Lately seen stereo image and made about 300 stereo images from my favorite e621 posts.
Do You want me to post them or it's "unnessesary edit?".
#too_much_privilege_for_moderators.

Stereo images...? You mean pictures I can see from the left AND the right?

elad said:
Stereo images...? You mean pictures I can see from the left AND the right?

Like that: A link

I can't take this seriously when you make a snide remark like that at the end of your post.

Patchi said:
I can't take this seriously when you make a snide remark like that at the end of your post.

Sorry, I do not speak English well. Maybe I misunderstood when I said that "it suits my inquiries." Yet, I spent the time to prepare these drawings and rearranging them many times. Unfortunately, after the question of what software should I use to get better results, I went to work and on return, noticed that my posts are removed and accordingly I received no answer.
Do not see anything sarcastic in my comments and I see no difference between what works for which I was advised to pay attention, though I fully understand what are the advantages to work with depth maps. But my current software does not allow me to work with them.
Translated by Google.

And by the way, I think that kind of assessment, "unnecessary edit" should not be a reason to remove the post, which is equal to the rules and enjoy the users. After all, if someone is liked and did not like moderation, it's not fair. And if anyone does not like it, then need a moderator. I would be glad if someone besides me doing these drawings. Of course, I'll continue to do them for myself, but I was interested to share the result and feel the support, since I can only share with the community E621.
Translated by Google.

Posting unauthorized edits is discouraged, and it doesn't sound like you had asked for permission to edit them.

Genjar said:
Posting unauthorized edits is discouraged, and it doesn't sound like you had asked for permission to edit them.

If this is true, then why don't they just ban people who do it?

JustFrame said:
If this is true, then why don't they just ban people who do it?

From what I've understood, it's merely discouraged. I haven't seen anyone get banned for it.

Obvious edits are just less likely to be approved, in the same way as non-furry art.

Genjar said:
From what I've understood, it's merely discouraged. I haven't seen anyone get banned for it.

Obvious edits are just less likely to be approved, in the same way as non-furry art.

I've banned someone for doing that, but they have to be pretty extreme about it.

I know a few artists that don't mind tasteful edits, so we typically allow them. If the artist throws their shit, then yeah, we take them down.

It it is blatant art theft or the artist isn't 100% okay with it, then it gets taken down. If it is a poor edit meant to incite drama or mock the artist, it is taken down and the user punished. If it is a tasteful edit then we let it stay.

This is my general guideline for handling these, and personally I would not like to see any more of those stereo images as I feel they really do nothing for me because I don't want to stare at the screen so hard for a minor effect

Rainbow_Dash said: I would not like to see any more of those stereo images as I feel they really do nothing for me because I don't want to stare at the screen so hard for a minor effect

sweet jebus agreed. If anything it ruins the image for me, having to try and divide my sight like that.

Alright, we're one step closer to old-timey 1800s porn?

This'll be perfect if I can find a way to upload wood carvings and pyrography.

It's basically just duplication of art we already have, which is why I deleted them. If we allowed stuff like that on a regular basis, it would open a lot of potential for abuse.

What am I supposed to do? Cross my eyes? Put it in a Viewmaster?

Maybe you're supposed to go all chameleon on it and unfocus your eyes.

Moon_Moon said:
Cross my eyes?

Exactly.

Do those stereo images only work for people who's eyes are already naturally crossed? Because I've never gotten it to work. :|

I do not see much of a problem in this - those who are not interested can add the tag "stereo" blacklisted or not to see. If someone liked it (some people put a positive ratings and a Favorites), then why is it necessary to delete? It takes a bit of disk space, which increases with time, including due to the emergence of new content, including a stereo.
About authorship. I do not delete the information the authors do not add votermark own and in no way benefit from this. Set downloaders are not authors. The only thing I created my pool.
So I just post the content that makes a variety of views and increases in the end brings positive emotions. I do not get any benefit from it, except the approval of those they loved. And those who do not like, are not required to see these images.
Where am I wrong?
Generally, for me, the Internet is a place where I have the choice of what to see, what to add and what to think. A similar approval in my opinion is unfair. The set of images that I processed may not contain a strong 3D effect, but making more pixels 2 times, increases the quality of the resulting image.
In the end, all, let us give users a possibility to adjust the E621 is the voting system, and the moderators will monitor violations and quality of content should govern users.
Here let us recall a few posts about MLP, where the difference is to change only the color.
I urge, deployed by moderators as moderator, not a judge.

