The thing I tag the most are colors of characters and species, resolution tags and background tags. Most of it is pretty self-explanatory. With backgrounds however, I occasionally stumble upon some images I cannot decide what to apply.
Maybe other people have difficulty deciding whether to use one or another background tag too, so please join in with your example(s) if so.

I'll be giving you a few examples and I'll ask for a general opinion on what to use. Please also include why you would tag the chosen background.

Also, question: do you tag two backgrounds on one image? Like gradient background and green background if a green background fades into a different color or a weaker shade of green?

Example 1:
post #823280

Counting the white part as a white border, the purple area is what it's about. The background is rather simple, but it is clearly defined he is lying on a bed. Would you tag purple background or detailed background?

Example 2:
post #823138

Obviously a simple background, but what to tag? Tag it brown background with a border, or both brown background and gradient background?

Example 3:
post #822792

Just like example 1, a clearly defined area; laying on grass. But does it deserve the detailed background or the simple background tag?

Example 4:
post #822472

Ignoring the white border again, there's a white area and a blue area, with the blue area being dominant in size. What to tag, only blue background, or also white background?

Example 5:
post #821265

Clearly some effort went into this background. Would you consider tagging it amazing background, even though some aspect of the background miss deep detail (blurred tree peaks and such)?

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Also, question: do you tag two backgrounds on one image? Like gradient background and green background if a green background fades into a different color or a weaker shade of green?

Sometimes. I don't go out of my way to tag more than one, unless it's something like partially transparent background or like post #429282. In the above case I'd usually tag both: it's still a green background, gradient or not.

As for the examples:
1. Simple purple background. You can kind of tell that he's lying on sheets, but not much else. I wouldn't even tag it as bed. I usually only tag detailed_background if the location is discernible from the background, or if the background detail is on the same level as the character detail.
2. There's some gradient, but it's hard to see. Gradient_background might be valid, but I'd say that brown_background suffices.
3. Simple background. You can tell the generic location, but it's still not detailed.
4. I'd actually throw that under abstract_background. Same as other backgrounds with random rectangles, such as post #792624.
5. I'd tag as detailed_background. Amazing_background is mostly for scenery porn, and should be used sparingly, only for the truly detailed images.

Genjar said:
Useful stuff

Thank you.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Example 5:
post #821265

Clearly some effort went into this background. Would you consider tagging it amazing background, even though some aspect of the background miss deep detail (blurred tree peaks and such)?

Dude... it's called atmospheric_perspective. Look it up.

happy_little_trees

Knotty_Curls said:
happy_little_trees

Happy_little_but_also_tall_trees I think you mean.

Circeus said:
Dude... it's called atmospheric_perspective. Look it up.

Only 15 posts attached to it. How was I supposed to know that, on top of the description missing from the Wiki and it's not mentioned anywhere else?

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Only 15 posts attached to it. How was I supposed to know that, on top of the description missing from the Wiki and it's not mentioned anywhere else?

I should have linked to Wikipedia. I was referring not to the tag itself but to how it's in fact a reason that the background is high-quality, and not the other way around.

I'm well aware I am the only person who has any interest in tagging that on this site XD

SO I'd like more clarification on this, because I've been adding some background tags when they're missing (i.e. 99% of the time). I would've thought #821265 would be amazing_background in part because of all the highlights on the fore/middleground trees but then the colors becoming gradually muted into the background, which is both realistic and (I assume) pretty time-consuming.

Compare that with #953219, which is tagged amazing_background. No offense to the artist or tagger, I'm just not amazed.

In part I've been confused because the examples on detailed_background are all pretty high-quality even though the text says "Most images with a background will fall into this catagory[sic]." A "clearly-defined" location is also sort of vague -- like, if there's a bed and walls and maybe a door, does that make it clearly-defined as a bedroom, or just a generic bedroom (could be anyone's, anywhere)?

Could somebody with strong opinions about this distinction add/change some examples to the wikis, like:

• a picture with some recognizable background elements that should still be considered simple_background
• a picture with a not-so-detailed background that should still be considered detailed_background (not simple)
• a picture that's almost amazing_background but not quite (and why)?

doofhoofoof said:
SO I'd like more clarification on this, because I've been adding some background tags when they're missing (i.e. 99% of the time). I would've thought #821265 would be amazing_background in part because of all the highlights on the fore/middleground trees but then the colors becoming gradually muted into the background, which is both realistic and (I assume) pretty time-consuming.

Compare that with #953219, which is tagged amazing_background. No offense to the artist or tagger, I'm just not amazed.

In part I've been confused because the examples on detailed_background are all pretty high-quality even though the text says "Most images with a background will fall into this catagory[sic]." A "clearly-defined" location is also sort of vague -- like, if there's a bed and walls and maybe a door, does that make it clearly-defined as a bedroom, or just a generic bedroom (could be anyone's, anywhere)?

Could somebody with strong opinions about this distinction add/change some examples to the wikis, like:

• a picture with some recognizable background elements that should still be considered simple_background
• a picture with a not-so-detailed background that should still be considered detailed_background (not simple)
• a picture that's almost amazing_background but not quite (and why)?

