So, I know that we require "High quality photographs (or scans) of traditional artwork"..

That said, I've noticed a lot of artists, particularly on twitter, like to to upload 'artsy' photographs of their art. Like this (1), this (2), this (3), this (4) ... oh, or this (5, technically)

I mean.. On one hand, this is how the artist wanted to present the art to the world and they believe it adds to the artistic composition... on the other... well, they're not the best photographs, technically.

I figure they can't all be judged equally--1, after all, is just tilted at a weird angle and 4 has a real human hand in it.

I would figure that, if allowed at all, it'd depend on the clarity of the art-- for example, 5 is aesthetically pleasing, but the art is out of focus near the top and bottom.

*scratches head* Thoughts?

We have a photographed_drawing tag for this. Most posts under that tag are old, though.

I'd say if the quality's high enough, it shouldn't matter too much if it's a little tilted. Then again, it's not my call.

If I can tell something is photographed, it will be deleted. I don't see how something on Twitter affects us in any way if our rules are what they are.

BlueDingo said:
We have a photographed_drawing tag for this. Most posts under that tag are old, though.

Never mind that. You are forcing me to add a SECOND image to my blacklist. Jerk.

No but seriously.. hmm... Holy photographed drawings, batman. I feel like I'm time traveling back to my teenage years, and it's not pretty!

Okay, so there's precedent for that sort of thing--that's good! Some of those are even pretty recent, so there's all suggestion that, thus far, a well photographed image would be fine.

SnowWolf said:
Never mind that. You are forcing me to add a SECOND image to my blacklist. Jerk.

You're welcome. You should see the comment I left on it.

SnowWolf said:
No but seriously.. hmm... Holy photographed drawings, batman. I feel like I'm time traveling back to my teenage years, and it's not pretty!

Yeah, usually photos get deleted so the only images that would end up under that tag are grandfathered in.

Ratte said:
If I can tell something is photographed, it will be deleted. I don't see how something on Twitter affects us in any way if our rules are what they are.

Well, not just twitter. I've seen it on most every website I've visited, just, twitter most, because that's where I tend to go when I'm killing time for 30 seconds, over FA or DA or something, and I follow several artists there. *shrug* Also, I've seen a lot of people talking about how they're moving to twitter over other art websites. So, probably not the most relevant now, but perhaps one day.

Anyway, I assume that would also apply to stuff like this ? (obviously, of course, them's human so it doesn't belong here anyway, but curiosity killed the SnowWolf)

Oh, or there was a thing a bit back where people would take pictures of their desk and draw in characters interacting with their desk or hand and stuff. I guess that's technically a photo_background...

Hmm.. photography_(artwork) has some recent things in it too--like what I posted (but without the "artistic flair"... not that that makes a difference!)

Still, thank you for the clarification Poofy One :D

BlueDingo said:
You're welcome. You should see the comment I left on it.

You've been upgraded to Extra-Jerky-Jerk! Yay! :D

Yeah, usually photos get deleted so the only images that would end up under that tag are grandfathered in.

Yeah, no, I mostly meant in terms of content There is--was--someone's "Barely_Legal, Hates: Bullies and disappointing people" fursona there along with some other stuff that was pretty cringe worthy that had been posted in the last year-ish. :) But the newest stuff has ~mysteriously~ disappeared into the void ;)

SnowWolf said:
this]

Wouldn't this fall under papercraft? Also, they may pass as animal_humanoids since they all have tails. Can't tell if they're fake, though.

SnowWolf said:
You've been upgraded to Extra-Jerky-Jerk! Yay! :D

How is that an upgrade? I was a cunt before.

SnowWolf said:
Well, not just twitter. I've seen it on most every website I've visited, just, twitter most, because that's where I tend to go when I'm killing time for 30 seconds, over FA or DA or something, and I follow several artists there. *shrug* Also, I've seen a lot of people talking about how they're moving to twitter over other art websites. So, probably not the most relevant now, but perhaps one day.

Anyway, I assume that would also apply to stuff like this ? (obviously, of course, them's human so it doesn't belong here anyway, but curiosity killed the SnowWolf)

Yes.

SnowWolf said:
Oh, or there was a thing a bit back where people would take pictures of their desk and draw in characters interacting with their desk or hand and stuff. I guess that's technically a photo_background...

If it's just a photo background, that's acceptable, though the photo has to at least look decent if it's to be used.

The point of this is entirely traditional art taken with a camera. If a photo is high enough quality that it could pass for a scan, then it's acceptable-- but this is pretty rare, as there are many telltale signs of camera use. Scanners cost significantly less than the smartphones people use for photographing their art, so the "but it costs money" excuse isn't much of an excuse anymore.

Ratte said:
Scanners cost significantly less than the smartphones people use for photographing their art, so the "but it costs money" excuse isn't much of an excuse anymore.

Plus there are publicly available ones in libraries and shit which are often free to use.

BlueDingo said:
How is that an upgrade? I was a cunt before.

fuckin straya cunt

BlackLicorice said:
fuckin straya cunt

Bloody oath.

BlueDingo said:
Wouldn't this fall under papercraft? Also, they may pass as animal_humanoids since they all have tails. Can't tell if they're fake, though.

Seems to (mostly) be used for various origami in drawings, rather than physical papercraft. Also, grandfatehred posts.

Also I didn't actually look too closely at them. it was the first example of that thing i found that was vaguely furry related. :)

How is that an upgrade? I was a cunt before.

Nope, I never called you that. :) SO you're clearly getting your Snow-canines crossed. ;)

Also, when I said a second image to my blacklist, I literally mean second image. That's all that's in there. My jimmies are pretty unrustledable. ;) Also, Sen-en's a pretty nice guy, even if he's into some pretty unusual stuff.

Ratte said:
If it's just a photo background, that's acceptable, though the photo has to at least look decent if it's to be used.

Tha'ts good--I know there were some pretty ass photos approved once-upon-a-time. (not to be confused with pretty photos of ass.

The point of this is entirely traditional art taken with a camera. If a photo is high enough quality that it could pass for a scan, then it's acceptable-- but this is pretty rare, as there are many telltale signs of camera use. Scanners cost significantly less than the smartphones people use for photographing their art, so the "but it costs money" excuse isn't much of an excuse anymore.

Mostly, I was just clarifying. E6 has some very clearly delineated rules, but this circumstance isn't really covered by what's written.

Bad to upload: "Irrelevant photographs: Any photograph that isn't of traditional artwork " and "low-quality photographs of traditional media" doesn't cover "artistically composed photograph of traditional media artwork" y'know?

It's not big deal, just asking about something before it potentially becomes a problem (if it is, in fact, a growing trend), as well that I've seen a few I've thought about uploading. Thank yout again. :)

Could see about elaborating upon that clause in the near future.

BlueDingo said:
Plus there are publicly available ones in libraries and shit which are often free to use.

Yes because nothing screams "Normal" like scanning furry smut in a public library.

FoxFourOhFour said:
Yes because nothing screams "Normal" like scanning furry smut in a public library.

Not all furry art is smut, you know, and you wouldn't be allowed to do the smutty ones there anyway as libraries, unis, etc. usually have a "no porn" rule.

FoxFourOhFour said:
Yes because nothing screams "Normal" like scanning furry smut in a public library.

desperate times call for desperate measures

BlueDingo said:
Not all furry art is smut, you know, and you wouldn't be allowed to do the smutty ones there anyway as libraries, unis, etc. usually have a "no porn" rule.

Not all furry art these days has to be 'smut' for the Normies to raise an eyebrow or two.