Rusteee said:
Do those stereo images only work for people who's eyes are already naturally crossed? Because I've never gotten it to work. :|

For the first time it's actually hard.
1. Cross your eyes to see your nose
2. look at image
3. slowly try to see 3 images
4. concentrate on middle image
5. see 3d effect on middle image.
Works almost for all/

HELL_Phoenix said:
For the first time it's actually hard.
1. Cross your eyes to see your nose
2. look at image
3. slowly try to see 3 images
4. concentrate on middle image
5. see 3d effect on middle image.
Works almost for all/

Yeah.. Almost. I could never do it. One trick to make it easier is to partially cover your eyes with your hands so each eye only sees the image it should. It is much easier to achieve the effect if you can only see one image instead of one three (Ooops).

HELL_Phoenix said:
... those who are not interested can add the tag "stereo" blacklisted or not to see...

I'd recommend cross_eye_stereogram. Stereo is used for... post #382801

EsalRider said:
Yeah.. Almost. I could never do it. One trick to make it easier is to partially cover your eyes with your hands so each eye only sees the image it should. It is much easier to achieve the effect if you can only see one image instead of one three (Ooops).

I'd recommend cross_eye_stereogram.

or SBSS (side by side stereo) not quite informative, but easy.

HELL_Phoenix said:
or SBSS (side by side stereo) not quite informative, but easy.

Side by side stereograms may refer to images that require parallel viewing technique. I haven't seen any on this site, so that tag (currently) would only apply to cross-eyed stereograms, making it redundant and unnecessary.

EsalRider said:
Side by side stereograms may refer to images that require parallel viewing technique. I haven't seen any on this site, so that tag (currently) would only apply to cross-eyed stereograms, making it redundant and unnecessary.

Ok. It's not a problem for me. Just do not look that this tag is used for similar images.

There are people on the world who can't cross their eyes.
lel

Would it be bad if I were to ask OP for the edits through a PM? Could I get penalized for that, or should I just drop all interest in this?

Advanst said:
Would it be bad if I were to ask OP for the edits through a PM? Could I get penalized for that, or should I just drop all interest in this?

Seeing as you have a common interest and you aren't stalking or harassing him/her, then sure

HELL_Phoenix said:
I do not see much of a problem in this - those who are not interested can add the tag "stereo" blacklisted or not to see. If someone liked it (some people put a positive ratings and a Favorites), then why is it necessary to delete? It takes a bit of disk space, which increases with time, including due to the emergence of new content, including a stereo.
About authorship. I do not delete the information the authors do not add votermark own and in no way benefit from this. Set downloaders are not authors. The only thing I created my pool.
So I just post the content that makes a variety of views and increases in the end brings positive emotions. I do not get any benefit from it, except the approval of those they loved. And those who do not like, are not required to see these images.
Where am I wrong?
Generally, for me, the Internet is a place where I have the choice of what to see, what to add and what to think. A similar approval in my opinion is unfair. The set of images that I processed may not contain a strong 3D effect, but making more pixels 2 times, increases the quality of the resulting image.
In the end, all, let us give users a possibility to adjust the E621 is the voting system, and the moderators will monitor violations and quality of content should govern users.
Here let us recall a few posts about MLP, where the difference is to change only the color.
I urge, deployed by moderators as moderator, not a judge.

I doubt the problem is that people would want to black list it, the big problem lies in that the art is an edit of an existing work that may or may not have gotten permission from the artist. If you upload stereo images of your own work then there is no problem, it's just when you start editing other artist's work, then there could be problems.
Also about the mlp pony creator images. Those are almost always deleted.

Moon_Moon said:
I doubt the problem is that people would want to black list it, the big problem lies in that the art is an edit of an existing work that may or may not have gotten permission from the artist. If you upload stereo images of your own work then there is no problem, it's just when you start editing other artist's work, then there could be problems.
Also about the mlp pony creator images. Those are almost always deleted.

I see no problem in editing. It's internet. Who asked MLP autors about thousands porn images that made from their characters? Until I start to make money on these images, and do not put them on his authorship, I do not violate copyright laws. In the end, there is no law that I have to ask someone's permission to edit. I leave information about the author.
And about MLP, several such images can be found so far, and with a positive rating. After all, someone like that. So it is necessary. Who allow some people to judge for all?

Can I post here a link for archive?

HELL_Phoenix said:
I see no problem in editing. It's internet.

