Is it possible to add monochrome in case like post #592646?

Or like post #3621239. I opted for partially_colored since, taking the image as a whole, it is partially colored and not completely greyscale.

I feel like watermarks/sigs/logos generally shouldn't count when tagging an image; if the content of an image is greyscale the post should be tagged greyscale. if a user's trying to find an image and one of the things they remember about it was that it was monochromatic, then just having it not show up in a search because an artist's logo is there is kinda dumb.

watsit said:
Or like post #3621239. I opted for partially_colored since, taking the image as a whole, it is partially colored and not completely greyscale.

that's not partially_colored, if you really want to stretch the definition it might be spot_color

darryus said:
if a user's trying to find an image and one of the things they remember about it was that it was monochromatic, then just having it not show up in a search because an artist's logo is there is kinda dumb.

But at the same time, if one of the things they remember was that there was a bit of color (that they may or may not remember was from a logo/signature/watermark) and search with -greyscale, it would be equally dumb to have it not show up.

darryus said:
that's not partially_colored, if you really want to stretch the definition it might be spot_color

I dunno, the wiki for partially_colored seems to fit better than spot_color:

partially_colored says:
An image that has only been partially colored in. Remember, colored in grey counts as colored in.

Not to be confused with spot_color or restricted_palette, which are both fully colored in. The easiest way to tell if it's only partially colored in is to look for sections that are the same color as the background.

spot_color says:
Used for almost monochrome images that contain colored portions in a small, specific area:

The fur and hairtips are dark grey, which counts as "colored in", while the clothing, skin, and most of the hair is left uncolored, being the same shade as the background.

watsit said:
But at the same time, if one of the things they remember was that there was a bit of color (that they may or may not remember was from a logo/signature/watermark) and search with -greyscale, it would be equally dumb to have it not show up.

well, for general tags at least, we don't tag logos as if they're part of a scene. if the content of the logo is tagged at all it's tagged as if it's separate from the main content of the post, similar to how multiple_images posts are tagged.

I don't know if there's an official rule on it.

Personally, I tend to ignore those logos, since it's just in the corner and it is not really part of the image. So I'd still tag it monochrome, since that is what the picture is. I guess that you could use monochrome + spot_color if you want to be more precise? But again, it's not really part of the image itself, so I don't see much point in treating it as part of the art, because that is really what the monochrome, etc type tags are for.

The question becomes: is someone searching monochrome really wondering if an address logo in the corner has a small pop of color? Or are they searching for where the actual art part of the image is monochrome?

I think it's mainly the second option. So if the art section is monochrome, then tagging it monochrome is what fits. And spot_color is mainly for when the art part of the image is all mostly one color, but there's one small part of the image that is different to create an effect or make it important. So again, it's not really asking if a random logo in the corner has a spot of color. It's mostly asking about the art itself. So neither of those tags really fits the logo address in the corner at all.

Especially because, in these examples, that logo isn't really an incorporated part of the art. It's just a digital address stuck in the extra space to the side of the art. If it was on some clothing, or part of the actual design, then that would make it more relevant.

However, I would tag it with website_logo. Because the logo does need to be tagged and searchable somehow. Even if I don't really see it as a relevant part of the art itself.

furrypickle said:
The question becomes: is someone searching monochrome really wondering if an address logo in the corner has a small pop of color? Or are they searching for where the actual art part of the image is monochrome?

The counter question then is: if someone doesn't recall what was part of a logo/watermark/signature, and what was part of the image itself, wouldn't they expect those details to be tagged regardless? E.g. they remember something glowing green by a character's feet as they transform into a pokemon.

And some watermarks/logo can be pretty detailed; post #3624643 for example has a clear image of vault boy as the artist's logo/watermark, but isn't tagged with it. While post #3622958 is tagged with it, for the same thing. It's not part of the actual art, but it's undeniably visible, so if someone's searching for or blacklisting vault_boy, should it be tagged for that or not? Or if an artist's logo contains a penis, while the rest of the image is Safe, the post should surely still be set Explicit.

watsit said:
The counter question then is: if someone doesn't recall what was part of a logo/watermark/signature, and what was part of the image itself, wouldn't they expect those details to be tagged regardless?

...

Or if an artist's logo contains a penis, while the rest of the image is Safe, the post should surely still be set Explicit.

If the discussion in this thread has shown anything, it's that there are multiple conflicting yet valid intuitions. In this situation, perhaps the most apt question to ask is which intuitions are most applicable.

As monochrome is a meta tag, I would be most inclined to look to the intuitions regarding other meta tags for guidance.

If an artist uploads their pencil sketch with a digital watermark in the corner, it seems silly to think the watermark alone would warrant adding the tags digital media (artwork), digital drawing (artwork), and mixed media to a submission that is otherwise entirely composed in a singular traditional medium. A cursory look through the posts tagged traditional_media_(artwork) watermark shows that my intuition mirrors practice. The presence of a digital watermark does not lead taggers to apply digital media tags.

Furthermore, my intuition says that the presence of English text in a watermark should not warrant the meta tag English text. The same pages of search results I linked above show that this intuition also conforms to actual tagging practice.

If watermarks are not treated as contributing to media tags, and the text content of watermarks is not considered to be the text content of the image, that indicates to me that watermarks already receive treatment as a separate entity from the rest of the image, at least in these respects.

The question is then, should watermarks factor into the applicability of colour meta tags such as monochrome and sepia, when they do not factor into the applicability of other meta tags like English text and media tags? It makes the most sense to me that these meta tags should all receive similar treatment for most cases. Speaking directly to the last example posted by Watsit, this principle doesn't seem at odds with the idea of using watermark content to decide when an image ought to be rated as explicit.

Most succinctly, a digital watermark does not make an image digital media and a coloured watermark does not make an image coloured.

monroethelizard said:
Furthermore, my intuition says that the presence of English text in a watermark should not warrant the meta tag English text. The same pages of search results I linked above show that this intuition also conforms to actual tagging practice.

I'm not sure how many watermarks actually contain English text, per se. They generally just include a name and an image, and a name doesn't normally get tagged as a specific language because multiple languages can use the same character set (excepting for cases where there are characters unique to a particular language, e.g. kana for Japanese). But if someone has a watermark on their public works that says "Public Release" or "Free Version" or "See early on Patreon" or something, I'd say that does warrant english_text even if it's part of the watermark.

watsit said:
I'm not sure how many watermarks actually contain English text, per se. They generally just include a name and an image, and a name doesn't normally get tagged as a specific language because multiple languages can use the same character set (excepting for cases where there are characters unique to a particular language, e.g. kana for Japanese). But if someone has a watermark on their public works that says "Public Release" or "Free Version" or "See early on Patreon" or something, I'd say that does warrant english_text even if it's part of the watermark.

Out of curiosity, would you support the implication implicate url -> text as well? I'm asking genuinely, because I have a strong intuition that that would make the text meta tag far less useful.

monroethelizard said:
Out of curiosity, would you support the implication implicate url -> text as well? I'm asking genuinely, because I have a strong intuition that that would make the text meta tag far less useful.

Probably no, since text is for "writing or typography in any language", and url isn't necessarily comprised of words from "any language".

watsit said:
Probably no, since text is for "writing or typography in any language", and url isn't necessarily comprised of words from "any language".

It'd still be typography