I just saw a post I made got deleted for lack of image quality and would like to know what the criteria for the deletion is based on to avoid uploading another invalid post. Thanks in advance.
Topic: What is the minimum quality requirement for an image?
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
It's a bit difficult to give a concrete definition since the image as a whole is taken into consideration.
In general though:
Is it 'readable'? Can you tell what's going on and what the intent is?
Does the anatomy feel correct? Are proportions consistent and do joints bend correctly?
Is the coloring well done?
pppl said:
I just saw a post I made got deleted for lack of image quality and would like to know what the criteria for the deletion is based on to avoid uploading another invalid post. Thanks in advance.
See the pinned topic #23578 for an explanation of the various deletion reasons.
Your only deleted post (so far) had a deletion reason of "Does not meet minimum quality standards (Compression)".
"Compression" here means any visible compression artifacts, which would fail the quality standards for file quality.
On the other hand, you have various replaced posts which had a replacement reason of "Rule34 850 sample JPG vs Reddit original PNG".
This means you have been reposting sample images taken from Rule34 apparently (which is terrible source, see howto:source) instead of getting the highest quality image publicly available (which in this case is the artist's Reddit, see howto:sites_and_sources).
The only thing you can learn from this is to avoid posting images with obvious & visible compression artifacts and to only post high-quality images taken from favourable sources.
If you are diligent enough, you can request from the artist for the original images. Ideally, exported to high-quality PNGs rather than badly-compressed JPGs.
Updated
thegreatwolfgang said:
See the pinned topic #23578 for an explanation of the various deletion reasons.Your post was deleted with the reason as "Does not meet minimum quality standards (Compression)".
"Compression" here means visible compression artifacts, which would fail the quality standards for file quality.The only thing you can learn from this is to avoid posting images with obvious & visible compression artifacts and to only post high-quality images taken from favourable sources.
If you are diligent enough, you can request from the artist for the original images. Ideally, exported to high-quality PNGs rather than badly-compressed JPGs.
Thanks for the explanation. I originally found the post on X (after seeing it on R34) and after seeing the deletion I tried to find a better quality version to no use.
I didn't really think it was of bad quality, which kinda made the deletion a surprise. I don't think it's worth appealing based on what I personally believe looks ok tho.
regsmutt said:
It's a bit difficult to give a concrete definition since the image as a whole is taken into consideration.In general though:
Is it 'readable'? Can you tell what's going on and what the intent is?
Does the anatomy feel correct? Are proportions consistent and do joints bend correctly?
Is the coloring well done?
Well I really did think the image looks alright (in terms of everything being coherent and not fucked up by compression) but after a glance you can *kinda* see the effects of the compression
pppl said:
Well I really did think the image looks alright (in terms of everything being coherent and not fucked up by compression) but after a glance you can *kinda* see the effects of the compression
I didn't realize that it was *file* quality so I was commenting on *art* quality. The stuff about just being 'readable' only applies to art quality. Compression is different.
If it can be displayed in an art gallery, it’s probably good enough for e621, right?
Right?
0f8c4c9d05154171ae8 said:
If it can be displayed in an art gallery, it’s probably good enough for e621, right?Right?
Probably, provided that it meets the Uploading Guidelines.
Every time an image is posted, its sent to Cummers Georg, who cums to almost any furry porn imaginable. if he cant cum to it, it violates quality standards
10dd173 said:
Every time an image is posted, its sent to Cummers Georg, who cums to almost any furry porn imaginable. if he cant cum to it, it violates quality standards
Bro looks at post #5200661 and thinks "This could work".