zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
I think the competition for text to image services is over and open source, stable diffusion won. It doesn't matter how detailed (or whatever counts as "better") corporate text-to-image products get, stable diffusion is good enough which really is good enough. Unlike the corporate offerings, open source txt2img doesn't have random restrictions (no its not just porn at this point) and actually allows for additional scripts/tooling/models. If you're attempting to do anything on a professional level or produce an image with specific details via txt2img, you likely have a workflow with txt2img being only step one.

Why bother using a product from a company that is notorious for failing to commit to most of their services, when you can run something which produces output that is pretty close (and maybe better) and is free to run and change and train?

>>boh+VY
Stable Diffusion with the right fine-tunes in the hand of a competent user might be the best (if you define "realistic" as best, MidJourney might disagree with that being the only metric). It is good enough that I find it hard to get excited about somebody showing off a new model.

Still, Stable Diffusion is losing the usability, tooling and integration game. The people who care to make interfaces for it mostly treat it as an expert tool, not something for people who have never heard of image generating AI. Many competing services have better out-of-the-box results (for people who don't know what a negative prompt is), easier hosting, user friendly integrations in tools that matter, better hosted services, etc.