>>3354144What are you talking about, it's only printable if you only ever look at it from 10 feet away. It's obviously fucked up with huge areas of smuged out details and the color looks fucked up in tons of places, even at a distance. Everything about it just screams "wtf" even from a distance.
>>3354146Since when to "old school touch ups" recover irrecoverably lost image data? Are you going to spend 1 million ours in MS Paint stippling in all the details you just smudged away? Sure you are.
>>3354151It's not my picture you fucking idiot, reverse image search it, it's some faggot talking about how great the Google Pixel camera is. Fuck you.
>>3354152>Nope. It's a watermark just like any other full size low opacity watermark.Except this one can't be content aware filled out and printed like nothing ever was there.
>Kek. Nope.Then why hasn't anyone really come close to producing a printable image after removing it yet?
