"Nude filters" - why are they allowed?

Danbooru has always frowned upon the vast majority of alterations to images done by individuals who are not the original artist, aside from cleaning up messy scans. Largely taboo have been motivators, forced wallpapers, watermarks, etc. Why are nude filters excepted from this? Not only are they edits to an original work, they're also by and large complete shit. Is there really not enough porn on the internet that we need to apply hasty photoshop filters to Megami scans and tack on mismatched nipples?

I just find it absurd that these things exist on danbooru at all. What does it say about this site? Why is a blind eye turned to them? And can anything be done about it?

And there have been some really terrible ones recently.

I also think that allowing them is perhaps the worst thing we could possibly do to the "Danbooru is not 'a porn site'" message we've been trying to send. Say that and then approve a nude filter of a previously safe (or at least non-nude) image? It makes the claim seem utterly laughable.

Fuckin' THANK YOU.

I heartily endorse nuking these fucking things. They are on equal footing with cumonfigurine for me and we got rid of those...

Fencedude said:
And there have been some really terrible ones recently.

But also, occasionally, some good ones. =/

jxh2154 said:
I also think that allowing them is perhaps the worst thing we could possibly do to the "Danbooru is not 'a porn site'" message we've been trying to send. Say that and then approve a nude filter of a previously safe (or at least non-nude) image? It makes the claim seem utterly laughable.

With all the regular explicit images, though, you're always going to have conflict with a strict "not a porn site" statement.

And what about uncensored images?

Signed twice. Please kill them all.

RaisingK said: With all the regular explicit images, though, you're always going to have conflict with a strict "not a porn site" statement.

Very different things. One is meant to be explicit from the start. The other is someone deliberately altering a non-explicit image to become explicit in the crudest and laziest way possible.

RaisingK said:And what about uncensored images?

Also different, since the image is meant to be explicit and the censorship usually is only for legal cover. And some uncensoring is official/by the artist. I don't much like when a third party uncensors the image, and would certainly never approve it in the queue, but that's a battle for another day. Right now, I'm just at the limits of my patience with nude filters.

No objections to nuking them. I've seen maybe three good ones out of the hundreds that've crossed my view.

Might want to get through the tag first though, looks like there's been some mistagging with images that actually fall under uncensored.

Yeah, I was just looking at a post labeled both uncensored and nude filter with no parent link to the supposed original...

jxh2154 said:
Very different things. One is meant to be explicit from the start. The other is someone deliberately altering a non-explicit image to become explicit in the crudest and laziest way possible.

I agree completely here. There's really no point to nude filters in my mind, since I've never found any of them anywhere near as appealing as the original image.

Purge, burn, ban them.

I have no problem with getting rid of nude filter images. Even if they are well-done, they reek of amateur intent. Like, "I want to see X nude, but I don't have the ability to draw them, so I'll take a picture of X and Frankenstein the rest."

heh look at this here can o worms I went and opened.

Against nude variations unless they're by the artist.

edit: or I guess a friend of the artist who is equally skilled. but still only things released through official channels.

I think photoshops in general should be against the rules. Also, if we all can agree that nude filters and the like should be banned then it should really be listed in the rules sticky. These posts get by because no one has taken the time write down these kinds of unwritten rules.

evazion said:
I think photoshops in general should be against the rules. Also, if we all can agree that nude filters and the like should be banned then it should really be listed in the rules sticky. These posts get by because no one has taken the time write down these kinds of unwritten rules.

Little more iffy on that, they can be somewhat useful sometimes, like when people remove text from an illustration cover. Though most are kinda pointless or even destructive so I certainly wouldn't mind implementing it as a general policy not to accept unless it's of exceptional quality.

On a related note: stuff like post #357855 shouldn't be allowed either. Actually, I don't think they are, since I saw a lot of them get unapproved, but this one got approved for some reason.

Algasir said:
On a related note: stuff like post #357855 shouldn't be allowed either. Actually, I don't think they are, since I saw a lot of them get unapproved, but this one got approved for some reason.

That has to have been a mistake. There is no way that image is danbooru quality.

When it comes down to it, if you want nude filters go to sankaku complex. Those shits seem to love nude filters like there's no tomorrow.

Signed. Nude filters greatly decrease the quality of all posts since they are not original images.

EDIT: Haven't seen many, but vectors should also be in this category of "non-original images".

Granola said: EDIT: Haven't seen many, but vectors should also be in this category of "non-original images".

To an extent, but I think the intent and overall effect is worlds away from a nude filter. Either way, I'd like to keep this thread focused on nude filters for now, else nothing will wind up happening.