Alright so I'm pretty sure all art of my characters that I upload were always checked as No Source Available.
This is because I always upload them directly from my stash on my laptop and the only other consistent website I post most of them are my personal social media account(s).
Because I get the full resolution files typically through private messages or in rare cases an email, I don't have a tangible source for (probably) 99% of the art.
But recently I've been getting anxious thinking that this is causing a poor impression on me, that people might start thinking I'm not giving artists respect.
When I create a new artist tag (only after asking them privately if they want one) I've started making sure I also get at least one link to them in the wiki. But I'm wondering if a direct link to one of their public social media accounts should be added to the posts themselves as a source even if that's technically untrue.
So I guess that's what I'm asking here: Should I use the Source input to link to an artist's social media account?
I don't want people to think I don't care about or respect the hard work and skills of artists. Especially because I'm friends with most of the ones I get art from.

You can give attribution in the description while mentioning that you're the original commissioner, if you like.

I don't think linking an artist's social media / whole gallery as the source is standard procedure.

nin10dope said:
Alright so I'm pretty sure all art of my characters that I upload were always checked as No Source Available.
This is because I always upload them directly from my stash on my laptop and the only other consistent website I post most of them are my personal social media account(s).

That's fine. Once you upload to anywhere else other than e6, make sure to add that as one of the sources for the artwork (even though you posted on e6 first).
Generally, we would want to have some way to track back to where something was posted or where we could find the artwork again.

Because I get the full resolution files typically through private messages or in rare cases an email, I don't have a tangible source for (probably) 99% of the art.
But recently I've been getting anxious thinking that this is causing a poor impression on me, that people might start thinking I'm not giving artists respect.

Even if it is done though DMs, your commissions are probably going still be transferred to you via online means.
You'd still want that link as the source (unless the artist does not want any private links shared); e.g., Discord attachment link, Google Drive link, etc.

When I create a new artist tag (only after asking them privately if they want one) I've started making sure I also get at least one link to them in the wiki. But I'm wondering if a direct link to one of their public social media accounts should be added to the posts themselves as a source even if that's technically untrue.

So I guess that's what I'm asking here: Should I use the Source input to link to an artist's social media account?
I don't want people to think I don't care about or respect the hard work and skills of artists. Especially because I'm friends with most of the ones I get art from.

Generally, we do not encourage having just that and would much prefer if you had also linked directly to (a) the submission page itself and (b) the direct image link (see howto:source).

While not explicitly stated, people have gotten into trouble for Sourcing Abuse if they had just added the artist gallery page as the only source.
More specifically, people who are found to be too lazy or not diligent enough in linking the submission page itself and opting to just add the artist's profile page on every post they upload as the only source and calling it a day.

If absolutely no other sources are available, then it would be better to just have it as "No available source."
If you still want to credit the artist, it is recommended to add the links to their profile pages on their respective artist wikis.

So to answer your question:

• Yes, you are allowed to link the artist's profile page/social media account only if it is complimentary to the actual submission page link and direct image link.
• If no other sources are available, then just leave it as empty or ticked as "No available source."

thegreatwolfgang said:
That's fine. Once you upload to anywhere else other than e6, make sure to add that as one of the sources for the artwork (even though you posted on e6 first).
Generally, we would want to have some way to track back to where something was posted or where we could find the artwork again.

Even if it is done though DMs, your commissions are probably going still be transferred to you via online means.
You'd still want that link as the source (unless the artist does not want any private links shared); e.g., Discord attachment link, Google Drive link, etc.

Generally, we do not encourage having just that and would much prefer if you had also linked directly to (a) the submission page itself and (b) the direct image link (see howto:source).

While not explicitly stated, people have gotten into trouble for Sourcing Abuse if they had just added the artist gallery page as the only source.
More specifically, people who are found to be too lazy or not diligent enough in linking the submission page itself and opting to just add the artist's profile page on every post they upload as the only source and calling it a day.

If absolutely no other sources are available, then it would be better to just have it as "No available source."
If you still want to credit the artist, it is recommended to add the links to their profile pages on their respective artist wikis.

So to answer your question:

• Yes, you are allowed to link the artist's profile page/social media account only if it is complimentary to the actual submission page link and direct image link.
• If no other sources are available, then just leave it as empty or ticked as "No available source."

