That's nice, but you also made the image three times larger in size.
That's because of twitter's recompression being too strong, can't be helped. Unless you wanted me to recompress the file just as much as they had and introduce more artifacting.
Kinda defeats the purpose of JPG if it's that large, don'tcha think...
EDIT: Doesn't photoshop have settings to export optimized jpg? Seems unnecessarily bloated.
When our group was translating that Hiten doujin, our typesetter kept saving unoptimized in GIMP, and I kind of grilled him for it because it would lead what was normally 2.5 MB files to be bloated up to 6-7 MB (because he'd re-edit on the same already exported file during script revisions). Of course, we fixed it (thankfully) but I didn't want to put up a translation that was easily 30% more than the raws we were playing with.
Kinda defeats the purpose of JPG if it's that large, don'tcha think...
EDIT: Doesn't photoshop have settings to export optimized jpg? Seems unnecessarily bloated.
When our group was translating that Hiten doujin, our typesetter kept saving unoptimized in GIMP, and I kind of grilled him for it because it would lead what was normally 2.5 MB files to be bloated up to 6-7 MB (because he'd re-edit on the same already exported file during script revisions). Of course, we fixed it (thankfully) but I didn't want to put up a translation that was easily 30% more than the raws we were playing with.
I save at max settings on Photoshop, because I believe there is no point in introducing more artifacts into a twitter jpg. I think 1MB for a 2k px jpg is a fine size, that's about 20-30MB total for your typical doujin at that resolution. And with the standard hard drive size required for everyday browsing being 2TB average, 1TB minimum, 1MB is a drop in the bucket in the larger scheme of things.
@CodeKyuubi Fair enough, I'm just noting that this is a pretty rare case in and in between because digital photography inherently introduces "artifacting"/noise that isn't present in purely digital art. The same goes for scans, but for photos it feels like an incredibly dramatic increase as there are more factors that come into play (the lighting, shadows, etc).
I'm just wondering if uploading the edit was really necessary if you could've just uploaded the original and linked your edit in a comment (uploading to imgur or something). Because I think I would've preferred that miles more than what you did here...
Ehh, I have no strong thoughts on this, but as I'm aware booru is generally against hosting third-party edits of otherwise acceptable originals. It just irks me, is all.
@CodeKyuubi Fair enough, I'm just noting that this is a pretty rare case in and in between because digital photography inherently introduces "artifacting"/noise that isn't present in purely digital art. The same goes for scans, but for photos it feels like an incredibly dramatic increase as there are more factors that come into play (the lighting, shadows, etc).
I'm just wondering if uploading the edit was really necessary if you could've just uploaded the original and linked your edit in a comment (uploading to imgur or something). Because I think I would've preferred that miles more than what you did here...
Ehh, I have no strong thoughts on this, but as I'm aware booru is generally against hosting third-party edits of otherwise acceptable originals. It just irks me, is all.
From my experience, I find people don't like badly lit photos, even if the art is good. I only do photoshops of non-scans when I think that the DB userbase would be better served with a white/color balanced or (border) cropped (out) image. Ultimately, this is something that I rarely do, and only for severe cases. I can see why your thoughts are that way, being very order-oriented in regards to md5s and and originals and whatnot, but I'd say that the result is the same. In either case both the edit and the original are available to the users, just in a different order.
And to whoever flagged the image for third-party editing, feel free to flag every scan as well, because that's what they are. Few scans are uploaded raw, they're always cleaned and de-noised to an extent by the original scanner. This doesn't even fit any of the flagging criteria, which involves third parties adding things to the original, whereas this is just a simple white-balance to fix the low ISO of the camera used.
From my experience, I find people don't like badly lit photos, even if the art is good. I only do photoshops of non-scans when I think that the DB userbase would be better served with a white/color balanced or (border) cropped (out) image. Ultimately, this is something that I rarely do, and only for severe cases. I can see why your thoughts are that way, being very order-oriented in regards to md5s and and originals and whatnot, but I'd say that the result is the same. In either case both the edit and the original are available to the users, just in a different order.
Not until the tweet is deleted. This has happened before. And the difference between an uploaded edit and an uploaded original is that the original can always be edited in the future. An uploaded edit can't easily be re-edited to be its original, especially not when it's already been converted to a raw file format.
And to whoever flagged the image for third-party editing, feel free to flag every scan as well, because that's what they are. Few scans are uploaded raw, they're always cleaned and de-noised to an extent by the original scanner. This doesn't even fit any of the flagging criteria, which involves third parties adding things to the original, whereas this is just a simple white-balance to fix the low ISO of the camera used.
They're not technically wrong, you know. I think cleaning, detexting, all that jazz is fine (since after all, we do have a lot of those from yande.re), but intentionally uploading a third-party edit sets a fairly bad precedent for others to do the same, especially when it comes from a user with unrestricted uploads such as yourself. It potentially encourages other users to do the same in hopes of getting easy approvals, which is why I'm quite strictly against third-party edits unless it can't be avoided, like a scan. And for natively digital media such as this, even though it is a photo from the original artist this is still a modification, more than what the md5 will ever tell you.
We have comments for those things. I'd rather that than this. DB is not yande.re, and neither is it imgur. It should serve the purpose of neither of those two things.
Not until the tweet is deleted. This has happened before. And the difference between an uploaded edit and an uploaded original is that the original can always be edited in the future. An uploaded edit can't easily be re-edited to be its original, especially not when it's already been converted to a raw file format.
