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
Seems like it's only a matter of degree, given that modern cell phone cameras take image bursts and combine them into a single output image. Filling in details in a scene from other photos taken at the same time doesn't really seem that different to me. And seeing that photography has never really been capturing real life exactly, is it really that big a deal? Look at Ansel Adams - he heavily edited his "real-life" photographs, and changed them over the years as he made subsequent prints.

(Disclaimer: work for Google but have nothing to do with this project.)

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