Thank you very much!! Ironically when I made the effort to convert all of my saved art into png files it was to also upload them to FA only for their servers to hit that big overflow issue recently, so that will likely become a source link when uploads are back online for them. I might do the same with my BlueSky account, since I sometimes upload them there too.

nin10dope said:
Thank you very much!! Ironically when I made the effort to convert all of my saved art into png files it was to also upload them to FA only for their servers to hit that big overflow issue recently, so that will likely become a source link when uploads are back online for them. I might do the same with my BlueSky account, since I sometimes upload them there too.

Oh noooo, please don't do that. If you want to convert it for your own use, that's fine.
However, when you upload here, please use the original format whenever possible (unless it is not supported here), otherwise the converted version is considered to be inferior over the original version.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Oh noooo, please don't do that. If you want to convert it for your own use, that's fine.
However, when you upload here, please use the original format whenever possible (unless it is not supported here), otherwise the converted version is considered to be inferior over the original version.

Some of them were always png's
Others are jpeg's and several of those have been deleted by Janitors because, you know, jpeg artifacting and compression
Other than a few mistakes of trying to upload a transparent background edit, I don't do anything other than open the jpeg's in a Photo program and Save As png

nin10dope said:
Other than a few mistakes of trying to upload a transparent background edit, I don't do anything other than open the jpeg's in a Photo program and Save As png

Please don't do that. Even if the png will be a perfect copy of the jpg, the png will be unnecessarily larger without any improvement in quality, and people get in trouble for uploading pngs converted from jpgs. It's best to just upload the jpg itself without any conversion.

nin10dope said:
Other than a few mistakes of trying to upload a transparent background edit, I don't do anything other than open the jpeg's in a Photo program and Save As png

I'm not sure if this is the same as just manually renaming the image extension from .jpg to .png.
If I recall correctly and if it has not changed since then, our uploading system is pretty robust when it comes to detecting "fake" .pngs. It will automatically revert it back to .jpg for the e621 download, even though you "changed" it to .png beforehand.

However, if you have reencoded the whole thing (such as "Export as PNG"), then that is still a big no-no.
Don't artificially make an image "better", even if you have gotten slapped for bad image compression. Ask the artist to export it as PNG from their drawing application, instead of whatever deep-fried format that does not pass quality standards.

Man I just feel super anxious about taking this at face value
I really don't want to get in more trouble for visible compression or classic jpeg artifacts
If I remember correctly, I don't resize the images at least
I specifically used "Photos" the default Windows 10 app
I haven't done any Export, I just hit Save As and change the file option on the bottom from ".jpg" to "all file types" and change the extension to ".png"

If you're really re-encoding the image into a PNG the output won't be the same size as your original.

What you're trying to do is pretty confusing though - you're just trying to change the extension? You want to to re-encode the JPGs to add transparency? I don't think alpha channels are really supported in JPGs, but turning them into PNGs is still a no-no.

oneohthrix said:
If you're really re-encoding the image into a PNG the output won't be the same size as your original.

What you're trying to do is pretty confusing though - you're just trying to change the extension? You want to to re-encode the JPGs to add transparency? I don't think alpha channels are really supported in JPGs, but turning them into PNGs is still a no-no.

No I've decided that the transparent background stuff is just for me and other websites with looser quality control.
The file size does increase noticeably when I do the change, so I know something is different.

nin10dope said:
No I've decided that the transparent background stuff is just for me and other websites with looser quality control.
The file size does increase noticeably when I do the change, so I know something is different.

Just reading this is leaving me fucking speechless and if I was admin I would take away your ability to upload here on basis what has been written on this forum thread alone.

I'll list my exact steps of what I'm doing. I'm on Windows 10 for reference.

• I open File Explorer and go to the desired image
• I double-click open it, which uses the Photos app
• I click Edit in the top-left which refreshes the image to enter Edit mode
• I click Save options in the top right, which drops down and I click Save as copy
• In the save window, the drop down menu under the name will show a big list of different image types
• I select png and save it

The Dimensions are unchanged, but the file size goes up from approx 160KB to a little over 1MB

mairo said:
Just reading this is leaving me fucking speechless and if I was admin I would take away your ability to upload here on basis what has been written on this forum thread alone.

Man just because I can't describe every nerve I use to move my hand doesn't mean I can't properly move my hand

nin10dope said:
I'll list my exact steps of what I'm doing. I'm on Windows 10 for reference.

