interesting. i apparently opened that image, then forgot about it, and without context saw it later. i looked at it, thought wow that's a cool picture from back in the day, looked at the people in it, and left.
i now ran into your comment (with a purple link) and did some reflection. upon reexamination, its clear that the picture is fake (because im looking for it) but when i wasn't looking for it, its interesting how all the "hot spots" or interesting pieces of the picture are pretty good and the (imo) lackluster parts are the "less interesting" pieces like the end of the roads where it it blurs out. i wonder if that bias is inherently ingrained in the system.
It can get a bit better if the prompt is made more detailed. For instance here are the four results I got for "Professional black and white photo of Paris in the 1950s, on a rainy afternoon. Leica 35mm lens. --s 1000" (--s 1000 lets it 'stylize' a bit more).
Things still get a little weird in the distance (particularly in photo 3), but I think overall it's a bit better. People who are really good at writing prompts could probably do even better, although one of the strengths of MidJourney V4 and V5 is that it can give good results without the traditional paragraph of "incredible, award winning, photo of the year" etc.
Very interesting. Photo 4 is a significant step in the right direction. It's refreshing that it doesn't veer towards a Gaussian look either. Thanks for sharing.
i now ran into your comment (with a purple link) and did some reflection. upon reexamination, its clear that the picture is fake (because im looking for it) but when i wasn't looking for it, its interesting how all the "hot spots" or interesting pieces of the picture are pretty good and the (imo) lackluster parts are the "less interesting" pieces like the end of the roads where it it blurs out. i wonder if that bias is inherently ingrained in the system.