Discovered from a Derpibooru thread, since DA has changed their image links, it's now possible to obtain a larger resulution than what is openly available for download. Take this link:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/5714f9d4-adb6-4ab0-9457-025c1afebdf3/dcupr3b-4f7ade6a-afb8-4b67-8cff-d86c72fbde0c.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_749,q_80,strp/why_s_this_everywhere__by_slb_creations_dcupr3b-fullview.jpg

The image is 600x749. If you delete everything from /v1/fill onwards, you'll get this:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/5714f9d4-adb6-4ab0-9457-025c1afebdf3/dcupr3b-4f7ade6a-afb8-4b67-8cff-d86c72fbde0c.png

Which is 2192x2735, closer to the full resolution of 2950×3680. This only gives images up to a certain dimension, which means absurdres images won't be able to be obtained in their full size, but it's better than nothing I suppose. I'm not sure if this was already discussed here.

Thanks for the heads up.

There has actually been many posts replaced already with this method.

At least right now we do simply approve these things similar to tumblr raw versions, however do mind that some artists rely on deviantarts settings to scale down their artwork and might not like this being used.

Educating artists and spreading information about this so that artists are also aware of this would be great.

Does this impact the format and quality settings by doing this? I know you can pick quality settings higher than 80 and it will respect them in the options area.

KiraNoot said:
Does this impact the format and quality settings by doing this? I know you can pick quality settings higher than 80 and it will respect them in the options area.

i think you have to be careful with the jpgs stored in dA. i don't have an example right now to prove it, but i recall removing all that suffix stuff on some jpgs and it actually gives you an image with smaller filesize (and predictably full of jpg artifacts). so maybe you do need to leave in q100 for some jpgs.

Thank you for improving my archiving!

KiraNoot said:
Does this impact the format and quality settings by doing this? I know you can pick quality settings higher than 80 and it will respect them in the options area.

What I'm seeing is that while the default image is often q_70 or q_80, the raw image is identical to q_100 at maximum size. (And when the raw is a PNG that's the maximum quality of course.)

EDIT: q_100 is not quite identical to the raw image! It can be slightly lighter or darker.

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

The documentation for images on Wix Media Platform can be found here:

https://www.wixmp.com/docs/image-api.html

You can get the "original" image size by enabling the image proportional upscaling option lg_1:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/5714f9d4-adb6-4ab0-9457-025c1afebdf3/dcupr3b-4f7ade6a-afb8-4b67-8cff-d86c72fbde0c.png/v1/fill/w_2905,h_3680,lg_1,strp/why_s_this_everywhere__by_slb_creations_dcupr3b-fullview.png

This is not the original image though as it is 1396 KB and the DA page says the original file size is 902 KB. Like the option says, it's just an upscale with image processing provided by WixMP.

You can go even higher than the original image, though WixMP only supports images up to 5100x5100 resolution.

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/intermediary/f/5714f9d4-adb6-4ab0-9457-025c1afebdf3/dcupr3b-4f7ade6a-afb8-4b67-8cff-d86c72fbde0c.png/v1/fit/w_4087,h_5100,lg_1,strp/why_s_this_everywhere__by_slb_creations_dcupr3b-fullview.png

I couldn't find anything on why it limits the image size like it does when you remove the stuff after the file name in the link or if it does any processing to those images.

Admins and janitors should probably keep this upscaling option in mind when approving images from DA.

@kapsi: You just made our job a little easier for the time being.

Someone give this user a cookie.

I'm fairly confident that DA will patch this up. In the meantime I'm hoping that this doesn't turn into a free for all like it did when Tumblr raws became well known. We're living in a society people, let's act in a civilized way.

Why do so many sites feel the need to make their pictures smaller?

Seems this is already bearing fruit: post #1766364

@Millcore I don't see why it wouldn't become like the Tumblr situation, at least from this site's perspective. We'll see how long DA lets the hole go unplugged.

Dutchnoob said:
Why do so many sites feel the need to make their pictures smaller?

It's not the site, it's the uploader. When a person uploads to DA they can specify the maximum size available for viewing from a dropdown list of preset options and then also specify if they want the original file to be downloadable.

Just for the record, please don't replace images obtained via this exploit, if the resolution is higher than any other freely available version. The artist makes a conscious choice to only publish a scaled down version for a reason, so if the original file is a patreon exclusive the version obtained via DA exploit is also paid content.

NotMeNotYou said:
Just for the record, please don't replace images obtained via this exploit, if the resolution is higher than any other freely available version. The artist makes a conscious choice to only publish a scaled down version for a reason, so if the original file is a patreon exclusive the version obtained via DA exploit is also paid content.

That's gonna be a little difficult to verify for every image, but it's better than nothing.

Seconding what Dogenza said, raw image is not always the same as the original image.

