If the artifacts are that hard to see......I would support approving the image. The artifacts could be from the drawing program, not from any compression.
There were other PNG images with a really low amount of artifacts who was deleted as well.

What's with the character tag senko from sewayaki_kitsune_no_senko. This should be well-defined just like emilia too.
I took a look at a couple of png images deleted for artifacts and I did not find anything obvious, post #286367 and post #286368 (the last two images deleted for artifacts). In one image there is a sawtooth effect at the water sky boundary, but that is not a compression artifact but a quantization effect from the drawing program. The background may have been drawn at a lower resolution.
BattlequeenYume said:
What's with the character tag senko from sewayaki_kitsune_no_senko. This should be well-defined just like emilia too.
In cases where a character only has one name but that name is unique to that character, we tend to not add a whole rigamaroo on the end like that.
post #256437

Not approved for 3+ days.

This is a well drawn, high quality image. I see no point in deleting it. It feels somewhat calming. I would appreciate it if it could be brought back to the wonderful realms of konachan.
post #289284

not approved for 3+ days

I don't understand the problem, the AR I think is correct, if it is for the jpg format it is not a game cg
Personally, I've never liked images where characters in the foreground are drawn smaller than the characters behind them. It just looks so wrong...

This does look better than the scans I've found so far, but it does have a lot of artifacts and the quality of the background at the top-center of the image is poor.
hmm I hadn't noticed the artifacts the first time but okey I'll try to be more careful

off-topic, related to that I have tried to search information about twitter images, I suppose they are not allowed for the same reason but some that I have found are not uploaded anywhere else, my question is, if I fix the artifacts and transform them to png there would be no problem?
Nepcoheart said:
hmm I hadn't noticed the artifacts the first time but okey I'll try to be more careful

off-topic, related to that I have tried to search information about twitter images, I suppose they are not allowed for the same reason but some that I have found are not uploaded anywhere else, my question is, if I fix the artifacts and transform them to png there would be no problem?
As long as it's in desktop format.

Reading your reply was genuineley hard and painful for my eyes. I think i should go back to sleep.
Nepcoheart said:
off-topic, related to that I have tried to search information about twitter images, I suppose they are not allowed for the same reason but some that I have found are not uploaded anywhere else, my question is, if I fix the artifacts and transform them to png there would be no problem?
Twitter images are allowed. However, they're typically terrible quality due to the artifacting and are often later replaced with larger, better quality images that are published to other sites such as Pixiv.

Those of us that do upload from Twitter use waifu2x to reduce artifacts. Of course, the upscaling feature should only be used if the image is below 1000x700.
More or less I knew something because I visited the page before but I was not sure, thanks, but I don't plan to use waifux2 or double the size of the images, I know some that are already quite large and only need some corrections
Again, I said we use it to clean, not enlarge. Waifu2x can be used to clean things when set to medium noise reduction. It works pretty well too.
yep I know, I use that website when I want to edit an image fast, but after uploading scans on the site more or less I have learned to repair images with photoshop, I takes me longer but is more precise
Just make sure they don't end up too muddy. Some people go crazy with scans and end up ruining the original colors and crispness of the image.
Don't worry, unfortunately many times I have not been able to fix them when they look very bad and I just giving up and waiting for someone else to upload them in better quality
Undelete post #290548, Thanks.
Emmy, specifically what are the excess jpg artifacts for which you deleted this post #290546 ?
I removed the artifacts, I will upload if it remains deleted or unless someone upload before me.

Kiho said:
Just the hair? jpg artifacts don't work that way. The artist used a soft focus effect to enhance the sensation of the rain, the whole image has a sense of rain/fog.
Actually has a lot of artifacts.
Kiho said:
Emmy, specifically what are the excess jpg artifacts for which you deleted this post #290546 ?
They were allllllllllll over the image. And, given that I have rather poor vision, when I can clearly see them there are indeed too many.

RyuZU said:
Actually has a lot of artifacts.
Thank you.
I agree, that's a bit too much if I remember correctly where we draw the line. It's certainly more than enough to ruin the image for me.
RyuZU said:
I removed the artifacts, I will upload if it remains deleted or unless someone upload before me.

Actually has a lot of artifacts.
If you enlarge the image (upscale it), of course there will be artifacts, upscaling always creates artifacts as in the upscaled section of the image in your imgur link. The image must be inspected at its native resolution 1:1 - whether that size is smaller than your monitor resolution or you have to scroll to view all parts of the image.

The image is clearly softened to enhance the misty/rainy effect. therefore there will not be sharp edges.
I have no idea why you can't see them Kiho, but the image does have a LOT of artifacts. I didn't enlarge the image to look for them. They are plainly obvious at 100%.

And by the way, upscaling an image should never produce JPEG artifacts unless you save the result as JPEG. You may get scaling artifacts though. But we're trying to point out the JPEG artifacts here, not scaling artifacts.

Edit:
Kiho said:
The image is clearly softened to enhance the misty/rainy effect. therefore there will not be sharp edges.
Artifacts are more likely to appear along sharp edges, but it's not like that's a requirement for them to appear. Even without sharp edges, they will still appear near areas of contrast.
Why were they deleted? post #290608 post #290609 seriously I have seen images with worse artifacts here, that is the maximum that I will edit in those images because otherwise they would be very blurred
Nepcoheart said:
Why were they deleted? post #290608 post #290609 seriously I have seen images with worse artifacts here, that is the maximum that I will edit in those images because otherwise they would be very blurred
I haven't seen the pictures yet, but they are PNG, may have little or a lot of artifacts, if it is PNG will be deleted, I think.
I save them in png thinking it would be a better idea, I didn't know there were problems with that
From what I saw in the images now, if they were in JPEG I think the moderators would have no problem with it, in such cases, you either remove the artifacts if you want to upload in PNG, or keep it in JPEG and upload if it's not a lot of artifact, but I think it's better to wait for a mod opinion.
If they were originally IN JPEG format, and they haven't been cleaned or anything, then...they should still be in JPEG format.

The amount is such that I would approve them were they in JPEG, but when we have images uploaded in PNG they're supposed to be totally clean.
Post #292326

When she is spreading her legs (what you can't see from this perspection) it's normal that the right leg is shorter. I don't think it's an anatomical error, just a perspective thing.
Judging from the backs of her knees and thighs, her legs aren't spread. The calves/thighs are right beside each other, and both legs are extended.

You can't bend your leg at the shin. Not...purposefully, anyways.

Plus, the legs really are too long in general. It's not something we're critical of, but it does look strange to me.

Edit: If her hip were turned outward, and her knee bent, then it would 100% look normal. But since both legs are seemingly in the exact same position (upper thigh/knees/shins/tops of the feet flat to the ground) the length doesn't seem to match up.