>>3354044lol, you picked the absolute easiest area that already had very little color information to lose. good job, you didn't prove anything at all!
>>3354057False.
>>3354058>Standard stock photo technique is much betterExcept if you're just trying to grab a really nice high res image to print out and put on your wall or in your gallery, you can EASILY do content aware fill on "standard stock photo technique" and get an imperceptibly different image than the original. You CANNOT do that with my technique, content aware fill simply does not fucking work against this technique at all, but works *perfectly* against stock photo branding grids.
Again, you're all failures and haven't even proven me wrong in the slightest bit whatsoever.