Doesn't mean that it's ok to edit without permission.

In the end, there is no law that I have to ask someone's permission to edit.

There is on this site. The reason why we tell users to ask permission before they edit is because some artists don't want their art to be edited and in the end, they submit takedown requests and judge wrongly about this site to their followers, which in turn, hurts the site significantly. This can also hurt you too because since it's their art, they can submit takedowns to remove your edits. Some of those artists are still preaching to their audience that "e621 is nothing but stolen art. Users don't even ask for permission".

And about MLP, several such images can be found so far, and with a positive rating. After all, someone like that. So it is necessary. Who allow some people to judge for all?

Rating doesn't really matter in this case because no matter how high of upvotes an image has, the artist and/or character owner can take it down due to them not liking or wanting their image to be edited. Also, It's not necessary actually. Not every user goes to an image and be like "Oh I like this image a lot, I must edit it or else".

TheHuskyK9 said:
Doesn't mean that it's ok to edit without permission.

There is on this site. The reason why we tell users to ask permission before they edit is because some artists don't want their art to be edited and in the end, they submit takedown requests and judge wrongly about this site to their followers, which in turn, hurts the site significantly. This can also hurt you too because since it's their art, they can submit takedowns to remove your edits. Some of those artists are still preaching to their audience that "e621 is nothing but stolen art. Users don't even ask for permission".

Rating doesn't really matter in this case because no matter how high of upvotes an image has, the artist and/or character owner can take it down due to them not liking or wanting their image to be edited. Also, It's not necessary actually. Not every user goes to an image and be like "Oh I like this image a lot, I must edit it or else".

Do not see a problem with that. If the author does not like, he may be asked to remove these images. I saved myself over 2000 E621 favorite images and choose the best of them (in my estimation) and make them 3D. It's even hard to call editing, because I (mostly, except for censorship and violence) not edit the image and do not change their meaning. In my understanding, image editing involves changing the meaning of what I try not to do it.
Let's go back to this, by the logic:
1. users download everything indiscriminately and the author's permission, except for materials from the blacklist;
2. if the author does not like something, it sends takedown;
3. if users do not like something, he voted against;
4. moderator filters content from the blacklist.
So it should work.
But moderators take on a little more power than they should. They assume the role of a user, author and moderator.
I not asking you not to listen to authors and users. They have all the tools to self-regulate this process.
To stop the authors see E621 theft, need more flexible work with the authors so that they can spread their content themselves and get a profit (commercial or transitions in their blogs). It is understood that the main content of the site is loaded without authorization. Just not all authors are so jealous of their works, many of them do for themselves and are happy to share, and some do them for sale and do not want to share.
I digress. Moderators should not take on too much. They need to do their job.
Again, my work was not removed because of disagreement with the author, but because of "unnecessary changes."

HELL_Phoenix said:
Do not see a problem with that. If the author does not like, he may be asked to remove these images. I saved myself over 2000 E621 favorite images and choose the best of them (in my estimation) and make them 3D. It's even hard to call editing, because I (mostly, except for censorship and violence) not edit the image and do not change their meaning. In my understanding, image editing involves changing the meaning of what I try not to do it.
Let's go back to this, by the logic:
1. users download everything indiscriminately and the author's permission, except for materials from the blacklist;
2. if the author does not like something, it sends takedown;
3. if users do not like something, he voted against;
4. moderator filters content from the blacklist.
So it should work.
But moderators take on a little more power than they should. They assume the role of a user, author and moderator.
I not asking you not to listen to authors and users. They have all the tools to self-regulate this process.
To stop the authors see E621 theft, need more flexible work with the authors so that they can spread their content themselves and get a profit (commercial or transitions in their blogs). It is understood that the main content of the site is loaded without authorization. Just not all authors are so jealous of their works, many of them do for themselves and are happy to share, and some do them for sale and do not want to share.
I digress. Moderators should not take on too much. They need to do their job.
Again, my work was not removed because of disagreement with the author, but because of "unnecessary changes."

Dude, I'd suggest you stop talking about the admins like that. They're here to help you and the other users. Also, as far as I know, the only admin here that's an artist is Ratte.

JoeX said:
Dude, I'd suggest you stop talking about the admins like that. They're here to help you and the other users. Also, as far as I know, the only admin here that's an artist is Ratte.

