SigHansehn said:
I think u should just set a quality standard, prohibiting them all seems a bit exesive

Yeah, I agree. Oystercatcher7 makes pretty good photomorphs.

If you mean artists like Silverfish, i don't think that he and those in his quality range should be expunged, those are some of the most well looking "realistic" depictions on what furries\anthros would look like irl.

Why is it being discussed that we want to get rid of all of them?

The OP clearly states we're thinking about raising the bar needed for them to pass, not outright ban every single one of them.

The only exceptions would be if they're rl porn or (possible) cp.

NotMeNotYou said:
Why is it being discussed that we want to get rid of all of them?

The OP clearly states we're thinking about raising the bar needed for them to pass, not outright ban every single one of them.

The only exceptions would be if they're rl porn or (possible) cp.

Probably has to do with the "prohibiting photomorphs" in the title.

Anyway I've already said my piece. I think if it involves genitals that were in the original image, it still counts as RL porn and ought to be banned. Safe / Questionable photomorphs would be judged on quality, and the standards ought to be raised.

I say just go for it.

NotMeNotYou said:
Why is it being discussed that we want to get rid of all of them?

The OP clearly states we're thinking about raising the bar needed for them to pass, not outright ban every single one of them.

The only exceptions would be if they're rl porn or (possible) cp.

Probably has to do with the "prohibiting photomorphs" in the title.

Basically, this. I didn't notice the "bulk of" statement--or probably did, but 'prohibiting' probably overruled in my mind. Whoops.

well, in that case, yeah, go for it. A lot of them are crap, let's raise standards.

Clawdragons said:
Probably has to do with the "prohibiting photomorphs" in the title.

Well, that's something I should have seen.

I don't see why we have to suddenly be picking on this relatively small art form. The way this thread started was more or less "do you guys think photomoprhs are low-quality?" The answer is no, and if they are then delete them. Easy.

Then suddenly the discussion is "are they RL porn doe?" which seems like a discussion that's borne out of nitpicking rather than any sort of actual need for change. Who cares if they are? They aren't taking over the site, obviously. They don't seem to be encouraging people to post other kinds of RL porn. Just seems like a weird thing to go after...unless you're just anti-porn in general and then you're going to jump at the chance to restrict it in any way.

Dyrone said:
I don't see why we have to suddenly be picking on this relatively small art form. The way this thread started was more or less "do you guys think photomoprhs are low-quality?" The answer is no, and if they are then delete them. Easy.

Then suddenly the discussion is "are they RL porn doe?" which seems like a discussion that's borne out of nitpicking

I'd mainly put this down to poor framing. It's often easy to have an effective discussion when it's framed clearly; if it's not framed clearly, people often wander around in the general manner of a committee, forming post-hoc justifications (such as 'RL porn?') for agreeing/opposing what they think OP means, and fragmenting into factions.

On the subject of accurate framing, I disagree that 'do you guys think photomorphs are low-quality?' is an accurate summary of OP's primary question.

With the more recent changes to the approvals regarding low effort edits (text added, elements bucket filled, random body parts pasted in, hue changes, etc) it feels kind of strange to leave photomorphs out of this.

With this comes the question: Would people miss them if we start deleting them?

It seems to me that there is one clear question that can be extracted from this, and another less-clear question. The first being "How much do people value photomorphs?" (which is substantially different from quality). The second is.. SOMETHING about quality. You might say "Do you think photomorphs are low quality?, but I'd argue it's substantially clearer to say "What proportion of photomorphs are low quality?"; the former is more pure opinion and perhaps contains more of a moral tone, whereas numbers can be argued without necessarily sliding into factionalism.

Heads badly photoshopped on and a simple recolor overlay?

post #1194999

Get rid of it.

Something that looks like they actually took their time and came out nicely?

post #187778
post #741080
post #969929

Keep 'em. It's not that hard of a decision to make. There are people who actually like these, but the ones that look horrific need to get the boot.

Rayzr said:
Heads badly photoshopped on and a simple recolor overlay?

Get rid of it.

Something that looks like they actually took their time and came out nicely?

Keep 'em. It's not that hard of a decision to make. There are people who actually like these, but the ones that look horrific need to get the boot.

Just saying, those LOOK nicer, but are not necessarily 'more' effort.

post #187778 <-- This one honestly frustrates me. It looks unfinished. Seriously, look at her back: there's fur texture visible. There's tufts visible where her underwear is. But as soon as you move away from the edge, there's no fur tuft or overlaps. Not over the edge of her panties, not around her hipbones. On her arm, fur near the top of her forearm, yet once you reach her 'glove'... no tufts. On her far thigh, there's more furry fuzzy tufts... but then... her stomach? Nothing. Her breasts, nope. jsut her own natural human body hair. You've got her body colored, but outside of the orange/white fur line, there's no texture, or depth to her 'fur'. You see the shading that fell on her own natural skin and it looks... well...

