>>7985184I see what you mean. I struggle to find his work even at the resolutions you've posted. I suspect that he has been very careful about allowing his work onto the Internet in anything like high resolution. Or, even "better than medium" resolution.
>picrelFor example, I found this one embedded in a Wired article about him. While it's decent in total pixels, the quality has been gimped. Even the filename specifically says "lowerqual" in it. When You open it, it looks reasonably good, has an 82% JPEG compression, which is respectable but not great or pro.
However, you can immediately see the image is rotted with upscale artifacts and just blows all sorts of detail with "approximated worms" wiping out all crispness and lines. Looks like someone wiped grease all over the lens and shifted the colors under artificial light. It looks "good enough" for someone looking at it on a 6" or 8" phone screen, but put it up on a decent 2560x1440 graphics monitor and it just makes your eyeballs scream in pain.
>>7991870No. Upscales are cancer and destroying available image quality on the entire Internet. Every fucking zoomer retard is "upscaling" shit all over the place and poisoning search results so original images don't even show up in search results anymore. Just rotted out, cancerous sewage.
>>7991291>Stable DiffusionIs part of the cancer. It's shit.
