the 67th minute for Egypt to lead 2-0. The outcome prompted Argentina to become more aggressive. 11 minutes later, Argentina defender Cristian Romero scored on an assist from Messi to get on the board.

Argentina got a lift from Messi when he scored at the 83rd minute to tie the match 2-2. In the third minute of stoppage time, Argentina midfielder Enzo Fernandez scored the winning goal to complete “the biggest comeback of this world cup” giving Argentina a 3-2 victory and advancing the team to the next round.

One of the biggest talking points from the Argentina-Egypt match was a goal by Ziko that was ruled out during the second half after a VAR review determined a foul had occurred. The decision sparked controversy because the foul was called while Argentina was on the attack, leading some to question whether VAR overstepped its role.

Although Argentina was tested by Egypt, they dominated many of the match’s statistics. Argentina finished with 21 shots, including seven shots on goal, and 58% possession. Egypt had four shots on goal and 42% possession.

Some of Argentina’s weaknesses throughout this World Cup were exposed in this match. They struggled to maintain a lead, creating a lack of comeback momentum. Some of their previous matches have been against high pressure teams, leading them to winning close call games, similar to their previous knockout-round match against Cape Verde that went to extra time, with Argentina winning 3-2.

Argentina will face Switzerland after their win against Colombia on Saturday, July 11, with kickoff at 6 p.m. PT. For its next World Cup match, Argentina may need to adjust its tactics and make more substitutions throughout the match. By shifting from a standard positional build-up to increased player rotation and width, they can better exploit open spaces.

Before kickoff, major controversy arose over the United States striker Folarin Balogun’s availability after the red card he had received during the Round of 16.

Balogun’s red card from the game against Bosnia and Herzegovina was overturned, allowing the U.S.’s leading scorer at this year’s World Cup to play. The Football Federation for Belgium was not happy by this decision, as Belgium manager Rudi Garcia called it a joke, comparing the decision to April Fools Day. Belgium did end up appealing the red card ban decision, but it was ultimately rejected by FIFA just hours before the game.

President Donald Trump said that he talked to FIFA president Gianni Infantino to review the red card on Balogun, later praising the decision FIFA made on Truth Social.

“Thank You FIFA for doing what was right, and reversing a great injustice.”

After President Trump had spoken publicly about talking to Infantino, FIFA released a statement on X saying that Infantino did speak with President Trump.

“During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies.”

At the Kick It In the Park Los Angeles series at Sheldon-Arleta Park, Clifford Hammond, a U.S. fan and watch party attendant, wasn’t surprised by President Trump’s motives.

“It looked like he was trying to get credit for something that it sounds like he initially didn’t do, but since [Balogun overturned red card] went through, he had remarks like ‘Oh, I did have a little saying to get the man back on the field,” Hammond said.

Belgium scored in the ninth minute to take the 1-0 lead. The United States had opportunities to strive offensively, but Belgium’s defense within the box and controlled play turned them away before the hydration break.

Midfielder Malik Tillman tied the game 1-1 in the 30th minute with a goal on free kick, marking the United States’ first shot on goal of the match. Belgium regained the lead minutes later with a header from attacking midfielder Charles De Ketelaere, his second goal of the day. Belgium also held a 5-1 advantage in shots on goal, having a slight edge in possession at 53% in the first half.

In the second half, the U.S. applied more offensive pressure and controlled much of the early play. Belgium extended their lead to 3-1 in the 57th minute when Hans Vanaken scored on an open goal mistake by U.S. goalkeeper Matt Freese. The mistakes on defense, the errors on passes and poor ball control hurt the United States’ chances throughout the match.

Belgium controlled the last 15 minutes, frustrating the United States by taking their time on goal kicks and throw-ins, while continuing their solid defense play. The Red Devils secured their victory in stoppage time when striker Romelu Lukaku scored to make it 4-1. Balogun had limited activity in the game, taking only three shots on goal, with one on target that was saved. Christian Pulisic was substituted in the 59th minute because of an injury.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misspelled Cape Verde. This issue was corrected on July 8, 2026.

Picture a wedding photographer who wants to offer clients a oil-painting-style portrait alongside the standard album, without commissioning an actual painter for every booking. Or a small furniture brand that wants its product shots to look like watercolor illustrations for a seasonal catalog, but has no in-house illustrator and no budget for one. Or a content creator turning a personal photo into a Van Gogh-style piece for a social post, purely because it looks striking in a feed full of standard photography. 

All three of these scenarios used to require either a skilled artist or hours in Photoshop filters that never quite looked convincing. Today, they’re solved by AI, often in under a minute. Here’s how that actually works. 