Okay, honestly? That is a fucking NICE picture. The lighting's amazing. She's got a great body, and the way light and shadow plays across her stomach and breasts is amazing. Like, hot damn! But the original picture? has the same thing. This is a great photograph. But the PHOTOGRAPH is great, not the work done to it.

I mean. Honestly. I love that one. But I could do this in about 15 or 20 minutes with a good photograph. An appealing picture is an important part of a good photomorph, but the act of photomorphing that picture was not high effort.

The other two are pretty nice though--I'll give that. If *I* were making the calls, I'd pass on 1, and keep the other two. :)

Idk. For the question about if it's irl porn or not doesn't seem to be much of a question. Photomorphs based on illegal photos or photos of animal genitalia would likely not be allowed because they're still identifiable as real photos. That people don't bother to try to defend this stuff shows that there is an understanding that yes, photomorphs are still photos and still irl porn. I'm not saying that explicit photomorphs are equivalent to illegal/unethical photos, but photomorphs with photo genitals either count as irl porn or they don't. I'm not sure why "No irl porn, no exceptions" has an exception.

post #1148974 This is maybe one of the more blatant examples, but you can put this side-by-side with its source and see that the genitalia are not edited at all beyond a slight change to the color balance. I don't feel that fur texture on the rest of it changes that this is a photo of penis and a vagina.

If you don't think this site should have a rule against irl porn, that's a different discussion altogether, but as-is, this is irl porn. It should either be clarified that the no irl porn rule does have this exception, or the exception should be closed.

Please don't make this a rule, I love photomorphs, even if some are a bit wonky. It's still furry.

regsmutt said:
I don't feel that fur texture on the rest of it changes that this is a photo of penis and a vagina.

Yeah, because that's the focus of the image. Just a penis and a vagina. Never mind the two anthropomorphic furry characters, lets just pretend that doesn't exist and reduce this image to a close-up of a dick in a pussy.

regsmutt said:
It should either be clarified that the no irl porn rule does have this exception, or the exception should be closed.

Literally no reason to do any of that. Like I said it's not a problem. Never even seen this brought up as a problem before, in fact the only reason it's being brought up now is because it's tangentially related to the main topic, this is literally not even the main topic of this thread.

Is it a loophole? Probably. Does it need to change the wording of the main rule? No...that would weaken the force of the rule, and that would be a problem because if you show people a single fucking crack in that rule then you get all sorts of fucking questions about what is and what isn't allowed, and it becomes a huge shitstorm.

Dyrone said:
Is it a loophole? Probably. Does it need to change the wording of the main rule? No...that would weaken the force of the rule, and that would be a problem because if you show people a single fucking crack in that rule then you get all sorts of fucking questions about what is and what isn't allowed, and it becomes a huge shitstorm.

Honestly this sounds like you're making an argument for banning photomorphs. I don't think it was your intent, but it is the argument you made.

The admins already go through thousands a ton of posts a day and judge which posts are high-quality enough for the site, I don't see why raising the bar on photomorphs would be an issue.

Dyrone said:
Yeah, because that's the focus of the image. Just a penis and a vagina. Never mind the two anthropomorphic furry characters, lets just pretend that doesn't exist and reduce this image to a close-up of a dick in a pussy.

Like I said, I really don't see any reason why the fur texture and pasted on heads change that this is still recognizably irl porn with photos of genitalia. And close-ups are currently permitted:
post #862005post #723089

Literally no reason to do any of that. Like I said it's not a problem. Never even seen this brought up as a problem before, in fact the only reason it's being brought up now is because it's tangentially related to the main topic, this is literally not even the main topic of this thread.

Is it a loophole? Probably. Does it need to change the wording of the main rule? No...that would weaken the force of the rule, and that would be a problem because if you show people a single fucking crack in that rule then you get all sorts of fucking questions about what is and what isn't allowed, and it becomes a huge shitstorm.

There's already a loophole/weakness in the rule. Acknowledging it doesn't make it any bigger. If anything, acknowledging an exception can spell out what, specifically, this exception applies to. If it's really such a serious concern that it shouldn't be discussed for fear of encouraging people to use it, maybe that exception shouldn't exist.

regsmutt said:
There's already a loophole/weakness in the rule. Acknowledging it doesn't make it any bigger.

It doesn't widen the loophole. I doubt there would be a sudden surge in photomorphs if we suddenly said "NO REAL PORN, oh, but photomorphs are ok." What it really does it opens the floor for a dialogue I doubt anyone is interested in having...which is "well if photomorphs are OK, what's the difference between that and X, huh? HUH?". That times 1,000. I doubt the mods want to start dealing will all that shit.

