If you haven't checked out the new visual references to see what staff is looking for when curating posts you should check them out!
Hope you find them helpful!

Click here to check them out

jelloponies said:
If you haven't checked out the new visual references to see what staff is looking for when curating posts you should check them out!
Hope you find them helpful!

Click here to check them out

Definitely appreciate the work that went into assembling this guide.

As a note, though -- some of the examples truly don't meet the eye of being a flaw, specifically the 'warped eye' examples as well as the 'artifacting of fur from upscaling'. The whisker artifact was nice and clear, but for both the eye-smear and the fur artifacting, I'm staring right at the examples, going: "I don't really see a problem here."

Another one listed was "different sized nostrils" and I thought that was well within the normal tolerances of the angle of the shot of the face. Like, unless the face is looking *directly, straight on* to the viewer, there's going to be a disparity caused by angle and foreshortening etc.

One thing that is quite interesting is if they held a strict QC as much as here, there would be a lot less approvals over on e621 as here. I mean, some of the stuff there that gets approved is almost as bad as AI nightmare fuel, heh.

bahufaru said:
Definitely appreciate the work that went into assembling this guide.

As a note, though -- some of the examples truly don't meet the eye of being a flaw, specifically the 'warped eye' examples as well as the 'artifacting of fur from upscaling'. The whisker artifact was nice and clear, but for both the eye-smear and the fur artifacting, I'm staring right at the examples, going: "I don't really see a problem here."

Another one listed was "different sized nostrils" and I thought that was well within the normal tolerances of the angle of the shot of the face. Like, unless the face is looking *directly, straight on* to the viewer, there's going to be a disparity caused by angle and foreshortening etc.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll speak to the staff and maybe we can make it clearer!

chastitycoyote said:
One thing that is quite interesting is if they held a strict QC as much as here, there would be a lot less approvals over on e621 as here. I mean, some of the stuff there that gets approved is almost as bad as AI nightmare fuel, heh.

Agree. I gotta say IMO e621 is a bit too lenient with quality standards. I used to browse e621 quite often, but nowadays I simply can't find the stuff I like out of all submissions.

bahufaru said:
Definitely appreciate the work that went into assembling this guide.

As a note, though -- some of the examples truly don't meet the eye of being a flaw, specifically the 'warped eye' examples as well as the 'artifacting of fur from upscaling'. The whisker artifact was nice and clear, but for both the eye-smear and the fur artifacting, I'm staring right at the examples, going: "I don't really see a problem here."

Another one listed was "different sized nostrils" and I thought that was well within the normal tolerances of the angle of the shot of the face. Like, unless the face is looking *directly, straight on* to the viewer, there's going to be a disparity caused by angle and foreshortening etc.

I agree. Didn't seen issue with the eye and fur artifacting. That said, I myself tend to go a bit overboard with upscaling. Maybe my brain has adapted to all the artifacting already xD

I too appreciate the work, but some of the examples seem to be too much meddling with the director's choices, or reality, rather than quality issues.

IE:
https://e6ai.net/posts/92386
The right index finger can very well be covered by the leg.
A dog can miss a claw.

https://e6ai.net/posts/92401
Ok for the balloons (if it's not supposed to be alien language), but why a book read by a character that doesn't exist in this world should be written in a language, or in a visual alphabet, that exists in this world? Asemic writing had been a thing for centuries.