Yes!! And the Technology Behind It Is More Capable Than Filters 

The short answer is yes, and it’s worth separating this from the old “painting filter” features photo apps have offered for years. Those applied a fixed texture over an existing photo, which is why the result always looked a bit fake. The underlying photo was still obviously a photo…just smeared with a brush pattern. 

Modern AI tools work differently. Rather than overlaying a texture, they use neural style transfer: separating an image into “content” (the subject, composition, and pose) and “style” (the brushwork, color blending, and texture of a chosen painting reference). The model then reconstructs the photo’s content using that learned style, producing something closer to a genuinely repainted image than a filtered one. 

Quality varies a lot between tools, mostly based on how well the underlying model handles texture variation, edge detail, and color mixing rather than just blurring and tinting the original photo. This is also why specifying a style matters more than people expect. 

A generic “oil painting” request often produces flatter, less convincing results than naming an actual movement or reference point. The tools below all support this kind of targeted styling to varying degrees, which is usually the bigger factor in result quality than the platform itself. 

The Quality Question of AI Tools for Painting Effect 

Not every painterly conversion holds up under a closer look. A few specific qualities separate a convincing result from something that just looks like a heavy filter. 

Brushwork and Texture 

Genuine results show directional brushstrokes that follow the form of the subject, with visible variation between thick and thin paint. There should not be a uniform texture smeared evenly across the whole image. 

Color Mixing 

Colors should blend the way pigment does, with subtle shifts and layering, rather than looking simply blurred or desaturated across flat areas. 

Edge Handling 

Strong conversions mix soft and hard edges deliberately, the same way a painter would, instead of applying one uniform softness to the entire frame. 

Light Behavior 

Light should interact with the “painted” surface convincingly, with highlights and shadows that feel hand-applied rather than just inherited unchanged from the original photo. 

Detail Abstraction 

Real paintings simplify. A strong conversion knows where to abstract fine detail, like the skin, fabric, and background clutter, rather than rendering every pixel with photographic precision, the fastest tell that a result is closer to a filter than a painting.  

Midjourney: Stronger Artistic Range, Weaker Photo Fidelity 

Midjourney is frequently cited for the sheer quality of its painterly output, and it has a fair reputation. Its model has a deep understanding of art history and can convincingly imitate specific painters or blend several influences into one cohesive style. For generating original artwork from a text prompt, it’s hard to beat. 

The catch is that Midjourney generates new images from prompts rather than transforming an existing photo directly. Getting your actual photo turned into a painting means routing it through image-prompting workarounds, which often shift the composition, likeness, or details further from the source than a dedicated style-transfer tool would. 

It’s a strong option if the goal is “create art inspired by this photo,” but a less precise one if the goal is “make this exact photo look painted.” 

Pros 

• Exceptional artistic quality and depth of style understanding 

• Can convincingly mimic specific painters or blend influences 

• Strong, active community and frequent model improvements 

• Multiple variations generated per prompt 

Cons 

• Doesn’t transform an existing photo directly; works from prompts 

• Likeness and composition can drift from the original source image 

• No free tier, and the Discord-based interface adds friction 

• Requires prompt-writing skill to get consistent results 

Adobe Firefly: Built for Designers Already in the Adobe Ecosystem 

Adobe Firefly takes a prompt-based approach similar to Midjourney but with a clear advantage for anyone already working inside Photoshop or Illustrator: the painting conversion sits inside the same software used for final refinement. Generate a painterly base, then clean up edges, adjust color, or composite the result directly into a larger project without exporting between separate tools. 

The tradeoff is the learning curve. Firefly doesn’t have a one-click “painting” filter. Therefore, getting a convincing result depends on writing a detailed, well-structured prompt describing brushwork, lighting, and composition. 

For designers comfortable with prompt-crafting and already paying for Creative Cloud, that’s a minor hurdle. For someone who just wants a fast conversion without learning prompt syntax, it adds friction the other options skip entirely. 

Pros 

• Direct integration with Photoshop and the rest of Creative Cloud 

• Clear commercial licensing terms 

• Professional-quality output once prompts are well-crafted 

• Easy to refine and composite results into larger design projects 

Cons 

• No one-click painting filter; quality depends heavily on prompt skill 

• Requires an active Creative Cloud subscription 

• Steeper learning curve than single-purpose conversion tools 

• Slower workflow for anyone needing fast, simple conversions 

Artlist: A Broader Toolkit Built Around the Same Engine 

Among the tools built for this kind of transformation, Artlist image generator tools stand out for treating painting conversion as one feature inside a larger creative suite rather than a single-purpose gimmick. You can apply a style transfer to a photo and then continue working on the same asset, like adjusting lighting, resizing for a specific platform, or generating supporting visuals, all without switching to a separate app for each step. 