In Russia there is a saying: The road to hell is lined with good intentions.
I'm used to the internet is a self-regulating substance. Protecting users in this way we oppress their freedom. Defending the authors in this way, we oppress their freedom. After moderators act in their place by their own convictions, depriving them of choice.
I'm adding your changes, leave the opportunity to evaluate them and users and artists, they in turn can affect the final result. Either it opnravitsya large number of people and reviewers, and then I will continue to spread these images or authors say NO and users say NO, then I'll say I'm sorry, thank you for your opinion. But moderators rob us of these rights, in favor of speculation.
Eventually, the site enough tools to filter out unwanted content for users - anyone can exclude the fact that he does not like. And by adding a new content type, separated by a tag, nobody.
I'm the man who values ​​freedom. And I want everyone to understand that harassing freedom, we are approaching tyranny. Only way to avoid tyranny, give a clear allocation of responsibilities and assume the functions of which are from other people.

HELL_Phoenix said:
In Russia there is a saying: The road to hell is lined with good intentions.
I'm used to the internet is a self-regulating substance. Protecting users in this way we oppress their freedom. Defending the authors in this way, we oppress their freedom. After moderators act in their place by their own convictions, depriving them of choice.
I'm adding your changes, leave the opportunity to evaluate them and users and artists, they in turn can affect the final result. Either it opnravitsya large number of people and reviewers, and then I will continue to spread these images or authors say NO and users say NO, then I'll say I'm sorry, thank you for your opinion. But moderators rob us of these rights, in favor of speculation.
Eventually, the site enough tools to filter out unwanted content for users - anyone can exclude the fact that he does not like. And by adding a new content type, separated by a tag, nobody.
I'm the man who values ​​freedom. And I want everyone to understand that harassing freedom, we are approaching tyranny. Only way to avoid tyranny, give a clear allocation of responsibilities and assume the functions of which are from other people.

Yeah, but you're acting like the admins are specifically out to get you. Fact of the matter is, there have been a lot of new artists added to the avoid posting list that weren't on there before because of similar problems. These actions are what cost the site good artists and their art.

JoeX said:
Yeah, but you're acting like the admins are specifically out to get you. Fact of the matter is, there have been a lot of new artists added to the avoid posting list that weren't on there before because of similar problems. These actions are what cost the site good artists and their art.

Only problem I see is that the authors can not make a profit from the figures posted on E621, moral or money is not important. I think it's time to think over the question of attracting sponsors, including premium content, materials for placement on E621.
In any case, the number of top-notch content should be increased, and the authors must make a profit.
Any edited images will not receive profits and problems with the authors should not be.

HELL_Phoenix said:
Only problem I see is that the authors can not make a profit from the figures posted on E621, moral or money is not important. I think it's time to think over the question of attracting sponsors, including premium content, materials for placement on E621.
In any case, the number of top-notch content should be increased, and the authors must make a profit.
Any edited images will not receive profits and problems with the authors should not be.

So, do you not care if we lose artists? I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

HELL_Phoenix said:
Only problem I see is that the authors can not make a profit from the figures posted on E621, moral or money is not important.

Try telling that to an artist...

I think it's time to think over the question of attracting sponsors, including premium content, materials for placement on E621.

This idea has been shot down many times... good for that

In any case, the number of top-notch content should be increased, and the authors must make a profit.
Any edited images will not receive profits and problems with the authors should not be.

In a perfect world, yes. But sadly this isn't the case. Many posts have been taken down just for the minuscule reason that artists/owners don't like that their character is being tagged in a way they don't like (and that isn't even touching the image itself)...

Every time I see a new takedown requesting their name to be on the DNP list, I think to myself: Why would they do that? They're missing an opportunity of exposure, to get their artwork more attention and probably commissions (which in turn are exchanged for money), to be known even more.

So, I'd say, as many other have said too, ask permission first. You did the edit before asking? No prob! What matters here is the permission to post said edit and on which and how many sites the image in question is going to, because some artists don't like their images on certain sites (even with source to the original work).

HELL_Phoenix said:
Only problem I see is that the authors can not make a profit from the figures posted on E621, moral or money is not important. I think it's time to think over the question of attracting sponsors, including premium content, materials for placement on E621.
In any case, the number of top-notch content should be increased, and the authors must make a profit.
Any edited images will not receive profits and problems with the authors should not be.

Wait so you wanna pay artists to be able to host it on a site?
Do you know how much that would cost? They already post it for free somewhere and then it ends up here. We aren't posting premium content because the artist is trying to sell it to make themselves a profit. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Also artists don't always like edits, and artists are usually quite vocal about what they like and don't like, so you can see the shitstorm that could occur from editing without permission.

