High quality wallpaper has been removed

The high quality wallpaper I downloaded was mistakenly deleted. All have higher quality than Full HD. (3z7mqy, 57pey8, y8k1ql, l3glyp, j3l2ep)

They were low quality as they were full of compression artifacts, mostly visible in dark areas. Higher resolution doesn't always mean higher quality. View the wallpapers at their full resolution to judge quality.

They are just the same of high quality! Even individual locks of hair are visible! If they were of poor quality, then nothing would be visible! And "artifacts" are a play of shadow and light with a shower mirror!

Just scale the images down and reupload them then. You'd supress the presence of any compression artifcats, and in lowering it you'd turn away any other scrutiny people would have against reporting it again.

It's a constant point on this site, High Quality, and High Resolution, have never been the same thing, and they never will. I could take a screenshot of my desktop right now and blow it up to a resolution 3x the size. It isn't high quality, it just makes the low quality easier to spot

I would gladly accept the fact that the wallpaper is not of high quality if it were so! But no one can really point out why they are not of high quality! There are no artifacts on them, there are only reflections on the glass of the shower stall, which is located between the photographer and the model. If the photo were pinched, then the water drops would be of poor quality, which is not observed here!

I restored one of those walls just to show how low quality picture full of artefacts looks like:

[l3glyp]

These kind of wallpapers are not acceptable here, I will delete it tomorrow again. Thanx

And the fact that this glare on the glass from the lamp is nothing ?! WHAT ARTIFACTS ?! Are you (sorry for the expression) hammering in your eyes? Or will you now delete all the photos in which the "second" sun is visible? If you didn't know, this is how all camera lenses work!

Added 22 minutes after

https://wallhaven.cc/w/lmgegl , https://wallhaven.cc/w/yjq7mx , https://wallhaven.cc/w/dgp5jo . why don't you delete this wallpaper? They are also with "artifacts" ?

Added 2 hours after

As I understand it, I will not get a clear answer which part of the photo with "artifacts". For each of those who answered me did not give any information to avoid such cases in the future, because the moderator pointed to "dark places", but did not specify what exactly was meant (although that the hair, that the bikini fabric is exactly in high quality, because you can see every hair and weave of the bikini itself) The administrator simply "restored" the photo, and pointed to it, without specifying what exactly confused him, but I can assume that the "artifacts" are from above, which in fact are light reflections from the camera lens. It is regrettable that this resource works, as they say in my country - "anal moderation" (despotism)

kejsirajbek said:

I restored one of those walls just to show how low quality picture full of artefacts looks like:

[l3glyp]

These kind of wallpapers are not acceptable here, I will delete it tomorrow again. Thanx

Looks plenty high enough quality to me on my 32" monitor.

CobaltuMonster said:

As I understand it, I will not get a clear answer which part of the photo with "artifacts". For each of those who answered me did not give any information to avoid such cases in the future, because the moderator pointed to "dark places", but did not specify what exactly was meant

This is a crop of your wallpaper at its full resolution (not a zoom!). As you can see, plenty of signs of low-quality.

Specific enough for you?

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

VincentTL said:

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

I'm not sure how you can defend a wallpaper with such blatant pixelation.

404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

I'm not sure how you can defend a wallpaper with such blatant pixelation.

There's no visible pixelation on normal zoom (in higher resolution than most people use) and there is nothing wrong with the wallpaper unless you think digital photography is always 100% perfect. I've seen far worse wallpapers stay up untouched and it was pretty disappointing to see actual artifacts once they popped up on my desktop. There is just one or two mods with an absolutely Freudian obsession with "artifacts" on dark backgrounds and who have nuked tons of great, atmospheric wallpapers for that dumb reason, despite dozens of people over the years trying to tell them that's literally how digital photography works. It's hilarious because I never post on this forum anymore but saw the thread title and instantly knew what this would be about, and I was correct.

I really wouldn't care if you were actually strict with what gets through, but that's not the case. Like I said, resolutions which would be barely acceptable 10 years ago are still allowed and I constantly get disappointed seeing a good wallpaper is 1200x800 or 1500x1000. Overphotoshopped monstrosities which should fall under "heavy-handed filters" go through because the author is apparently a big name, somehow. I semi-regularly get wallpapers from this website that actually turn out to have visible compression artifacts, but they're on a bright background so they go through. There is just this one incredibly moronic and childish crusade to look for artifacts on dark background and it used to annoy me when some of my favourite uploads got nuked, but now it's just truly hilarious and incredible.

edit: took a whole two minutes to find blatant examples of abysmal resolution + blatant compression uploaded by the lead crusader himself, as usual. https://wallhaven.cc/w/6oy637 https://wallhaven.cc/w/o37j99

https://wallhaven.cc/w/6oy637 https://wallhaven.cc/w/o37j99

I'm not seeing anything wrong with the quality in these two. No artifacts no nothing.