That matters most for anyone producing more than a single one-off image. A freelancer turning a full product shoot into a consistent watercolor-style catalog, or a small studio handling client deliverables across formats, benefits more from a connected workflow than from a single sharp filter. 

Output resolution and style consistency across a batch tend to hold up better in tools built around a full production pipeline than in narrow, single-effect apps, since the underlying model and editing tools were designed to work together rather than bolted on separately. 

Pros 

• Style conversion sits inside a full creative suite, not a standalone effect 

• Consistent results across batches of images 

• High-resolution exports suited to print and large display 

• No need to switch tools for lighting, resizing, or follow-up edits 

Cons 

• Less suited to one-off, highly experimental artistic exploration 

• Style range is narrower than a dedicated art-generation model built purely for prompting 

• Best value shows up with volume, not single occasional conversions 

The Bottom Line 

Photo-to-painting conversion has moved well past the gimmick-filter era. Today’s tools, whether built around style transfer, prompt-based generation, or a full creative suite, can produce results convincing enough for real commercial use, not just novelty social posts. The differences between them come down to workflow more than raw capability: how many images you’re converting, how much manual control you want, and whether you’d rather start from your own photo or build something new from scratch. 

The visual standard that viewers expect from a Twitch or YouTube gaming stream has risen sharply over the past five years. What used to look impressive in a 2019 broadcast now reads as dated, and the streams that pull the largest audiences are increasingly running games whose visual fidelity rivals what cinema delivered a decade ago. The shift has implications for streamers, viewers, platforms and the games being broadcast, and the data on watch time, peak concurrents and average view duration is already reflecting how the standard has moved. 

The shift has been driven by several reinforcing changes. Hardware capable of running modern releases at high settings has become more accessible. The games themselves have invested heavily in photorealistic art direction. And streaming infrastructure has improved to the point where viewers can actually receive the high-fidelity broadcasts that streamers are now able to send. The result is a viewer base trained to expect a certain level of visual quality from any serious gaming broadcast, and streams that fail to meet that expectation lose audience to those that do. 

How the immersion bar rose 

Modern AAA releases have set the visual reference point for streaming audiences. Titles built around photorealistic rendering, ray-traced lighting, motion-captured animation and detailed environmental work are the new baseline. The viewer scrolling past a thumbnail makes a fast judgment about visual quality, and broadcasts of games that look dated relative to today’s baseline get passed over more often than ones that look fresh. This dynamic has compounded over the past few years, with viewers increasingly conditioned to expect that quality from any stream they choose to spend time with. 

Some of the most acclaimed realistic games of the current generation, including releases like Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077 and Microsoft Flight Simulator, sit at the center of this shift. These titles broadcast beautifully on Twitch and YouTube precisely because their visual quality survives the compression of a live stream, which not every game can claim. The streams running on these titles routinely produce the highest watch-time figures in their respective categories, and the data on stream selection patterns suggests visual fidelity is now one of the most predictive factors in whether a broadcast will hold a viewer past the first thirty seconds. 

What this means for streamers 

The pressure on streamers to invest in high-end production has risen accordingly. A streamer running a beautiful game on outdated hardware delivers a compressed, blurry version of what viewers know the game can look like, and audience numbers tend to suffer. The market has effectively forced streamers to invest in capture cards, dedicated streaming PCs, higher upload bandwidth and color-accurate displays at levels that would have been considered enthusiast territory a few years ago. Streamers who have made these investments are pulling ahead in the audience metrics that platforms reward. 

Those building careers around broad-audience growth favor titles whose visual quality plays well on stream, with certain categories dominating platform rankings while others get squeezed toward niches. The decision to stream games with high-realism graphics has become a strategic choice as much as a creative one, tied to how each platform’s discovery algorithm surfaces visually impressive content to scrolling viewers. 

How viewer behavior has shifted 

The data on viewer behavior confirms the visual-quality bias. Average view duration on high-fidelity streams runs measurably higher than on streams of older or visually simpler titles, controlling for streamer popularity. Discovery-page click-through rates favor thumbnails with sharper visuals. Peak concurrent counts during major releases of visually impressive games consistently outperform peaks for comparable releases that did not prioritize the same level of visual investment. The numbers are reshaping which titles get streamed and which streamers grow. 

Viewers themselves have absorbed the new standard with little friction. The audience that grew up with PS5 and high-refresh-rate monitors does not perceive the older visual baseline as nostalgic; they read it as low-quality. The generational shift in viewer expectations has happened faster than many platforms anticipated, and the streaming categories that have not adapted to the new standard have lost share to those that have. 

