Posted under General
i don't really know how get higher quality versions of posts other then:
- right clicking
- open image link
- change jpg to png
- change any quality tags to be higher quality
- download
so eventually i would end up with a negative max posts, and my email is stupid so god knows i'm not going to email the management about it. i say this because i just went from like, 14, to 8 posts, because a bunch got replaced by this one admin who conjured the original images up using the power of god somehow
xx_cocklover69420_xx said:
i don't really know how get higher quality versions of posts other then:
- right clicking
- open image link
- change jpg to png
- change any quality tags to be higher quality
- downloadso eventually i would end up with a negative max posts, and my email is stupid so god knows i'm not going to email the management about it. i say this because i just went from like, 14, to 8 posts, because a bunch got replaced by this one admin who conjured the original images up using the power of god somehow
Don't change the file type!
I made the mistake of doingadmitting this and I got torn to shreds
nin10dope said:
I made the mistake ofdoingadmitting this and I got torn to shreds
Jokes aside, please don't edit the images if you're not the artist
The only reason a replacement wouldn't count against you is if you're the one submitting it, or if the approver intentionally makes it not count against you. This is how the system works: people with good uploading habits get to upload more, people with bad uploading habits get to upload less.
Changing JPGs to PNGs does not magically create better-quality versions, and just bumps up the filesize for no visual gain.
post #5535133
Your version of this is a 2861x3013 png (3.5501 MB). The version we actually wanted from the source is a 2861x3013 jpg (699.18 KB), to which your upload is perfectly identical, pixel by pixel.
Consult howto:sites and sources for information about each source, userscripts that help to grab high-quality images, and so on.
nin10dope said:
Jokes aside, please don't edit the images if you're not the artist
Could've done without this reply, OP straight up is saving JPGs as PNGs and it's not a joke, and you would've done much better to just explain all the things I've listed here.
lafcadio said:
The only reason a replacement wouldn't count against you is if you're the one submitting it, or if the approver intentionally makes it not count against you. This is how the system works: people with good uploading habits get to upload more, people with bad uploading habits get to upload less.Changing JPGs to PNGs does not magically create better-quality versions, and just bumps up the filesize for no visual gain.
post #5535133
Your version of this is a 2861x3013 png (3.5501 MB). The version we actually wanted from the source is a 2861x3013 jpg (699.18 KB), to which your upload is perfectly identical, pixel by pixel.Consult howto:sites and sources for information about each source, userscripts that help to grab high-quality images, and so on.
Could've done without this reply, OP straight up is saving JPGs as PNGs and it's not a joke, and you would've done much better to just explain all the things I've listed here.
ooh, okay! 'nother question, i've seen people make gif versions of things that are mp4s and are technically looped, but they're mp4s so they don't loop. am i allowed to do that?
xx_cocklover69420_xx said:
i don't really know how get higher quality versions of posts other then:
- right clicking
- open image link
- change jpg to png
- change any quality tags to be higher quality
- downloadso eventually i would end up with a negative max posts, and my email is stupid so god knows i'm not going to email the management about it. i say this because i just went from like, 14, to 8 posts, because a bunch got replaced by this one admin who conjured the original images up using the power of god somehow
You could have avoided most of the replacements if you hadn't changed the filetype of those Twitter/X posts.
Doing that doesn't make the image better in any case; frankly, you're more likely to end up with worse images by doing that.
But if you're interested in learning how to get the best version of posts, I'll suggest you take a look here:
This has the information you need.
And here are the articles for the site from which your posts were replaced:
lafcadio said:
Could've done without this reply, OP straight up is saving JPGs as PNGs and it's not a joke
The joke was self-deprecating to myself hence the self-reply to a specific part of my previous response, not implying that changing the type was a joke.
Plus I've already shown that I'm not the best at describing things I'm not overly knowledgeable in, so I purposely kept it brief. Thank you for explaining it to them.
Yeah, to the OP, understand that your upload limit can be negatively impacted by any deleted or replaced posts.
You can check the specific reasons why they got deleted/replaced on the links listed above.
If you want to do better, avoid doing whatever it is listed on the deletion reason and get the best quality uploads from the source (see howto:sites and sources). Do note that the type of source is also important, find out where the artist posts to and only choose favourable sources if possible.
If you want to avoid all this hassle, ask the artist for the original quality versions (keep your correspondence as proof if the mods ask where you got it).
It's actually less work to just copy and paste the twitter image link with "name=orig" than making the effort of converting it to png lol, you just sometimes have to press a bit more the "upload" button because twitter servers are busted.
Still check on here if the artist already have an entry so you can look for other galleries they have on furaffinity/inkbunny/whatever with better quality, if not check their profile if they are linking to other pages. Just upload from Twitter if there is no other place or it's the uncensored version (if you are uploading stuff from eastern artists).
lafcadio said:
The only reason a replacement wouldn't count against you is if you're the one submitting it, or if the approver intentionally makes it not count against you.
Is it possible for you to be the submitter, have someone approve it, but still receive the penalty?
I assumed that if Previous Uploader = Current Uploader, and it is approved, it won't count against you.
It took me a minute to look at my count and understand which posts may have counted against me (plus deletions). It wasn't clear at first.
