Questions from a new Editor

So, I just created my account today to begin posting some edits I have done or will do. I am using an AI to generate the images that I am using to edit, since the kind of content I would like to post (historical fiction themed raceplay) requires highly specific things like outfits or backdrops, etc. The hope is to post edits from across many time periods, civilizations, and cultures for some genuine historical fiction, something that seems relatively rare on this site.

I posted my first image today and it was not approved due to "poor warping on a few tats" and "poor blending overall". I am fine to hone the craft and get better at doing this, but I don't want to waste my time if the "artistic" quality of the image itself played into the fact it wasn't approved. I'd love it if you all could take a look and tell me if you think an image of this quality isnt worth editing because mods will take it down no matter how good the warping and blending is on the tats.

post #72350

While there are obviously dead giveaways it is an AI and it isnt the gold standard of them, I can't imagine it's not enough to be considered acceptable given the level of quality thats allowed for plenty of posts from human artists.

Thank you for your time and help. I look forward to making better content in this community.

My friend, the thing is simply that you put the tattoos non-transparent, you didn't adapt them to the change in skin color underneath because of shadows and stuff. I would also suggest curving the tattoo on the left shoulder from the position of the girl on the art or the right from the position of looking at the art, in short, I would make the tattoo more going to the "side" side (sorry for the English and tautology, but it's not my native language, lol, I am Russian at all) of the shoulder, where the visible part of the tattoo would be reduced, creating a volume effect.

But back to your edit exactly, not my suggestions. So, on the upper part of the chest, where the tattoo goes already into the shadowy part of the collarbone, where the skin, and as a consequence, tattoos should be adapted to the color palette and darkened, this necessary process simply did not happen, the color has remained identical to that on the lighted part of the body.

I hope this helped you. Do not give up editing arts because of the first failures, with time you will gain more experience and skills in this, we all have been through this on site as editors and in life as persons too.

Zhelemysh said:

My friend, the thing is simply that you put the tattoos non-transparent, you didn't adapt them to the change in skin color underneath because of shadows and stuff. I would also suggest curving the tattoo on the left shoulder from the position of the girl on the art or the right from the position of looking at the art, in short, I would make the tattoo more going to the "side" side (sorry for the English and tautology, but it's not my native language, lol, I am Russian at all) of the shoulder, where the visible part of the tattoo would be reduced, creating a volume effect.

But back to your edit exactly, not my suggestions. So, on the upper part of the chest, where the tattoo goes already into the shadowy part of the collarbone, where the skin, and as a consequence, tattoos should be adapted to the color palette and darkened, this necessary process simply did not happen, the color has remained identical to that on the lighted part of the body.

I hope this helped you. Do not give up editing arts because of the first failures, with time you will gain more experience and skills in this, we all have been through this on site as editors and in life as persons too.

Thank you so much for the assistance! Your english is excellent by the way. But in short, your opinion would still be that the original image is high quality enough to edit well? I am excited to go back to the drawing board and do a much better job.

HistoricalBleachedRP said:

Thank you so much for the assistance! Your english is excellent by the way. But in short, your opinion would still be that the original image is high quality enough to edit well? I am excited to go back to the drawing board and do a much better job.

The rules is about resolution (not the same as word "quality" in general), not clarity or anything else about the original image, only apply if you have the original image in conditional 2k and you used a sample image, which is inherently compressed, making the final edit look bad.

If your original image is in 720×720 pixels, that's fine, as long it's original. Not all art is made in 4k (and thank god, skin edits and tattoo edits in general are so hard for my cobblestone instead of processor when I work with it).

Zhelemysh said:

The rules is about resolution (not the same as word "quality" in general), not clarity or anything else about the original image, only apply if you have the original image in conditional 2k and you used a sample image, which is inherently compressed, making the final edit look bad.

If your original image is in 720×720 pixels, that's fine, as long it's original. Not all art is made in 4k (and thank god, skin edits and tattoo edits in general are so hard for my cobblestone instead of processor when I work with it).

Perfect! Thank you again for the excellent information!