{"views":["
\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190335<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> it wasn't low quality, the art is style is a vintage theme, it's supposed to look like a vintage piece taken from a pulp comic, the original source is straight from the digital print of the comic. It's supposed<\/em> to look worn and low-quality - that's kind of the style they were aiming for. Not exactly 4k graphics back in the 1960's and 70's.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190336<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> the original actually had a photo grain effect that, when sized down to a desktop wallpaper size, would have looked so bad it wouldn't have made it past the filters.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190337<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> Since it doesn't say who exactly<\/em> did it, I'm gonna guess it was you - I see one of my uploads got deleted over a watermark? That was the artist's signature - literally your first rule is to "attribute the author wherever possible".<\/p>\n

This place is kind of confusing with how you enforce the rules; attribute the author whenever possible, yet including the same signature that was on the original artwork gets it deleted. Don't upload sexual content like lolicon, but I flag a picture of a 15-year old character and you guys let it go.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 190338<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Solomander<\/a> Your deleted wallpapers have blatant compression artifacts all over them. It's like they're 3 pixels upscaled. I'm not sure if you're really serious or just trolling.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190339<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> The Bettie Page wallpapers weren't compressed - that's why they're so big. One of them was 13mb. If I'd performed any sort of image compression that would have been a different story. If you'd like I can send you the original.<\/p>\n

Funny how you can do a search here for "pulp magazine" and find lots of images that are covered in grain and scratches and aren't exactly "high quality" - because that's the pulp style. Maybe you should get to work getting those deleted too.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 190340<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Solomander<\/a> You're right, I was talking about the other ones. Restored.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190341<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> the others were straight from their digital sources.<\/p>\n

So what do you suggest, then? If you're under the impression that they're so terrible, should I just decrease their resolutions before uploading?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190342<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> thanks, then. I'm just curious why these artifacts weren't detected by your algorithm when I uploaded them initially. Honestly since I've actually tried to be more active here it's been confusing. Seems some shit is allowed and others aren't despite what the rules suggest.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 190343<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Solomander<\/a> There is no algorithm for low quality wallpapers when uploading.\nIn this case I don't think decreasing the resolution would suffice. The sources are just bad.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190344<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I've had uploads in the past get declined because they were low quality, specifically one involving Vampirella laying in a pool of blood - not the one currently in my uploads - and it confused the hell out of me because everything I worked with was extremely high quality. I had to resize a texture for the background resulting in a distortion and figured that was what caused it to be flagged.<\/p>\n

I didn't wind up changing it and retrying it. Maybe I should.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"lumberjacck\"<\/a>
lumberjacck<\/a> \u2013 190345<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Solomander<\/a> You couldn't upload it because it got detected as low quality? At upload it only scans for duplicates. Maybe it detected a duplicate that was deleted for low quality.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190346<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> ah, that would make more sense. Womp womp.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Solomander\"<\/a>
Solomander<\/a> \u2013 190347<\/a><\/small><\/header>

lumberjacck<\/a> I think one of the reasons some of the sources might seem bad is that some of the comics I'm working with are from the 1990's and weren't created digitally, so the publishers just scanned them - they're good scans for sure, but they're still old.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","