The counter-trend that still thrives 

The immersion arms race has not erased the older categories entirely. Retro streams, speedruns, indie showcases and pixel-art communities continue to draw devoted audiences who explicitly value the styles the broader market has moved past. These communities are smaller than the high-fidelity side of streaming but more loyal, and the streamers who anchor them often generate more durable engagement per viewer than those chasing the latest visual showcase. The data shows two distinct streaming ecosystems running in parallel, one defined by visual maximalism and one defined by curated experiences that respect different priorities. 

Twitch and YouTube benefit from hosting both ecosystems, and the algorithms have grown sophisticated enough to surface content from each to the audiences most likely to engage with it. The high-fidelity side pulls in casual viewers and broad audiences. The counter-trend categories build dedicated communities that platforms can rely on for long-term retention. 

Why the immersion arms race is reshaping which streams break out 

The streaming landscape on Twitch and YouTube has been reorganized around visual quality faster than most observers expected. Stream games at the high end of the visual spectrum consistently outperform comparable streams of less polished titles, and the platforms have built their discovery systems around this dynamic. The breakout streamers of the next few years will largely be those who run titles with the visual quality the modern audience now expects, on hardware that can do those titles justice, and on infrastructure that delivers the broadcast cleanly. The standard will continue to rise as newer hardware generations arrive and fresh releases push the visual ceiling higher, and the streams that adapt to each new level will keep growing while those that stay at the older baseline drift toward smaller, more niche audiences. 

Norway vs. Ivory Coast

Two teams that finished second in their respective groups are set to meet. Norway, led by forward Erling Haaland, who ranks second in goals scored in the World Cup with four goals, will be well-rested after sitting out the team’s final match against France. Midfielder Martin Odegaard has been a key playmaker, recording an assist in each match he has played. He also enters the match well-rested.

Ivory Coast has been strong defensively, allowing no goals in two matches and playing a solid performance against a World Cup-winning Germany squad. The team is led by Nicolas Pepe and Yan Diomande.

The match begins at 10 a.m. PDT on June 30 at Dallas Stadium.

France vs. Sweden

France has been one of the tournament’s most dominant teams. The 2022 World Cup runner-up finished atop Group I with nine points and were led by Kylian Mbappe, Ousmane Dembele and Michael Olise. France’s squad is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball.

Although Sweden finished third in its group, it entered the knockout stage as the highest-ranked third-place team. Sweden remains a dangerous team with forwards Viktor Gyrokeres and Alexander Isak, who leads the World Cup with three assists.

The match begins at 2 p.m. PDT on June 30 at New York/New Jersey Stadium.

Argentina vs. Cape Verde

Argentina has been one of the tournament’s most dominant teams, winning all three group-stage matches behind Lionel Messi, who leads the World Cup with six goals. The defending champion looks to continue their push for back-to-back World Cup titles against Cape Verde, the smallest nation by population to reach the knockout stage.

Cape Verde has played phenomenal defense, ranking top three amongst the tournament leaders in clean sweeps. The team is led by players such as goalkeeper Vozinha, who has recorded 10, including seven in one match.

This matchup is shaping into a David-versus-Goliath showdown with potentially high upside.

The match begins on July 3 at 3 p.m. PDT at Miami Stadium.

Mexico vs. Ecuador

One of the tournament’s three hosts to reach the knockout stage is coming, Mexico enters the match with momentum. Mexico has been strong on both sides of the ball, conceding one goal and finishing atop Group A with nine points. The team is led by Julian Quinones, who has scored two goals, and Johan Vasquez, who was great defensively throughout the group stage.

Ecuador remains a dangerous opponent after being one of the best top third-place teams. The team shocked Germany 2-1 in its final group match and has also been strong defensively, recording 42 tackles, the third-most in the tournament behind Germany and Paraguay. Ecuador is led by Moises Caicedo and Willan Pacho.

The match begins at 6 p.m. PDT on June 30 at Mexico City Stadium.

Croatia vs. Portugal

What makes this matchup so intriguing is that two legends could be playing in their final World Cup. Former Real Madrid teammates Luka Modric of Croatia and Cristano Ronaldo of Portugal are both in their 40s, and the loser could be making a final World Cup appearance.

Portugal is led by Ronaldo and Bruno Fernandes, who continue to drive the team’s offensive play. Croatia finished second in Group L but brings plenty of World Cup experience after finishing third in 2022 and runner up in 2018. That experience could help them in this matchup.

The match begins at 4 P.M PDT at Toronto Stadium.