An artist that i follow posts both their art on Twitter and Skeb.jp

From which site should i be posting them from?

the one with the highest resolution (which honestly could be either of them for all i know)

Does Skeb.jp compress its images in the same way as Twitter?

ok so looking through skeb.jp and it seems to be centered around making commissions, not to mention that most of the art has a big fat "SAMPLE" watermark on it

is there a way to get the image files watermark-free without payment? if so then great but if not then you might have to go with twitter since that would qualify as paywall content and as such will not be accepted on this site

Skeb, from my experience is usually lower res, In addition to the above mentioned commonly seen sample watermark. If the artist/commisioner DO upload it on twitter with either a higher resolution. It should be obvious. But if the resolution is the same, i'll be honest, not sure. Haven't gone through that situation before.

It depends. If it both is JPEG, you can usually take the one with the bigger resolution. But be aware that different platforms might compress them more or less than others.

PNG vs JPEG
If it is the same resolution, the PNG version should be the version to use.
If the PNG is slightly smaller than the JPEG, compare them by eye. The PNG might look better.
If the JPEG is way bigger, choose the JPEG version.

dubsthefox said:
It depends. If it both is JPEG, you can usually take the one with the bigger resolution. But be aware that different platforms might compress them more or less than others.

PNG vs JPEG
If it is the same resolution, the PNG version should be the version to use.
If the PNG is slightly smaller than the JPEG, compare them by eye. The PNG might look better.
If the JPEG is way bigger, choose the JPEG version.

tl;dr: weigh your options between the higher resolution and the lesser amount of artifacting

If the decision is watermark vs. no watermark, always go for the non-watermarked image.

strikerman said:
If the decision is watermark vs. no watermark, always go for the non-watermarked image.

what if the watermarked one is 4k and the no watermark one is a thumbnail?

darryus said:
what if the watermarked one is 4k and the no watermark one is a thumbnail?

cry, i would do that.

There are... tools to try to fix that but they can't fix it 100%. Anyways, a lot of paywall sites offer ability to provide non-paywalled content, as well. Or like Gumroad's example: '0 to infinity dollars' for the 'free' files. I've gotten in habit of buying stuff from these sites once a month.

alphamule said:
There are... tools to try to fix that but they can't fix it 100%.

If you mean removing watermarks. You should never do that. wiki #1638

Posting Abuse
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 to 7 days
This category includes:
...
Removing any watermark(s) or signature(s) from submissions
...

dubsthefox said:
If you mean removing watermarks. You should never do that. wiki #1638

the other thing I feel like this could be referring to would be upscaling an image, which you should also not do.

dubsthefox said:
If you mean removing watermarks. You should never do that. wiki #1638

Yeah, sorry, this is the "don't help people avoid paywalls" group of rules. But a user on an IRC channel had a tool for fixing different-resolution images where you wanted to copy JUST say, the text to higher-res image. Effectively resizing the part that was different and putting it on top. I guess if done in the frequency domain, this could work well enough? Not sure, haven't checked the code. You can also separate the hue and intensity for decensoring. Hopefully describing technology with dual-use isn't breaking the rules. Like palette-swapping and edge/object-detection, there are both good and bad uses. :/ Examples: Lazy edits for variations in a CG set, censoring objects algorythmically.

Posting said edited images here is of course a rule violation much like resizing images to try to get inflated "resolution". LWND was a user on another site known for doing this sort of horror.

Quoted the section:

Posting Abuse
Suggested Suspension Length: 3 to 7 days
This category includes:

Posting works made by one of the artists or publishers on the Avoid Posting List
Posting any commercial or pay-to-view content
Posting real pornography / real images or videos depicting illegal activities (such as bestiality, child pornography, etc.)
Knowingly uploading previously deleted content
Removing any watermark(s) or signature(s) from submissions
Knowingly or repeatedly uploading a lower-resolution image, if there is a higher-resolution of that image available
Knowingly or repeatedly uploading screenshots, images under 200x200 pixels, images with artifacts or large watermarks, and/or non-artistic images (motivational posters, Second Life, memes, image macros, etc.)
See our Uploading Guidelines for a full list of things that are bad to upload
Editing/creating post descriptions (if you are not the artist, uploader, character owner, or commissioner) to create information
Using post descriptions to express personal feelings, create drama, or otherwise take away from describing the attached post
Please try to use proper spelling and grammar in post descriptions
In addition, if a person who is submitting content wishes it for it to be removed, for any reason, within 48 hours, that request will be honored.
After 48 hours, the standard FFD and Takedown policies apply

This is intended to ensure there is a minimum level of quality on the website. By ensuring people who have specifically requested that their art not be on the site, removing art that is sufficiently poor quality, or encouraging tag usage. It also is expanded to include post descriptions and ensure that no one uses it to vandalize someone’s post.

Hmm, the "Unicode" part might need to be updated further down in that list of rules?