• I open File Explorer and go to the desired image
• I double-click open it, which uses the Photos app
• I click Edit in the top-left which refreshes the image to enter Edit mode
• I click Save options in the top right, which drops down and I click Save as copy
• In the save window, the drop down menu under the name will show a big list of different image types
• I select png and save it

The Dimensions are unchanged, but the file size goes up from approx 160KB to a little over 1MB

bro what's your intent in doing this though? why are you uh... saving a JPG as a PNG and trying to upload it? I don't think anyone understands. what you're doing is def fucked up btw (no hate)

oneohthrix said:
bro what's your intent in doing this though? why are you uh... saving a JPG as a PNG and trying to upload it? I don't think anyone understands. what you're doing is def fucked up btw

Making the image smoother and clearer
I'm just beyond lost on why this is considered heretical

nin10dope said:
Making the image smoother and clearer
I'm just beyond lost on why this is considered heretical

You should Google what lossy and lossless image formats are. Your PNG is visually identical to the JPG but with reduced compression and hence a larger file size. It isn't smoother or clearer.

nin10dope said:
Making the image smoother and clearer
I'm just beyond lost on why this is considered heretical

saving a jpg as a png doesn't make it clearer, however it prevents the image from getting worse.

oneohthrix said:
You should Google what lossy and lossless image formats are. Your PNG is visually identical to the JPG but with reduced compression and hence a larger file size. It isn't smoother or clearer.

I mean I understand that it doesn't literally increase the quality of the image. It just saves it from the loss compression that jpg has. Like from thumbnails and other shit

manitka said:
saving a jpg as a png doesn't make it clearer, however it prevents the image from getting worse.

Yeah that's exactly why I did it.

nin10dope said:
Making the image smoother and clearer
I'm just beyond lost on why this is considered heretical

Yeah just saving as PNG if it's currently a JPG does not do anything to the image except make the filesize bigger. It'll still have all the compression artifacts from when it was a JPG, you can't get rid of those once they're there. The JPG artifacts will still show up, and that pretty severely counts against the post if it's uploaded as a PNG. The original JPG version is seen as significantly preferable, if no version that has never been JPG exists.

If I should stop doing this to reduce the burden on the server (and any other reason) just let me know. I won't do it to further images, I just really hate quality loss when uploading and downloading images in general, especially if anyone else ever downloaded anything I upload

Fake PNGs are one of the biggest faux pas you can commit on an image board. Simply changing the file type does not enhance image quality; that's a placebo effect possibly caused by the knowledge that "pngs are lossless." To be bluntly honest regarding your concerns about making bad impressions, they are present. Your actions haven't only demonstrated a level of ignorance but also indicate that you haven't taken the time to learn about different topics or consulted our guidelines before taking action.

Take a moment to read our quality standards. Look up information about pngs and jpegs and how they function. I understand you want to help out here, but learn to walk before you start running.

nin10dope said:
If I should stop doing this to reduce the burden on the server (and any other reason) just let me know. I won't do it to further images, I just really hate quality loss when uploading and downloading images in general

You should absolutely never purposely convert an image from JPG to PNG that you're uploading here. If the JPG version exists publicly it would almost certainly be accepted as a replacement.
That said, if you can keep it as a PNG from the start that's better.

versperus said:
Fake PNGs are one of the biggest faux pas you can commit on an image board. Simply changing the file type does not enhance image quality; that's a placebo effect possibly caused by the knowledge that "pngs are lossless." To be bluntly honest regarding your concerns about making bad impressions, they are present. Your actions haven't only demonstrated a level of ignorance but also indicate that you haven't taken the time to learn about different topics or consulted our guidelines before taking action.

Take a moment to read our quality standards. Look up information about pngs and jpegs and how they function. I understand you want to help out here, but learn to walk before you start running.

I'm sorry.

nin10dope said:
I'm sorry.

tbh it's not a massive deal. if you had 100s of uploads it'd be wild tho. just be aware for next time

oneohthrix said:
tbh it's not a massive deal. if you had 100s of uploads it'd be wild tho. just be aware for next time

Thanks, I'll make sure to just Upload what the artist sends to me as is.

nin10dope said:
Thanks, I'll make sure to just Upload what the artist sends to me as is.

👍For future reference, the etiquette we're looking for is getting the files in their best possible quality as close to original as possible.
If you're getting files directly from the artist, that's awesome. Those are the ones we want because they're the least molested.