But who am I kidding...you guys love opening pandora's box, usually to disastrous effect, for instance this discussion will probably end in the banning of all future pornographic photomorphs, which I doubt the majority of site users actually want, but ofc it has to happen to satisfy a few sticklers who couldn't handle a small discrepancy in the rules. Fun.

Dyrone said:
It doesn't widen the loophole. I doubt there would be a sudden surge in photomorphs if we suddenly said "NO REAL PORN, oh, but photomorphs are ok." What it really does it opens the floor for a dialogue I doubt anyone is interested in having...which is "well if photomorphs are OK, what's the difference between that and X, huh? HUH?". That times 1,000. I doubt the mods want to start dealing will all that shit.

Literally there is nothing stopping people from already noticing that photomorphs are okay and asking these questions already. Allowing this loophole has already created space for that dialogue. Making it an official rule allows the edges of this exception to be defined and shuts up dorks like me who would point out that it's weird and inconsistent.

Dyrone said:
But who am I kidding...you guys love opening pandora's box, usually to disastrous effect, for instance this discussion will probably end in the banning of all future pornographic photomorphs, which I doubt the majority of site users actually want, but ofc it has to happen to satisfy a few sticklers who couldn't handle a small discrepancy in the rules. Fun.

Actually, as far as I'm aware, the general response has been "I like photomorphs, can't we keep the good ones?" with a few people pointed out the real life porn issue.... would it be terrible if one of the photomorph rules is that any genitalia must be 'more' than color shifted? or that it shouldn't show sexy crotch bits?

Ultimately, it's up to the bosses, though.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Paging @oystercatcher23

I personally don't care, as I don't make these edits anymore. However, if you really want my opinion, I say keep the photomorph tag as a whole. Not including my own (hate to sound self praising but honestly some of mine were pretty good), there are some pretty decent photomorphs on this site. However, maybe get rid of those ones that are human faces with weirdly edited animal features pasted on. There are some pretty bad ones, so restriction of poor quality photomorphs doesn't seem like a bad idea.

has some kind of new rule been reached recently?
I've noticed a lot of oystercatcher23 got flagged and then deleted and it appears inconsistent which ones got deleted.

pc-king said:
has some kind of new rule been reached recently?
I've noticed a lot of oystercatcher23 got flagged and then deleted and it appears inconsistent which ones got deleted.

The only ones that got deleted were the ones that got flagged for real-life porn. https://e621.net/post_flag_history?name=&post_id=&reason=Contains+real-life&order=date

pc-king said:
has some kind of new rule been reached recently?
I've noticed a lot of oystercatcher23 got flagged and then deleted and it appears inconsistent which ones got deleted.

They did contain hue shifted real life porn, this is the definite limit we already have kept with new uploads and many users have gotten warnings from uploading photomorphs containing genitalia area almost unaltered. There's a reason why we do not allow real life porn and why it's flag reason to begin with and photomorphs have been the loophole on getting real life pornography in here.

There's simply so much more trouble that can happen from us hosting real life material over fantasy one.

Mairo said:
They did contain hue shifted real life porn, this is the definite limit we already have kept with new uploads and many users have gotten warnings from uploading photomorphs containing genitalia area almost unaltered. There's a reason why we do not allow real life porn and why it's flag reason to begin with and photomorphs have been the loophole on getting real life pornography in here.

There's simply so much more trouble that can happen from us hosting real life material over fantasy one.

So I'm going to report some old real-life porn for deletion. I would like some clarification before I start though.

Would morphs like these:
post #387782 post #1233864 post #400829
be eligible for deletion? I'm not certain they are because they don't contain real-life genitals, but do contain real-life pornography.

Kyiiel said:
So I'm going to report some old real-life porn for deletion. I would like some clarification before I start though.

Would morphs like these:
post #387782 post #1233864 post #400829
be eligible for deletion? I'm not certain they are because they don't contain real-life genitals, but do contain real-life pornography.

Those things existed before any change, I don't think they're eligible at all.

Furrin_Gok said:
Those things existed before any change, I don't think they're eligible at all.

I'm speaking out of my ass here, but I'm pretty sure that the RL *pornography* thing has been on site for a decade, so.. they aren't, I THINK, grandfathered in.

Kyiiel said:
So I'm going to report some old real-life porn for deletion. I would like some clarification before I start though.

Would morphs like these:
post #387782 post #1233864 post #400829
be eligible for deletion? I'm not certain they are because they don't contain real-life genitals, but do contain real-life pornography.

I think those morphs would be okay, except maybe that last one.

Maybe it'd be better if you collected a list of potential posts that you think might violate that and DM to someone rather than report? I know *I* would find that easier because I could say "these show the real life junks, but THESE seem a bit dubious to me, but I'll leave that for you to decide"