I need examples in order to know what to upload and what not.

status:active ought to help you determine acceptable quality.

Siral_Exan said:
status:approved ought to help you determine acceptable quality.

*minimum*

edit:
If we could search by "time until approval", that might help the OP.
Correlation between time until approval and quality.

Munkelzahn said:
*minimum*

edit:
If we could search for "time until approval", that might help the OP.

I think I conveyed my message appropriately. There is no base image to determine minimum quality standard, if you want to determine whether or not an image would be acceptable you'll have to determine that by looking through approved images. Approved images met the minimum quality standard, usually, so there's your reference.

However, another means to determine whether or not an image meets the standard is by linking it. Just upload it to a 3rd party sharing site and we could judge it accordingly.

Maybe examples of posts that are badly made, but still got approved.

Quality is subjective. Ask 10 people what the worst quality image is on this site, and you'll get 20 different answers. It's handled on an image-by-image basis. Different moderators can have slightly different standards for what they approve or reject too.

Aside from a few objective elements (e.g. a photo of an image isn't acceptable), it ultimately comes down to whoever decides to approve or reject the submission. There's no hard-line minimum you can compare against to get a firm yes or no. If you want a firm answer, you have to show it and ask a moderator, or post it anyway and see if it gets accepted or not (which can take up to 30 days, if not explicitly rejected or approved in that time).

I think status:approved score:5 order:random date:>2018-01-01 is a good representation of 'if your picture fits in here, it has a pretty good chance of being approved'. I know that's not exactly what you asked, but as others have pointed out, your original question was not answerable in any particularly useful way.

If I had to summarize the standards briefly, I'd say 'just don't be too bad at any one area of art (that actually is prominent in your artwork)'

HavelTheRockHard said:
everything by this artist is exactly on the line
https://e621.net/post/index/1/fuze

Yeah, Fuze is definitely one of those artists which are consistantly just good enough to be constantly bit over the acceptable line.

But artwork is still somewhat subjective thing. Two artworks with same amount of talent and effort put behind them can be amazing and bad if the aim of the artwork for other was small pixel artwork and other was trying to do new mona lisa.

Don't aim for bare minimum, aim for the stars! I believe in you. We all believe in you!

...
Is THIS acceptable though? When the post is meant to look bad?

BirdOfGrain said:
Is THIS acceptable though? When the post is meant to look bad?

If something is clearly deliberately meant to look bad or doodly, it can be acceptable if it's clear and it's still done really well.

That example, even if it's meant to be done badly, it's also actually done badly, so that would not be acceptable at all.

The uploading guidelines have the following to say regarding quality.

Bad things to upload:

• Low quality submissions: Highly visible artifacts, scribbles, low-quality photographs of traditional media (invest into a scanner, people!), 1000h in MSPaint images, computer generated mosaics, cropped images, anatomical diagrams, bad edits, screenshots, artificial upscales, AI / neural network edits, etc. etc.
• artificial upscales include anything like "normal" upscaling, waifu2x, neural network upscales, and similar
• sensible integer upscaling with nearest neighbor (aka without smoothing filters) is permitted for pixel artwork that would otherwise be too small to see well

Quality standards:

• All submissions need to display a solid grasp of artistic principles
• All submissions need to be presented in a legible / readable format
• the chosen medium (image, video, flash) needs to be of a high quality
• traditional media needs to be either scanned in properly or photographed with impeccable lighting and contrast

For the most part, "low quality" refers to the actual resolution/fidelity of the image, rather than a lack in artistic merit. The vast majority of images which are removed for these reasons are shitty scans or bad screenshots. Moderators generally let the voting system filter out the artwork which is shitty or appeals to less... "mainstream" fetishes, rather than taking a hard stance on what is and is not quality art.

post #685141 post #303508 post #81943 post #116551