About paid content, I propose to give the authors an opportunity to capitalize on their drawings showing ads next to their picture, pay-per-views of advertising. It's not a bad idea and a lot of sites work similarly. I think the direct earnings from shows will bring more than, alas, little chance of attracting an audience to the site author.
I just don't see other way to interest autors.

HELL_Phoenix said:
About paid content, I propose to give the authors an opportunity to capitalize on their drawings showing ads next to their picture, pay-per-views of advertising. It's not a bad idea and a lot of sites work similarly. I think the direct earnings from shows will bring more than, alas, little chance of attracting an audience to the site author.
I just don't see other way to interest autors.

There are ads already on the site (left column, above the image and below the comments, in the frontpage). Basically what you're trying to say (as I understand it) is that e621 should pay artists to keep their artwork?

If so, I don't think many will want to take that time to set up their monetizing account. In fact, not many artists are registered here and, the few ones I've seen, rarely upload their own images.

Xch3l said:
There are ads already on the site (left column, above the image and below the comments, in the frontpage). Basically what you're trying to say (as I understand it) is that e621 should pay artists to keep their artwork?

If so, I don't think many will want to take that time to set up their monetizing account. In fact, not many artists are registered here and, the few ones I've seen, rarely upload their own images.

Not really, I believe that E621 should pay artists for posting their pictures off the money that brought these artists views . Creating accounts for the monetising not as big a problem as in the technical and morally : artists have an opportunity to earn, and users the ability to watch . This is a huge incentive for artists.
I'm not talking about some nominal fee, I'm talking only about the payment after the fact. Eventually , the site administrator has added an online store, which is advertised in the header .
Those images are left without payment of individual authors , and will be repaid site. Including those obtained copyright editing posts.
After all, we're talking about how to make the site friendly to the author and not "thieves site."

HELL_Phoenix said:
Not really, I believe that E621 should pay artists for posting their pictures off the money that brought these artists views . Creating accounts for the monetising not as big a problem as in the technical and morally : artists have an opportunity to earn, and users the ability to watch . This is a huge incentive for artists.
I'm not talking about some nominal fee, I'm talking only about the payment after the fact. Eventually , the site administrator has added an online store, which is advertised in the header .
Those images are left without payment of individual authors , and will be repaid site. Including those obtained copyright editing posts.
After all, we're talking about how to make the site friendly to the author and not "thieves site."

This is a furry image base, not a goddamn multimillion dollar company.

Where would all this money from the artists come from? Ads don't rake in THAT much cash, and there's server fees, operation fees, domain fees, and a bunch of other stuff that comes with owning a website designed to host thousands of pictures.

If artists don't want their work here, they ask for it to be taken down. Done.

And why the need for pointless edits? Stereo images? Really? Just open up 2 windows and look at the picture that way.

I have no idea what it's supposed to do, anyway. I can't see 3D.

SirAntagonist said:
This is a furry image base, not a goddamn multimillion dollar company.

Where would all this money from the artists come from? Ads don't rake in THAT much cash, and there's server fees, operation fees, domain fees, and a bunch of other stuff that comes with owning a website designed to host thousands of pictures.

If artists don't want their work here, they ask for it to be taken down. Done.

And why the need for pointless edits? Stereo images? Really? Just open up 2 windows and look at the picture that way.

I have no idea what it's supposed to do, anyway. I can't see 3D.

Don't forget the ungodly amount of 500 errors. Dear God, the horror.

SirAntagonist said:
This is a furry image base, not a goddamn multimillion dollar company.

Where would all this money from the artists come from? Ads don't rake in THAT much cash, and there's server fees, operation fees, domain fees, and a bunch of other stuff that comes with owning a website designed to host thousands of pictures.

If artists don't want their work here, they ask for it to be taken down. Done.

And why the need for pointless edits? Stereo images? Really? Just open up 2 windows and look at the picture that way.

I have no idea what it's supposed to do, anyway. I can't see 3D.

Nope, images different. Maybe it's just your problem? Some other's can see 3d effect, and they liked it.

There has been quite the overwhelming negative response to 3D images. If they were original pieces of work, then I might not mind. However, you want to edit existing work, and you don't seem to be overly concerned with how the artist might appreciate that.

Regardless, the answer is no.

Also, because this has already gone off-topic, I am locking the thread. If you feel there is additional discussion needed, please open a new thread.