If getting files from the artist isn't an option, we're looking for the best possible public file from their available sources in its as-found condition, so no airbrushing or anything like that to try and make it look nicer.

versperus said:
👍For future reference, the etiquette we're looking for is getting the files in their best possible quality as close to original as possible.
If you're getting files directly from the artist, that's awesome. Those are the ones we want because they're the least molested.

If getting files from the artist isn't an option, we're looking for the best possible public file from their available sources in its as-found condition, so no airbrushing or anything like that to try and make it look nicer.

Of all of the art of my character that I have, and have uploaded, the only stage of molestation they might have is the file type change, and only some of them (maybe half?) have had that much done.
I do still plan on uploading all of the art of my character that I have to FA when it's off of Read-Only mode but 99.99% of everything I have (of my character, specifically) was delivered privately and doesn't have a public source, hence the creation of this thread. I can then list those other site uploads as sources for the sake of having another uploaded source, but it would still just be me uploading the exact same file on a personal account

nin10dope said:
Of all of the art of my character that I have, and have uploaded, the only stage of molestation they might have is the file type change, and only some of them (maybe half?) have had that much done.

Not to alarm you, but saying that you have wilfully manipulated half of your uploads can be considered Posting Abuse, though the moderators would have to look deeper into it.

If there are no other publicly-available available sources, we would (probably) not do anything about it since we can't get the original file.
If a publicly-available source (that is not manipulated) becomes available in the future, it will 100% be considered superior and be used to replace whatever version you have posted.

I do still plan on uploading all of the art of my character that I have to FA when it's off of Read-Only mode but 99.99% of everything I have (of my character, specifically) was delivered privately and doesn't have a public source, hence the creation of this thread. I can then list those other site uploads as sources for the sake of having another uploaded source, but it would still just be me uploading the exact same file on a personal account

Linking your own submission page is encouraged, even if it is still the "manipulated" version.

However, if the artist eventually shares their version, it will be used to replace yours (should yours be found to be artificially enhanced).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Not to alarm you, but saying that you have wilfully manipulated half of your uploads can be considered Posting Abuse, though the moderators would have to look deeper into it.

It'd be insanely harsh if they were penalized at all. I can see it's limited to like 11 of their own commissions and they essentially didn't know what a png or jpg was until now.

nin10dog if you upload the OG format somewhere else, maybe reupload it here so we don't have those crusty ass artifacted pngs. it helps out people wanting to download ur commissioned art too, as you brought up

oneohthrix said:
It'd be insanely harsh if they were penalized at all. I can see it's limited to like 11 of their own commissions and they essentially didn't know what a png or jpg was until now.

nin10dog if you upload the OG format somewhere else, maybe reupload it here so we don't have those crusty ass artifacted pngs. it helps out people wanting to download ur commissioned art too, as you brought up

Ignorance is only an excuse in small amounts, which this is likely still within

Users absolutely do get punished for this stuff, but a slap on the wrist is likely all that would happen here

They will however get penalized via lost upload slots when the posts are replaced

I could probably find some of the originals again by combing through my Messenger and then replace those affected
For that, should I use the Reupload button on the post's page?

nin10dope said:
I could probably find some of the originals again by combing through my Messenger and then replace those affected
For that, should I use the Reupload button on the post's page?

Ideally it would be a replacement rather than a reupload, but you'd need replacement access. You can use reupload though, but it creates a new post and the old one has to be flagged as a duplicate of the new.

scth said:
Ideally it would be a replacement rather than a reupload, but you'd need replacement access. You can use reupload though, but it creates a new post and the old one has to be flagged as a duplicate of the new.

I guess the ball could be in Mod's court. I'd like to think that after all of this clear and concise instruction on properly sourcing and not tampering with the original file, I can replace my own uploads. I'm not so foolhardy as to make these mistakes again. Otherwise I'll just reupload and flag my older posts as need be, although I'm sure that'll tank my upload limit...

oneohthrix said:
It'd be insanely harsh if they were penalized at all.

I disagree.

They uploaded the (presumably original) versions of the artwork, filed a takedown to have them removed, then uploaded the PNG conversions.
I'm glad that this was revealed relatively early. Still, I am absolutely baffled by their logic.

nin10dope said:
Otherwise I'll just reupload and flag my older posts as need be, although I'm sure that'll tank my upload limit...