For this DA post, the original (see details) is 3000x5000, the raw (...2c7e79fae28c.png) is 1897x3162 and the default (...2c7e79fae28c.png/v1...) is 900x1500.

kapsi said:
The documentation for images on Wix Media Platform can be found here:
https://www.wixmp.com/docs/image-api.html

You can get the "original" image size by enabling the image proportional upscaling option lg_1:

So basically don't use lg_1 right?

Millcore said:
I'm fairly confident that DA will patch this up.

I'm not sure they will. Wix bought DA in early 2017. Moving to their own flexible image hosting platform might be a permanent move.

NotMeNotYou said:
please don't replace images obtained via this exploit, if the resolution is higher than any other freely available version. The artist makes a conscious choice to only publish a scaled down version

For artists with a Patreon that makes sense but isn't this similar to the Tumblr URL trick like Mairo said? Should we interpret the artist's choice as a sort of DNP request? That's fine by me but there seems to be some inconsistency there.

Mairo said:
At least right now we do simply approve these things similar to tumblr raw versions

Alright, here's how things are going to go as I know they stand now.

If the artist has a Patreon, do not post their DA Leaks. We're going to err on the side of caution with this and delete them as though they are DNP. This includes artists with Patreons where the content was removed, once DNP always DNP until the artist chooses otherwise by willingly allowing full sized viewing. Even if the artist has a Patreon it looks like they never used, please err on the side of caution with us.

That being said, approvals might be slow for a while. If you want to help us out, flag images where this is applicable (explained above). Maybe comment the Patreon so we don't have to go looking for it. If you notice your own old posts getting flagged, either find the paid-site the artist uses and counter-flag the DA Leaks, or if there is no such site then you may re-upload them yourself. There's going to be some users that are crude about using this and use it to boost their uploading numbers, we can't exactly stop that.

In case DA wasn't already aware I've messaged them about the leak. I'll update as things move forward. Again, I'd rather not see thing blow up into a mess like it was when Tumblr Raw happened so let's try to be civilized about this. Worse case for re-uploads is that artists notice and start filing takedowns, I don't think anyone wants that so bare it in mind moving forward.

What about artists without a Patreon? It seems like it would be easiest for us to just say "Don't use this URL trick, it contradicts the artist's demonstrated intentions."

leomole said:
What about artists without a Patreon? It seems like it would be easiest for us to just say "Don't use this URL trick, it contradicts the artist's demonstrated intentions."

I do also now see the problem here: because deviantart specifically does give option for artist to select how large the content is for user and disable download button. So even if it's not paid material, it's still leak of content that artist did not meant to publish publicly.

This is pretty much loophole that goes around the settings artist has to specifically select. Many artists are also relying on this because they do stuff like offer prints which they do monetize and that requires you to upload full resolution.

I really hate this situation. I hate this a lot. All because of wix being extremely incompetent at their only job.
Making artists aware of this and trying to poke wix about this might be the best approaches right now.

We could say that DA uploads must use the default image (...2c7e79fae28c.png/v1/fill/w_900,h_1500,q_80...) but this would be incredibly hard to enforce. Uploaders could upgrade it to q_100 or w_1000 and the only way to check is going to DA, opening the image and comparing to the upload.

One thing that might help a bit is whitelisting https://images-wixmp-*.jpg/v1/fill/* but not https://images-wixmp-*.jpg.

Also some of this is outside the artist's control. 2 years ago I uploaded post #1025647 at the old default size of 1024x1337 (the original image is 1200x1567) and old default quality. But if you go to the current default image it's different. 1338 instead of 1337, and at q_70 it's noticeably worse than the old default. To get an image on par with the old default you have to change it to q_90. Are all DA uploads going to be worse from now on?

I'm usually all for grabbing the largest legally available version of an image. However, as others have already stated, the artist specifically selects the option to display a smaller sample with DeviantArt, and thus uploading a higher-res version would be circumventing their intent.

Would it still be prudent to mark images with larger DA versions available as BVAS, or should that be omitted so as not to pollute the pool of candidates that can be reuploaded in good conscience?

If we're deleting these, we should have a news banner about it.

What the hell is wrong with the situation? Is every artists become jerks just because they don't want to provide us the original resolution?

Also, DeviantArt is pretty obsolete to me. We should jump ship to Newgrounds again.

cerberusmod_3 said:
What the hell is wrong with the situation? Is every artists become jerks just because they don't want to provide us the original resolution?

Also, DeviantArt is pretty obsolete to me. We should jump ship to Newgrounds again.

To be blunt, the artists are not being jerks. If they have set a resolution to a size they have their reasons for it. Reworking an exploit to get access to what very well could otherwise be payed content is simply a jerk thing to do. Which is why the Mods are treating the situation with such care.

