zlacker

>>dang+it
Cool tech, but plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous and just rubs me the wrong way. I get that it's informed by real details from other photos, but that's not what authentic means.

If I buy an "authentic Rolex" and receive a Chinese Rolex clone that's built similarly based on observations of a real Rolex, I'm going to feel scammed and very upset. And I'm much more protective of my memories than I would be of a watch.

>>bhaney+Rh
I would argue that authentic is a relative term, and actually helped me understand the product more easily. IMO, it is “authentic” because, compared to other image fills, it tries to fill in the data using real data from other photos.

>>cmdli+Ri
IDK, when I think authentic, I think "genuine", and no image generation is genuine by definition. this is not a bad thing necessarily, but it's important to frame these things correctly.

ultimately we oughta think about what we are referring to. if we are talking about a photograph taken by someone, the authenticity is ultimately coming from the combination of the photograph and camera used. so when you think of a genuine photo in this scenario you expect it to be fundamentally taken by the user by a particular camera to create a particular photograph. you can use devices to take a photo without pressing the button, such as a timer, but the photograph and camera are both fundamental to the authenticity of the image. if the camera is no longer entirely involved in the generation of the photograph I would say that it is no longer genuine.

Reference driven as described in the article is more appropriate, but alas it is verbose. normally such pedantry bores me, but in this case it's pretty tantamount to what it is being presented in this case.

>>flavor+(OP)
[stub for offtopicness]