They're not technically wrong, you know. I think cleaning, detexting, all that jazz is fine (since after all, we do have a lot of those from yande.re), but intentionally uploading a third-party edit sets a fairly bad precedent for others to do the same, especially when it comes from a user with unrestricted uploads such as yourself. It potentially encourages other users to do the same in hopes of getting easy approvals, which is why I'm quite strictly against third-party edits unless it can't be avoided, like a scan. And for natively digital media such as this, even though it is a photo from the original artist this is still a modification, more than what the md5 will ever tell you.
We have comments for those things. I'd rather that than this. DB is not yande.re, and neither is it imgur. It should serve the purpose of neither of those two things.
Except this isn't natively digital in the original sense of the word, it is a digital photo of a physical object, making it no different from a scan, which is a digital scan of a physical object.
The only difference here is that this is one that the artist uploaded, which then you get into a discussion of what was their intention for the image that they drew, which can go for hours. If an artist uploads an intentionally broken image, should the uploader not be allowed to fix the errors? (As is sometimes the case when images are uploaded with amazingly terrible aliasing or broken lines to discourage re-uploading).
Should post #2355223 be flagged because it fixed the error that the artist and distribution company induced (post #2354256) to prohibit re-sharing of the image without first purchasing it?
It's a grey area. And by "natively digital" I mean it is a digital photo provided as is by the artist.
I'll just say that I'm not against 'fixes' when necessary and desired (as with the post you linked), but this upload just seems to err on doing too much without the need to. The original would have been fine.
And besides, any number of users could have provided a fix to that post (providing a potentially infinite amount of fixes). It just so happened that someone did it first with a decent effort. Not that anyone else would bother, maybe, but the possibility is out there.
It's a grey area. And by "natively digital" I mean it is a digital photo provided as is by the artist.
I'll just say that I'm not against 'fixes' when necessary and desired (as with the post you linked), but this upload just seems to err on doing too much without the need to. The original would have been fine.
And besides, any number of users could have provided a fix to that post (providing a potentially infinite amount of fixes). It just so happened that someone did it first with a decent effort. Not that anyone else would bother, maybe, but the possibility is out there.
Well, you could argue the same for scans, and this kinda thing can get circular real fast. Both stances can go into a slippery slope. Should edits be never allowed, or sometimes allowed? When should it be allowed, and why and how? My opinion is that as long as the edit doesn't detract from the image, and doesn't add anything unnecessary like a watermark, and is of sufficient quality, it should be fine, in regards to images that are not purely digital in nature (Scans and photos). Obviously extending it to digital is undesirable and would lead to chaos where users seek to implement what they believe an image should look like, but at the same time a carpet ban on everything is undesirable as well. These days, the only thing I do with digital images from a non-regular source (electronic magazines and artbooks) is to cut out the border and leave only the art (I know there are some people who like the borders but most don't).
Well, you could argue the same for scans, and this kinda thing can get circular real fast. Both stances can go into a slippery slope. Should edits be never allowed, or sometimes allowed? When should it be allowed, and why and how? My opinion is that as long as the edit doesn't detract from the image, and doesn't add anything unnecessary like a watermark, and is of sufficient quality, it should be fine, in regards to images that are not purely digital in nature (Scans and photos). Obviously extending it to digital is undesirable and would lead to chaos where users seek to implement what they believe an image should look like, but at the same time a carpet ban on everything is undesirable as well. These days, the only thing I do with digital images from a non-regular source (electronic magazines and artbooks) is to cut out the border and leave only the art (I know there are some people who like the borders but most don't).
Where do we draw the line?
Ehh, well... not... really though? Scans are print media that aren't published online digitally, and thus it is up to the original scanner/uploader to ensure that the scan is of an acceptable quality. That's where edits are fine. I mean, unless the original publisher decided to release a "scan" digitally, which would be way beyond my limit of understanding.
If you're making an edit that you think improves an image that derives from a digital medium (versus a print medium), then I suggest posting it as a comment. Doing anything otherwise would just confuse users. There are of course, exceptions, as with post #2354256, but those are few, rare, and in between.
To add to that, making unnecessary edits just seem contrary to what the author/artist intended to publish. And some even feel insulted by it, which explains the numerous disclaimers to not modify others' works. These modifications might be well intentioned, but they may just as well lead an artist to send a C&D letter here, which would be detriment to everyone on the site.
Ehh, well... not... really though? Scans are print media that aren't published online digitally, and thus it is up to the original scanner/uploader to ensure that the scan is of an acceptable quality. That's where edits are fine. I mean, unless the original publisher decided to release a "scan" digitally, which would be way beyond my limit of understanding.
If you're making an edit that you think improves an image that derives from a digital medium (versus a print medium), then I suggest posting it as a comment. Doing anything otherwise would just confuse users. There are of course, exceptions, as with post #2354256, but those are few, rare, and in between.
To add to that, making unnecessary edits just seem contrary to what the author/artist intended to publish. And some even feel insulted by it, which explains the numerous disclaimers to not modify others' works. These modifications might be well intentioned, but they may just as well lead an artist to send a C&D letter here, which would be detriment to everyone on the site.
Yes, but this is clearly a photograph which is in a different realm from true-digital images. They are much closer to scans than they are to digital drawings, even if the artist himself uploaded it. You can't keep pushing 'digital medium' on photos and not on scans. Then we can go into artist intention, such as, should highres scans be posted if the artist only intended to post a lower res digital image publicly, and distribute larger images to only doujin-buying customers?
I'm of the mind that if someone (artist or not) posts a badly-lit photo of a physical drawing, edits are as fair game as they are for scans.
I've gone ahead and reapproved this, but I think this discussion on it should be continued on the forum, as it seems like good policy discussion.
Also I think the original should also be uploaded and made the parent of this, regardless of being badly-lit. It doesn't seem so bad as to not warrant upload in my opinion.
Lastly, I think for edits like this in the future you, CodeKyuubi, should have the image go through the mod queue.