Strongbird said:
I'm usually all for grabbing the largest legally available version of an image. However, as others have already stated, the artist specifically selects the option to display a smaller sample with DeviantArt, and thus uploading a higher-res version would be circumventing their intent.

Would it still be prudent to mark images with larger DA versions available as BVAS, or should that be omitted so as not to pollute the pool of candidates that can be reuploaded in good conscience?

Very well said.

Tagging BVAS would be accurate but not prudent. I wouldn't, especially with this situation being temporary.

Lance_Armstrong said:
If we're deleting these, we should have a news banner about it.

That would bring it to the entire site's attention that this exploit exists. Not the best idea, especially given how bad users can be about providing sources to what they upload.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Is every artists become jerks just because they don't want to provide us the original resolution?

Why is a game demo free but the full game isn't? Why are movie trailers not just the full movie? Why are the free samples at the store not full sized? Why would anyone not want to provide a full version of anything freely? Could it be that they want to give a potential consumer a concept of the product before having the consumer commit to a purchase? Could artists not like this exploit because it could ruin their livelihood since now they can't sell the original resolution image because it's freely available? Of course not, that can't be the reason. Maybe they're just jerks. Makes perfect sense!

Please tell me I don't have to explain the sarcasm.

Versperus said:
To be blunt, the artists are not being jerks. If they have set a resolution to a size they have their reasons for it. Reworking an exploit to get access to what very well could otherwise be payed content is simply a jerk thing to do. Which is why the Mods are treating the situation with such care.

It's not really an exploit

Dutchnoob said:
It's not really an exploit

It's an exploit because it directly circumvents the artist's decision to only publish a lower resolution version of the image.

Millcore said:
Why is a game demo free but the full game isn't? Why are movie trailers not just the full movie? Why are the free samples at the store not full sized? Why would anyone not want to provide a full version of anything freely? Could it be that they want to give a potential consumer a concept of the product before having the consumer commit to a purchase? Could artists not like this exploit because it could ruin their livelihood since now they can't sell the original resolution image because it's freely available? Of course not, that can't be the reason. Maybe they're just jerks. Makes perfect sense!

Please tell me I don't have to explain the sarcasm.

Anyone could be a jerk, simple as that. The world is a lie. Existence is a lie. I have nothing to say about that.

I wonder if we asked the artist to provide us the full resolutions, either they would likely asked us to pay money to get the full resolutions, or gave us none at all. Sounds like scam.

Have I gone insane?

cerberusmod_3 said:
Anyone could be a jerk, simple as that. The world is a lie. Existence is a lie. I have nothing to say about that.

I wonder if we asked the artist to provide us the full resolutions, either they would likely asked us to pay money to get the full resolutions, or gave us none at all. Sounds like scam.

Have I gone insane?

It's not a scam. Every artist has a right to make money from their work if they so choose to do so. I personally believe we should be grateful for what they decide we are allowed to see and in what resolutions, as they are not obligated to let us see anything in reality. For some people their artwork can be their livelihoods, and we aught to be thankful they give us a taste free of charge.

And if that was all sarcasm, apologies.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's an exploit because it directly circumvents the artist's decision to only publish a lower resolution version of the image.

Then they should size it down themselves. It’s easy to size down an image with online programs, I think most people know of this ‘exploit’ by now.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Anyone could be a jerk, simple as that. The world is a lie. Existence is a lie. I have nothing to say about that.

I wonder if we asked the artist to provide us the full resolutions, either they would likely asked us to pay money to get the full resolutions, or gave us none at all. Sounds like scam.

Have I gone insane?

Let's play my favourite game. Swipe out artists for workers and full resolutions for service, plus mend some grammar.

I wonder if we asked the workers to provide us the service, either they would likely asked us to pay money to get the service, or provide us no service at all. Sounds like scam.

Dutchnoob said:
Then they should size it down themselves. It’s easy to size down an image with online programs, I think most people know of this ‘exploit’ by now.

Artists are lazy. I'm not saying all of them are but I think I know enough artists to make that generalization. They draw a thing and upload it any just take for granted that the sites they're uploading to (mainly FA, DA, Tumblr (RIP)) will downsize it for them so that they don't have to bother, it's one less thing to do/worry about.

I think you would be surprised by how relatively unknown most exploits are. The Derpibooru folks knew about this for over a month beforehand and even with users that use that site and this site this thread still took over a month to come into being. Tumblr raws were known for a long while before it hit the site, there were people keeping it to themselves for over a year. I've found that some artists that moved to Twitter after leaving Tumblr were still uploading the full sized images because they didn't know you could :orig an image there, and that had been well known for a long time. Unless people have a reason to seek out this kind of knowledge or happen on the knowledge by blind chance they'll typically never know about it. This site is an outlier for this kinda knowledge since anyone uploading will have to quickly learn about these or lose a lot of posts to the people who do know them. The average internet user though seems to hardly know or care about the difference between a jpg and a png.