VincentTL said:

404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

I'm not sure how you can defend a wallpaper with such blatant pixelation.

There's no visible pixelation on normal zoom (in higher resolution than most people use) and there is nothing wrong with the wallpaper unless you think digital photography is always 100% perfect. I've seen far worse wallpapers stay up untouched and it was pretty disappointing to see actual artifacts once they popped up on my desktop. There is just one or two mods with an absolutely Freudian obsession with "artifacts" on dark backgrounds and who have nuked tons of great, atmospheric wallpapers for that dumb reason, despite dozens of people over the years trying to tell them that's literally how digital photography works. It's hilarious because I never post on this forum anymore but saw the thread title and instantly knew what this would be about, and I was correct.

I really wouldn't care if you were actually strict with what gets through, but that's not the case. Like I said, resolutions which would be barely acceptable 10 years ago are still allowed and I constantly get disappointed seeing a good wallpaper is 1200x800 or 1500x1000. Overphotoshopped monstrosities which should fall under "heavy-handed filters" go through because the author is apparently a big name, somehow. I semi-regularly get wallpapers from this website that actually turn out to have visible compression artifacts, but they're on a bright background so they go through. There is just this one incredibly moronic and childish crusade to look for artifacts on dark background and it used to annoy me when some of my favourite uploads got nuked, but now it's just truly hilarious and incredible.

edit: took a whole two minutes to find blatant examples of abysmal resolution + blatant compression uploaded by the lead crusader himself, as usual. https://wallhaven.cc/w/6oy637 https://wallhaven.cc/w/o37j99

Not immediately noticeable JPG compression but it is there. Just report walls like that and they'll get deleted as we see them. Just follow the steps like everybody else.

If a wallpaper is uploaded at 4000x2250 or so resolution we view it at that resolution. The examples that lumberjack posted were very noticeable at that resolution so it was deleted. Bad walls slip past the cracks. I've uploaded a wall or two that I've had to take down a day later because I didn't notice the JPG compression till it popped up as my background. Don't get mad at us for trying to enforce the rules and delete low quality walls.

404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

I'm not sure how you can defend a wallpaper with such blatant pixelation.

There's no visible pixelation on normal zoom (in higher resolution than most people use) and there is nothing wrong with the wallpaper unless you think digital photography is always 100% perfect. I've seen far worse wallpapers stay up untouched and it was pretty disappointing to see actual artifacts once they popped up on my desktop. There is just one or two mods with an absolutely Freudian obsession with "artifacts" on dark backgrounds and who have nuked tons of great, atmospheric wallpapers for that dumb reason, despite dozens of people over the years trying to tell them that's literally how digital photography works. It's hilarious because I never post on this forum anymore but saw the thread title and instantly knew what this would be about, and I was correct.

I really wouldn't care if you were actually strict with what gets through, but that's not the case. Like I said, resolutions which would be barely acceptable 10 years ago are still allowed and I constantly get disappointed seeing a good wallpaper is 1200x800 or 1500x1000. Overphotoshopped monstrosities which should fall under "heavy-handed filters" go through because the author is apparently a big name, somehow. I semi-regularly get wallpapers from this website that actually turn out to have visible compression artifacts, but they're on a bright background so they go through. There is just this one incredibly moronic and childish crusade to look for artifacts on dark background and it used to annoy me when some of my favourite uploads got nuked, but now it's just truly hilarious and incredible.

edit: took a whole two minutes to find blatant examples of abysmal resolution + blatant compression uploaded by the lead crusader himself, as usual. https://wallhaven.cc/w/6oy637 https://wallhaven.cc/w/o37j99

Not immediately noticeable JPG compression but it is there. Just report walls like that and they'll get deleted as we see them. Just follow the steps like everybody else.

If a wallpaper is uploaded at 4000x2250 or so resolution we view it at that resolution. The examples that lumberjack posted were very noticeable at that resolution so it was deleted. Bad walls slip past the cracks. I've uploaded a wall or two that I've had to take down a day later because I didn't notice the JPG compression till it popped up as my background. Don't get mad at us for trying to enforce the rules and delete low quality walls.

