Topic: Unnecessary image replacement. OR is it?

saw this happening with other images previously, but in this case I can tell for sure:

#700489

The picture I iploaded to e621 was directly generated by Photosohop from .psd
One on FA was same image which was re-coded later by website to a different color space.
So it' either same, or original version was "higher quality" as lossy recode always creates artifact and color space change in general changes look (noticeably on a phone browser because they have to limit 16-bit colors). Afaiik e621 also did some re-codng spreee recently. So is that the reason? e621 version was reduced in quality so it had to be replaced?

swiftkill said:
saw this happening with other images previously, but in this case I can tell for sure:

post #700489

The picture I iploaded to e621 was directly generated by Photosohop from .psd
One on FA was same image which was re-coded later by website to a different color space.
So it' either same, or original version was "higher quality" as lossy recode always creates artifact and color space change in general changes look (noticeably on a phone browser because they have to limit 16-bit colors). Afaiik e621 also did some re-codng spreee recently. So is that the reason? e621 version was reduced in quality so it had to be replaced?

The post you linked was replaced a couple of years ago, with the reason being "Higher quality .jpg from FA."
The version you uploaded was a 1280x989 jpg (325.92 KB) while the version that replaced it from FA was a 1280x1031 jpg (329.55 KB).

Typically, images with very trivial differences (such as the colour recoding) would not be enough grounds to have it replaced.
However, the one you posted here was literally smaller than what was posted on your FA, so that is the main reason why it got replaced.

On an unrelated note, I recommend getting your account verified to your artist tag so that people know you are the artist and poster.

Ah, I remember this one. I was never fully satisfied about this particular replacement.

I don't remember why I chose to look at the source of a picture that was eight years old at the time, and I think I asked about it on the Discord? Normally, I'd have used "Larger size .jpg from FA" except that wasn't quite correct.

As I recall, I had to think about it a bit because both versions have drawbacks. The scale of the original upload is smaller than the FA/current version by about 20%. This is what TheGreatWolfgang is referring to above.

However, the FA/current version is clearly cropped down from the original image so there's technically more image in the smaller original than the FA/current one.

Now, in most cases, they'd actually be separate uploads in a parent/child relationship, but a replacement was chosen in this case because the missing cropped bits didn't contribute significantly enough to the overall composition (which I figured you, as the uploading artist, must have also thought or you wouldn't have cropped them out on your FA upload) to justify the split. It's not the solution that I'd call ideal, but it gives us the bigger view of the detail and action even if the (arguably sacrificable) visual information around the edges has been lost.

I think the best way to take care of this would be, if you somehow still have the original file, to submit a replacement that combines the two: the overall uncropped amount of picture in the original at the same zoom scale as the FA/current version (giving us a picture at 1334x1031).

Hopefully, that makes sense.

thegreatwolfgang said:

On an unrelated note, I recommend getting your account verified to your artist tag so that people know you are the artist and poster.

pretty sure I used to have that, guess it was lost.

clawstripe said:

I think the best way to take care of this would be, if you somehow still have the original file, to submit a replacement that combines the two: the overall uncropped amount of picture in the original at the same zoom scale as the FA/current version (giving us a picture at 1334x1031).

Hopefully, that makes sense.

That's curious. 1280x1031 looks like old FA "limit". 1334x1031 look like Letter format proportiohs and OG was at leas tic of that or larger. I'll look up the the .psd, bu provided that was among "doodles", might be moot.

swiftkill said:
pretty sure I used to have that, guess it was lost.

Oops, my bad. The post's uploader technically becomes @Clawstripe since they replaced it, so it doesn't show up as you being the uploader.

You still have your verification checkmark on your other posts.

swiftkill said:
That's curious. 1280x1031 looks like old FA "limit". 1334x1031 look like Letter format proportiohs and OG was at leas tic of that or larger.

Both images have a width of 1280 — 1280x989 (original upload) vs. 1280x1031 (FA/current) — but different heights so both could have fit on FA back then. That disparity was what alerted me that something was off. The 1334x1031 figure I gave would be the size of the hypothetical ideal replacement.

I'll look up the the .psd, bu provided that was among "doodles", might be moot.

I figure it's worth a shot to see if you've still got it. After all, after about a decade, a lot could have happened to it. Fingers crossed.

swiftkill said:
pretty sure I used to have that, guess it was lost.

You're still verified, as TheGreatWolfgang observes. Personally, I don't care if I'm listed as the uploader or not as ensuring e621 has the best version possible is more important. I think we're considering ways into something that lets us prevent the transfer of uploader "credit", but I don't know the feasibility of that even if the developers didn't have so much on their plates.