Millcore said:
Artists are lazy. I'm not saying all of them are but I think I know enough artists to make that generalization. They draw a thing and upload it any just take for granted that the sites they're uploading to (mainly FA, DA, Tumblr (RIP)) will downsize it for them so that they don't have to bother, it's one less thing to do/worry about.

I think you would be surprised by how relatively unknown most exploits are. The Derpibooru folks knew about this for over a month beforehand and even with users that use that site and this site this thread still took over a month to come into being. Tumblr raws were known for a long while before it hit the site, there were people keeping it to themselves for over a year. I've found that some artists that moved to Twitter after leaving Tumblr were still uploading the full sized images because they didn't know you could :orig an image there, and that had been well known for a long time. Unless people have a reason to seek out this kind of knowledge or happen on the knowledge by blind chance they'll typically never know about it. This site is an outlier for this kinda knowledge since anyone uploading will have to quickly learn about these or lose a lot of posts to the people who do know them. The average internet user though seems to hardly know or care about the difference between a jpg and a png.

Well, nothing is perfect, not even sites like Pixiv, Newgrounds, etc.

I do hope there will be a proper DeviantArt Image Downloader soon.

Or perhaps the artists weren't aware there was any downsizing going on or don't know how to keep it from happening if they do. They may feel that the original file is much too big for efficient viewing on a monitor (absurd_res, anyone?), or that shrinking the original picture is the final step in the process of making it ready for viewing (bigger isn't necessarily better; shrinking hides many sins).

After all, there's more options than just "make money" and "be a jerk".

Clawstripe said:
Or perhaps the artists weren't aware there was any downsizing going on or don't know how to keep it from happening if they do. They may feel that the original file is much too big for efficient viewing on a monitor (absurd_res, anyone?), or that shrinking the original picture is the final step in the process of making it ready for viewing (bigger isn't necessarily better; shrinking hides many sins).

After all, there's more options than just "make money" and "be a jerk".

You have to manually specify image size when uploading to DA, like so. The original image resolution is the default so you can't just "accidentally" upload a smaller version, you have to go out of your way to select it.

Ratte said:
You have to manually specify image size when uploading to DA, like so. The original image resolution is the default so you can't just "accidentally" upload a smaller version, you have to go out of your way to select it.

Ah, engineers. They love to change things. :p I suppose I ought to upload to DA more frequently so I can keep more current on its idiosyncrasies. Still, I think the other points of shrinking as a stylistic choice could still be valid, except that's usually done before uploading. So, I guess that's my thoughts shot out of the water. :\

I am a bit confused, are we allowed to use this trick or is it against the rules?

SharkFetish said:
I am a bit confused, are we allowed to use this trick or is it against the rules?

Artist has any form of pay to view website i.e. patreon = Don't use trick
Artist doesn't have a pay to view website = Okay but things may change.

Versperus said:
Artist has any form of pay to view website i.e. patreon = Don't use trick
Artist doesn't have a pay to view website = Okay but things may change.

No.
forum #267875

Deviantart got back to me. They said that they have been aware of this exploit and they're working on patching up. I didn't get a timescale on how long it would be.

Millcore said:
Deviantart got back to me. They said that they have been aware of this exploit and they're working on patching up. I didn't get a timescale on how long it would be.

My thoughts are that even if it's fixed, there's a chance that those affected by the changes will be irreversible.

I also noticed that pictures with DeviantArt's watermark still use the old url instead of the wixmp one.

@Dogenzaka I noticed that too when doing a test to see if the exploit worked with prints (it does, I will delete them if I see them here). Though the watermark is annoying enough that those don't tend to get posted here no matter how good the original image is. I can't recall the last time I've seen a post around here with the DA watermark on it.

It looks like they just patched it, but I quickly found a way around it on a slight hunch. The change they did to patch it was so minor that they just added one extra step.

Dogenzaka said:
It looks like they just patched it, but I quickly found a way around it on a slight hunch. The change they did to patch it was so minor that they just added one extra step.

Guess I'll still be using my PENDING W/O DEVIANTART search.

Yeah, they did announce it to be fixed, but it's actually not fixed, just moved....

This is getting extremely annoying.

Mairo said:
Yeah, they did announce it to be fixed, but it's actually not fixed, just moved....

This is getting extremely annoying.

Are people still uploading the rescales?

It looks like they finally pushed a fix for the workaround. It still works on images older than late march, but everything going forward should be inaccessible.

I don't know of this is a fluke or anything, but it looks like DA is bringing back the direct images complete with the old URL scheme. I've just loaded a deviation (submission) page featuring a Wooloo Pokémorph, and it's giving me access to the direct image with the old orig00.deviantart.net URL again.

Update: I've just submitted it with the direct image over here: post #1896145