You're absolutely right. ;)

@ 404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

404011xz said:

VincentTL said:

It's been like... 4 years now? And the same mods continue to jerk off over "artifacts" in 4K wallpapers that are invisible on 95% of actual monitors because they have no clue how digital photography works but think it makes them sound really smart, while letting through 1200x800 and overphotoshopped monstrosities with Barbie skin.

This is really hilarious at this point, it's like watching a sheep go "baaaa" at the same wall for four years.

[Btw, I'm on 2560x1440 at the moment. That wallpaper looks fine. The "crop" above has visible JPG compression on the font.]

I'm not sure how you can defend a wallpaper with such blatant pixelation.

There's no visible pixelation on normal zoom (in higher resolution than most people use) and there is nothing wrong with the wallpaper unless you think digital photography is always 100% perfect. I've seen far worse wallpapers stay up untouched and it was pretty disappointing to see actual artifacts once they popped up on my desktop. There is just one or two mods with an absolutely Freudian obsession with "artifacts" on dark backgrounds and who have nuked tons of great, atmospheric wallpapers for that dumb reason, despite dozens of people over the years trying to tell them that's literally how digital photography works. It's hilarious because I never post on this forum anymore but saw the thread title and instantly knew what this would be about, and I was correct.

I really wouldn't care if you were actually strict with what gets through, but that's not the case. Like I said, resolutions which would be barely acceptable 10 years ago are still allowed and I constantly get disappointed seeing a good wallpaper is 1200x800 or 1500x1000. Overphotoshopped monstrosities which should fall under "heavy-handed filters" go through because the author is apparently a big name, somehow. I semi-regularly get wallpapers from this website that actually turn out to have visible compression artifacts, but they're on a bright background so they go through. There is just this one incredibly moronic and childish crusade to look for artifacts on dark background and it used to annoy me when some of my favourite uploads got nuked, but now it's just truly hilarious and incredible.

edit: took a whole two minutes to find blatant examples of abysmal resolution + blatant compression uploaded by the lead crusader himself, as usual. https://wallhaven.cc/w/6oy637 https://wallhaven.cc/w/o37j99

Not immediately noticeable JPG compression but it is there. Just report walls like that and they'll get deleted as we see them. Just follow the steps like everybody else.

If a wallpaper is uploaded at 4000x2250 or so resolution we view it at that resolution. The examples that lumberjack posted were very noticeable at that resolution so it was deleted. Bad walls slip past the cracks. I've uploaded a wall or two that I've had to take down a day later because I didn't notice the JPG compression till it popped up as my background. Don't get mad at us for trying to enforce the rules and delete low quality walls.

So does that mean someone is finally going to delete this absolute turd of a wallpaper?
https://wallhaven.cc/w/p86lxj Because I reported it some time ago. And yet it's still here.

lumberjacck said:

CobaltuMonster said:

As I understand it, I will not get a clear answer which part of the photo with "artifacts". For each of those who answered me did not give any information to avoid such cases in the future, because the moderator pointed to "dark places", but did not specify what exactly was meant

This is a crop of your wallpaper at its full resolution (not a zoom!). As you can see, plenty of signs of low-quality.

Specific enough for you?

And the fact that these "artifacts" are actually misted areas of the glass of the shower cabin between the model and the photographer, we certainly did not take into account, right? In fact, this is just a fogged-up glass that reflects blue light from the backlight, which is clearly visible from below, and is at the feet of the model! And very interesting, where did you find the so-called "artifacts" at https://wallhaven.cc/w/j3l2ep? And if they are not, then where do they come from on others? Your ridiculous attempts to find "artifacts" seem too far-fetched!

And the fact that these "artifacts" are actually misted areas of the glass of the shower cabin between the model and the photographer, we certainly did not take into account, right? In fact, this is just a fogged-up glass that reflects blue light from the backlight, which is clearly visible from below, and is at the feet of the model! And very interesting, where did you find the so-called "artifacts" at https://wallhaven.cc/w/j3l2ep? And if they are not, then where do they come from on others? Your ridiculous attempts to find "artifacts" seem too far-fetched!

The blur itself is not a sign of low-quality. And yes, wallpapers with a neon light in a dark room are more prone to artifacts because that's how compression works. Oh, and in j3l2ep you can see them around some edges of the gun and on her hands.

End of the day, it's their site, no rule saying they have to host/display your uploads.