If I find art with artifacting or sloppy work, such as

https://i.imgur.com/7d4QPs3.jpg

I try my best to either repair it or clean up the mistakes.

I've been working on a personal edit of that particular image but will be doing others.

Are remasters counted as inferior, duplicates, and whatnot, or are they allowed?

The definition of a digital remaster in this respect is an image that has been improved in overall quality compared to the original.

This excludes upscales because upscaling generally introduces interpolation artifacts, however, upscaling may be a part of the remastering process so the new artist can add more detail as part of the remaster.

What are the thoughts around this?

They are treated as inferior versions without exception.

However, if you want you can link them in the comments of the original submission, you'd just have to host them outside of e621.

I also have some posts that I know of which trigger me heavily, but usually we are talking about artist deliberately fucking things up with encodes or similar.

But generally if we do already host a version that's original and acceptable, fixes are straight up deleted unless they are so major that it could be considered as collab level edit. Instead I'll comment on what's wrong and hope dearly that my message is read and artist takes hint and improves their work and workflow in future.

Alright, thank you.

NotMeNotYou said:
They are treated as inferior versions without exception.

Why is this though, especially if they are superior?

What if the edit is significant enough for it to be treated as an alternate version, such as a background and art style change?

Mairo said:
unless they are so major that it could be considered as collab level edit. future.

Here's what I've done so far, be aware that Imgur compresses their images. My edits have zero artifacting.

https://imgur.com/a/bLH8TVX

When you say "remaster," can you help me understand what you mean? Other than cleaning up the artifacts, it looks like you took the original artwork, put it on a new background, and added your name alongside the artist's name for credit.

These would be an excellent contribution to the comments section of the original post.

G'H0ST said:
Here's what I've done so far, be aware that Imgur compresses their images. My edits have zero artifacting.

https://imgur.com/a/bLH8TVX

that looks.. bad. smudging the edges doesnt improve them at all and makes it only look poorly edited. smudge tool is never a good way to make fur/hair effect.

G'H0ST said:
Here's what I've done so far, be aware that Imgur compresses their images. My edits have zero artifacting.

https://imgur.com/a/bLH8TVX

means it has artifacting, noticeable or not. Save it as a PNG if you want to have zero artifacting.

Furrin_Gok said:
.jpg means it has artifacting, noticeable or not. Save it as a PNG if you want to have zero artifacting.

read it again. the issue here is that imgur coverts too big images into super compressed jpg.

Ruikuli said:
read it again. the issue here is that imgur coverts too big images into super compressed jpg.

He also said there was zero artifacting, which became untrue the moment it was autocompressed by imgur. At that point, why not try Photobucket (just make sure to set it to private so that people need the direct link to view it) instead?

Furrin_Gok said:
He also said there was zero artifacting, which became untrue the moment it was autocompressed by imgur.

like i said, read it again. he said that his edits had zero artifacting. meaning that the file did not have artifacting until it was uploaded to imgur.

Furrin_Gok said:
.jpg means it has artifacting, noticeable or not. Save it as a PNG if you want to have zero artifacting.

Except lossless JPEG. And Imgur is known for compressing images.

Ruikuli said:
like i said, read it again. he said that his edits had zero artifacting. meaning that the file did not have artifacting until it was uploaded to imgur.

correct.

Furrin_Gok said:
He also said there was zero artifacting, which became untrue the moment it was autocompressed by imgur. At that point, why not try Photobucket (just make sure to set it to private so that people need the direct link to view it) instead?

the artifacting is not through any action of my own. the images I upload to Imgur are already PNG files, Imgur converts them to JPGs on its own.

Ruikuli said:
that looks.. bad. smudging the edges doesnt improve them at all and makes it only look poorly edited. smudge tool is never a good way to make fur/hair effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

G'H0ST said:
Except lossless JPEG. And Imgur is known for compressing images.

correct.

the artifacting is not through any action of my own. the images I upload to Imgur are already PNG files, Imgur converts them to JPGs on its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

https://www.lifehack.org/539117/why-people-who-are-unable-take-criticism-will-not-succeed