I see no difference between this and the old post. Also, the old post is only just slightly larger in file size.

Jerjercorn said:
I see no difference between this and the old post. Also, the old post is only just slightly larger in file size.

This is a higher-quality version. The older upload used the sample image instead of the original image as a source. The sample contains additional visual artifacts (map of pixel differences using Idem's sourcing suite) and was thus flagged as inferior. See the Inkbunny section under the Sites and Sources wiki page for more information.

Songbird said:
This is a higher-quality version. The older upload used the sample image instead of the original image as a source. The sample contains additional visual artifacts (map of pixel differences using Idem's sourcing suite) and was thus flagged as inferior. See the Inkbunny section under the Sites and Sources wiki page for more information.

Is the difference in quality noticable to the naked eye? is it worth doing all this stuff? I feel like the answer is no, having the raw uncompressed files and flipping back and forth, it seems like this is unnecessary, unless I'm missing something.

fluff-kevlar said:
Is the difference in quality noticable to the naked eye?

Yes, albeit barely. I tested after your comment on Firefox by opening the IB sample and original image in two tabs, zooming in fully on the bottom left corner of both, and tabbing between them with ctrl-tab -> ctrl-shift-tab while looking at the darker regions of the cloth near lines. Compression artifacts are slightly more prominent on the sample, but it is very hard to see.

fluff-kevlar said:
is it worth doing all this stuff?

To me, yes, but your mileage may vary. Looking for versions in higher quality yields a broad selection of results - sometimes it's as minor as this case, other times it's a 4k PNG uploaded by the artist on Inkbunny/SoFurry compared to a 1280x1280 JPG pulled from Fur Affinity. Beyond that, it encourages uploaders to seek out the best public versions, and it also helps avoid bad habits like lossy downloading or sourcing from another image board.

I can understand if you'd rather not see old art reuploaded, as there's plenty of valid reasons - loss of stored upvotes, users seeing older art at the top when searching your artist tag, etc. You are welcome to file for conditional_dnp if you wish your posts to be exempted from reuploads, either fully or for minor differences like this. As always, artists' and commissioners' wishes come first.

comic still good after all these years

Songbird said:
Yes, albeit barely... it is very hard to see...sometimes it's as minor as this case...

...users seeing older art at the top when searching your artist tag, etc.

Sorry if my initial response seemed agitated, I meant it more evenly toned. I understand finding the best quality versions of an image to upload, but when it's negligible, I don't think it's worth the removal of older posts is all. You're right, I could do DNP but I don't think it's THAT bad of a situation, and doesn't happen QUITE often enough to warrant that, but suddenly seeing old art that I don't think is representative of my current state threw me off-guard. I do like older posts to go back and read comments sometimes, and I think the URLs are still there, but it does look odd if people sort my artist tag by date and see years/decades-old lesser quality show up first, that's all.

I still appreciate you and others helping update the quality of uploads here, no offense intended.

fluff-kevlar said:
Sorry if my initial response seemed agitated, I meant it more evenly toned. I understand finding the best quality versions of an image to upload, but when it's negligible, I don't think it's worth the removal of older posts is all. You're right, I could do DNP but I don't think it's THAT bad of a situation, and doesn't happen QUITE often enough to warrant that, but suddenly seeing old art that I don't think is representative of my current state threw me off-guard. I do like older posts to go back and read comments sometimes, and I think the URLs are still there, but it does look odd if people sort my artist tag by date and see years/decades-old lesser quality show up first, that's all.

I still appreciate you and others helping update the quality of uploads here, no offense intended.

Honestly, this could be resolved by actually replacing the old file with the higher res one without uploading a new one, moving only the score and favorites, and then deleting the old post with all the comments. It used to be even worse, where you couldn't read the comments of deleted posts, but after a massive influx of higher res images from Tumblr it was changed so that the comment section of deleted posts is still available. I feel like this should be considered as an improvement in the upcoming redesign of the site.

fluff-kevlar said:
Sorry if my initial response seemed agitated, I meant it more evenly toned. I understand finding the best quality versions of an image to upload, but when it's negligible, I don't think it's worth the removal of older posts is all. You're right, I could do DNP but I don't think it's THAT bad of a situation, and doesn't happen QUITE often enough to warrant that, but suddenly seeing old art that I don't think is representative of my current state threw me off-guard. I do like older posts to go back and read comments sometimes, and I think the URLs are still there, but it does look odd if people sort my artist tag by date and see years/decades-old lesser quality show up first, that's all.

I still appreciate you and others helping update the quality of uploads here, no offense intended.

I will say, this is the most calming and understanding argument I ever seen here from both of you furs, this made my day