No, you cannot reupload them.
You can go through the takedown system again and request that that the original uploads be restored.

cinder said:

Just an aside, this makes zero sense too.

oh no trust me I don't do that, i meant theoretically, it stops more compression from saving and resaving after the fact, but as stated doesn't fix compression already done to it.

makes me thankful that the only jpegs i have are photos of traditional stuff or jpegs from my 3ds

I didn't know that I could just ask for the originals to be restored
I would've done that instead

cinder said:
I disagree.

They uploaded the (presumably original) versions of the artwork, filed a takedown to have them removed, then uploaded the PNG conversions.
I'm glad that this was revealed relatively early. Still, I am absolutely baffled by their logic.

No, you cannot reupload them.
You can go through the takedown system again and request that that the original uploads be restored.

How do I request the originals be restored through the takedown system? Nevermind on this part, I found forums saying what to do.

post #4909360 was deleted with a false statement, as the listed source was incorrect (a colorless version) and I have now corrected it with a link to the colored version. I even went through the trouble of finding the very first time I received the colored version and it was always a png.

nin10dope said:
How do I request the originals be restored through the takedown system? Nevermind on this part, I found forums saying what to do.

post #4909360 was deleted with a false statement, as the listed source was incorrect (a colorless version) and I have now corrected it with a link to the colored version. I even went through the trouble of finding the very first time I received the colored version and it was always a png.

Contact the person who deleted it directly to contest/restore a deletion.

nin10dope said:

post #4909360 was deleted with a false statement, as the listed source was incorrect (a colorless version) and I have now corrected it with a link to the colored version. I even went through the trouble of finding the very first time I received the colored version and it was always a png.

It is a PNG file that shows clear signs of JPG compression.
They are visible with a naked eye.

The source you added – the one you just uploaded to FA – also shows those signs.
And so does the original lineart, but that one is a JPG file.

cinder said:
It is a PNG file that shows clear signs of JPG compression.
They are visible with a naked eye.

The source you added – the one you just uploaded to FA – also shows those signs.
And so does the original lineart, but that one is a JPG file.

Could you tell me what those signs are? I'm just curious on what you look for

nin10dope said:
Could you tell me what those signs are? I'm just curious on what you look for

JPG encoders "downsample chroma" and "quantize frequency information". After this is done, the original image is irrevocably distorted.

I won't describe what these mean because it's honestly irrelevant.

Look at this image. If you're not blind you'll see the difference and get a sense of what to look for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression#/media/File:Comparison_of_JPEG_and_PNG.png

As you can see the part of the image with JPG compression applied is a lil fucked up.

If you still don't have a clue may God help you.

oneohthrix said:
JPG encoders "downsample chroma" and "quantize frequency information". After this is done, the original image is irrevocably distorted.

I won't describe what these mean because it's honestly irrelevant.

Look at this image. If you're not blind you'll see the difference and get a sense of what to look for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression#/media/File:Comparison_of_JPEG_and_PNG.png

As you can see the part of the image with JPG compression applied is a lil fucked up.

If you still don't have a clue may God help you.

I can see it but I definitely had to zoom in on my phone and look for it (the png version)
The jpg variant is very obviously distorted to hell. At the end of the day, alleviating that was my goal. I'm used to sites that compress just about anything you upload so I just got it in my head to keep a lossless version of images.

Edit: man why you gotta change the link while I reply xP
I was referring to the original link with the dog in glasses

nin10dope said:
Could you tell me what those signs are? I'm just curious on what you look for

If you had zoomed in all the way onto the image, one of the most obvious signs are the weird vertical dark streaks across the character, most noticeably on the tail (though it appears on the whole character).
Less noticeable are the crusty-looking texture particularly around the edges of the black lines that weren't caused by shading.

All of this are telltale signs of lossy image compression, and they simply do not exist if the image was exported as (lossless) PNG in the first place.
If it was a JPG that was subsequently converted into PNG, these compression artefacts will remain visible.

nin10dope said:
Could you tell me what those signs are? I'm just curious on what you look for

Sure thing.

Here is a zoomed-in section of that post: https://etc.cnd.pet/misc/png-fake.png
You can see the compression artifacts around the color edges quite clearly.
That is the downside of using a lossy format like JPG – while the file size is typically lower, the image quality is affected.

For comparison, here is a comparable example from a different post: https://etc.cnd.pet/misc/png-actual.png
PNG is a lossless format, so you will not see compression artifacts in posts like this.