I don't have much to add here, but i will say that i always saw Simple_background as a subjective tag. Backgrounds with color fades or multiple colors in simple patterns aren't "simple", they require more than one tool or color to use. Complex backgrounds, or other background tags, are also subjective in my book. So, I usually just do a "leave as is", if there are potentially conflicting background tags.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I don't have much to add here, but i will say that i always saw Simple_background as a subjective tag. Backgrounds with color fades or multiple colors in simple patterns aren't "simple", they require more than one tool or color to use. Complex backgrounds, or other background tags, are also subjective in my book. So, I usually just do a "leave as is", if there are potentially conflicting background tags.

They are definitely subjective (that's why I asked about some borderline cases) but I still think they're useful. I think the relative complexity of the background vs. foreground is a sensible basis even if it's still subjective. Even color fades or simple patterns aren't really distracting from what/whoever's in the foreground, but the more recognizable objects there are and the more detailed they are, the more likely the viewer will be like, "Hey, they have a plant in their office. Oh cute, it's a bonsai. Oh wow, it's a bonsai Sequoiadendron giganteum and it looks like it needs watering! Oh right, I was masturbating."

doofhoofoof said:
SO I'd like more clarification on this, because I've been adding some background tags when they're missing (i.e. 99% of the time). I would've thought #821265 would be amazing_background in part because of all the highlights on the fore/middleground trees but then the colors becoming gradually muted into the background, which is both realistic and (I assume) pretty time-consuming.

Compare that with #953219, which is tagged amazing_background. No offense to the artist or tagger, I'm just not amazed.

In part I've been confused because the examples on detailed_background are all pretty high-quality even though the text says "Most images with a background will fall into this catagory[sic]." A "clearly-defined" location is also sort of vague -- like, if there's a bed and walls and maybe a door, does that make it clearly-defined as a bedroom, or just a generic bedroom (could be anyone's, anywhere)?

Could somebody with strong opinions about this distinction add/change some examples to the wikis, like:

• a picture with some recognizable background elements that should still be considered simple_background
• a picture with a not-so-detailed background that should still be considered detailed_background (not simple)
• a picture that's almost amazing_background but not quite (and why)?

As Siral said it is fairly subjective but there are solid criteria you can go off of, simple_background is in general anything where a environment is not clearly defined, a prop or 2 alone is not enough, you need to be able to see the surrounding area, in the case of a bedroom for example; walls, windows, doors, closet if applicable and so on, doest have to be everything but would have to be visible that your in a bedroom, a bed alone can pretty much be anywhere even outside(as has been shown in some movies or series popular in dream scenes(Marry Poppins or American Werewolf in London)). detailed_background and amazing_background on the other hand are alike in requiring a developed environment, the difference being that in detailed_background the character is still the focus while background is secondary, amazing_background applies to images the give characters and background equal focus, no visible image hierarchy

both post #821265 and post #953219 are actualy just detailed_background because they have a developed environment but the character are the focus, so the latter post i would actually consider mistagged.

These tags are more about the focus and environment rather then the level of finish.
For tagging purposes there is also only generic bedroom, we dont care whos it is as that would require canon/lore to know

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I don't have much to add here, but i will say that i always saw Simple_background as a subjective tag. Backgrounds with color fades or multiple colors in simple patterns aren't "simple", they require more than one tool or color to use. Complex backgrounds, or other background tags, are also subjective in my book. So, I usually just do a "leave as is", if there are potentially conflicting background tags.

Abstract background might be the one you're looking for. It doesn't imply simple background like the most.

Hudson said:
Abstract_background might be the one you're looking for. It doesn't imply simple_background like the most.

Hudson said:
Abstract ground might be the one you're looking for. It doesn't imply simple background like the most.

abstract ground brings up no results, but abstract background does. However, I'm saying it when I tag, I see people tag simple_background on such backgrounds, so I don't fuck with it. It is relatively simple, comparatively. But abstract background might be a better tag, so I'll start using that when need be.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
abstract ground brings up no results

What the ass, my phone is doing some weird things regarding my keyboard lately.

Also take a look at pattern background.

I removed the wiki text about detailed_background being the most common type, since that's simply not true.

But I've been unable to come up with a good rule of thumb for the tag. Comparisons such as "backgrounds that are as detailed as the foreground and the characters" break down when the latter two aren't detailed either. Such as in sketches...

As for the thumbnails, I'd agree that some of them are rather close to amazing_background.

Though it bears mentioning that amazing_background implies detailed_background. So it's technically correct. But maybe one or two of those should be replaced by backgrounds that are not quite as detailed.

Maybe something like...
post #335448 or post #317562

Genjar said:
But I've been unable to come up with a good rule of thumb for the tag. Comparisons such as "backgrounds that are as detailed as the foreground and the characters" break down when the latter two aren't detailed either. Such as in sketches...

Note that in visual focus, finish does not matter so sketches and lineart would be covered as well under it

Maybe we need another background tag to place between simple_background and detailed_background? For when it's not just a simple color/gradient, nor it's an abstract shapes, but still not very detailed.

For example, how should i tag this image
post #1105380
It has sun and grass, but it's not really detailed. But nor it is abstract.
And about simple backgrounds wiki states "Images with a "flat" color background. The background may be one color, many variations of the same color, or a few colors... the 'important part' is that they do not suggest any sort of location outside of, perhaps 'the floor'"

Another, maybe a bit less confusing picture:
post #1103171
while i think it looks good and i tagged it as detailed, i'm still not sure it complies with "Images with a good amount of detail in the surrounding area, enough that the character is firmly established as existing in a place with a world around them"