Converting JPG files to the PNG format does not help get rid of these artifacts. You are simply importing them as-is.

oneohthrix said: If you're not blind you'll see the difference and get a sense of what to look for.

oneohthrix said: If you still don't have a clue may God help you.

No need to be this abrasive.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you had zoomed in all the way onto the image, one of the most obvious signs are the weird vertical dark streaks across the character, most noticeably on the tail (though it appears on the whole character).
Less noticeable are the crusty-looking texture particularly around the edges of the black lines that weren't caused by shading.

All of this are telltale signs of lossy image compression, and they simply do not exist if the image was exported as (lossless) PNG in the first place.
If it was a JPG that was subsequently converted into PNG, these compression artefacts will remain visible.

Oh my god I never noticed those almost invisible lines! That's insane. Whenever I saw the black outlines that, when you look closer, almost looks like they're flaking off, I had assumed that was just a brush effect that the artist chose for style or preference. Like when you're traditional drawing and do a lot of little strokes instead of one long continuous one.

cinder said:
Sure thing.

Here is a zoomed-in section of that post: https://etc.cnd.pet/misc/png-fake.png
You can see the compression artifacts around the color edges quite clearly.
That is the downside of using a lossy format like JPG – while the file size is typically lower, the image quality is affected.

For comparison, here is a comparable example from a different post: https://etc.cnd.pet/misc/png-actual.png
PNG is a lossless format, so you will not see compression artifacts in posts like this.

Converting JPG files to the PNG format does not help get rid of these artifacts. You are simply importing them as-is.

You're so right oh my god
It feels like you opened my mind's eye with that zoom in
Man I took so many computer courses in school and it feels like none of them taught the importance of image compression and artifacting. It was always just code or prebuilt 3d models for animations. Of course that's just a john for me being an ignoramus

It took me a second with the other examples because when I saw the much more subtle leftovers, I usually think that my screen is a little blurry on the outside from all the touchscreen usage.

Thank you so much for teaching me this stuff. There's a small but decently sized portion of my art where the original receipt is lost to time and alternate, deleted/disabled accounts (thanks Facebook). I've managed to find a good chunk of the originals, but not all of them are the ones that got removed here. So I definitely have a few more artists to try and get back in touch with and hope that they kept the original drawing in storage.

nin10dope said:
I do still plan on uploading all of the art of my character that I have to FA when it's off of Read-Only mode but 99.99% of everything I have (of my character, specifically) was delivered privately and doesn't have a public source

Was this something you requested of them, or did you really manage to only commission artists that don't like to post commissions in their own galleries/socials? In my experience artists usually prefer to be able to show off the stuff they got paid to make, because it's a good way to advertise.

nin10dope said:
Others are jpeg's and several of those have been deleted by Janitors because, you know, jpeg artifacting and compression

This weirds me out even more. It's one thing for artists to send commissions as JPEGs because... I dunno, limited bandwidth or something, but to send such low quality files that our janitors refused to allow them? Do you have any of these posted somewhere else yet that I can see them? I'm starting to think you've been getting scammed.

The issue was that they were uploading JPEG artifacted PNGs. That's it.

Don't tell them they're being "scammed". The image quality wasn't that bad 😭

errorist said:
Was this something you requested of them, or did you really manage to only commission artists that don't like to post commissions in their own galleries/socials? In my experience artists usually prefer to be able to show off the stuff they got paid to make, because it's a good way to advertise.

This weirds me out even more. It's one thing for artists to send commissions as JPEGs because... I dunno, limited bandwidth or something, but to send such low quality files that our janitors refused to allow them? Do you have any of these posted somewhere else yet that I can see them? I'm starting to think you've been getting scammed.

I appreciate the concern lol
Weirdly enough no, I do not ask artists to not post their art. It just doesn't get posted by them 90% of the time. I think the most artists have ever done besides sending them to me privately is posting them on Facebook either from their page or their profile. Otherwise they just send it to me through Messenger, sometimes email, but mostly Messenger.

The images that got denied from ever being approved due to the artifacts and compression actually are just that quality from the artist. After I told them that the posts got denied, he looked through his files and they were still the same quality. So that is really unfortunate. Maybe he could dig further to find the original, I don't remember if he just saved them on a device that he doesn't have at hand or not.

I am uploading all of my art to FA over time, so I'll try to upload those questionable compression images you're asking about.