Tag discussion: uncensored

I feel that the uncensored tag should be divided up into two tags: one for images that were never censored could be called not_censored, and one for images that someone other than the artist has removed censoring from, perhaps called decensored.

Any thoughts?

The end result is still the same for the most part, so I don't really see the necessity.

jjj14 said:
...images that were never censored could be called not_censored...

Unnecessary. Just add -censored to your searches if you want to find these images.

jjj14 said:
...and one for images that someone other than the artist has removed censoring from, perhaps called decensored.

I agree that decensored would be a better name for these types of images. Personally, though, I don't think that third party photoshops really belong on the site in the first place.

evazion said:
Unnecessary. Just add -censored to your searches if you want to find these images.

I think he wants to see the ones that are not photoshops.

Could go censored -photoshop, but that would be a problem for members who can only search two tags.

Why not just delete all the photoshopped decensors? They're specifically against the rules and we have most of the original images on the site already.

Even worse are the photoshopped pictures that shop in penises and stuff.

I personally still disagree with a flat complete ban on un/decensoring and even nude filters, and like anything should merely be subjected to quality standards to filter them out (it just so happened that 99.9% of nude filters were of crap quality, and still tend to be due the larger area of editing involved).

If it was an issue of quality, then a flat out ban wouldn't be necessary it'd be filtered like anything else that gets onto the site. If it's an issue of originality, then I don't see why things like most screencaps, vector_traces, wallpapers, and photoshop aren't also banned then by this reasoning. I'm not saying they should be banned, but it seems like bias to be able to accept some while rejecting others that for the most part fall in a similar position. A person can be original in the way they edit things or compile things together without being the original artist of the image, at least in my mind. We even allowed post #332714 to get through the witch hunt of banning nude filters because of originality.

Oh well, whatever is decided is decided.

I generally agree that there should not be a blanket ban on uncensorings.

The thing about Nude Filters simply was that they were just so almost universally horrid we gained much more for the blanket ban of them than we did by losing the .1% that were not atrocious.

Nude filters also are different than uncensor-shops in that nude filters go against what the artist presumably wanted with their image. Uncensoring on the other hand is arguably a restorative process.

スラッシュ said:
Uncensoring on the other hand is arguably a restorative process.

Like people would clean up scans before submitting them online, only perhaps with somewhat different intentions.

NWF_Renim said:
I personally still disagree with a flat complete ban on un/decensoring and even nude filters, and like anything should merely be subjected to quality standards to filter them out

...don't see why things like most screencaps, vector_traces, wallpapers, and photoshop aren't also banned then by this reasoning...

I agree with the first for the most part. I'd still say it'd be frowned upon to upload them, kinda like cg sets, but if it's just THAT good, then I don't see why it can't stay.

I also agree with the second bit there, though I never understood vector_traces to begin with. So glad that fad died down...I hate stupid overly big images void of detail post #406732. Not all of them were super size, but I still never liked any of them personally.

The only thing I can think of that vector_traces are good for are poster or t-shirt prints... But even that's kinda dumb.

I think there's some clone of danbooru that's particularly focused on huge resolution pictures, such as giant scans and vector traces.

Vector traces are a nice way to get a desktop background from a nice screen caps/eyecatches without it looking like a blurry jpeg-ridden crapshoot.

Well, that assumes that whoever traced it actually took some care in his work, quick non-variable line- and autotrace etc variants almost always look terrible, but just like with everything else, there's good and bad stuff (eg compare the above post with post #130014 for example).

スラッシュ said:
some clone of danbooru that's particularly focused on huge resolution pictures, such as giant scans and vector traces

Perhaps http://moe.imouto.org/ ?

Ah that's the one! Anyway my point in mentioning that (that I forgot to make) was that I don't think those vector traces really are worth putting up here since there's a special place for them and they're unlikely to be appreciated here.

PoringSmasher said:
I also agree with the second bit there, though I never understood vector_traces to begin with. So glad that fad died down...I hate stupid overly big images void of detail post #406732. Not all of them were super size, but I still never liked any of them personally.

Yeah, sorry about that. As Muey said though, there's good stuff and bad stuf; I hope pics like post #402408 or post #406117 amended my errors.

スラッシュ said:
Nude filters also are different than uncensor-shops in that nude filters go against what the artist presumably wanted with their image. Uncensoring on the other hand is arguably a restorative process.

I agree, but what about cases like post #377323 or post #397128, where the nude filter is more like uncensoring convenient_censoring?

Fred1515 said: I agree, but what about cases like post #377323 or post #397128, where the nude filter is more like uncensoring convenient_censoring?

That doesn't make it different at all. I mean, her panties were removed entirely.

jxh2154 said:
That doesn't make it different at all. I mean, her panties were removed entirely.

I had the nipples in mind, you're right about the panties.

I can't find a decent example right now, but what I meant is that there are pics in which censorship isn't done with a mosaic or some similar method, and is rather more close to convenient_censoring.

For example, I remember seeing some pics where the artist had drawn a band-aid over the vagina. Would removing that be considered uncensoring or just nude filter?

Fred1515 said:
Yeah, sorry about that. As Muey said though, there's good stuff and bad stuf; I hope pics like post #402408 or post #406117 amended my errors.

It wasn't really meant as a personal attack, I just don't like vector traces period. As for the linked pic I honestly just searched "vector_trace absurdres" and linked one off the first page.

Basically I don't like needlessly large images, but vector traces also have the side effect of making pictures look really flat which I also don't like. I'll admit the Yoko one definitely looks better though, and I certainly have no problem with that quality of vector traces staying at all.

Fred1515 said: I can't find a decent example right now, but what I meant is that there are pics in which censorship isn't done with a mosaic or some similar method, and is rather more close to convenient_censoring.
For example, I remember seeing some pics where the artist had drawn a band-aid over the vagina. Would removing that be considered uncensoring or just nude filter?

convenient_censoring is very different from porn with a mosaic over it.

I don't approve of third-party decensoring of any type of image, but modifying a "convenient censorship" image (of the type you linked) is squarely and unarguably under what we would classify as nude filter. The fact that a small percentage of the image is being altered is not important.

And actually, there's a big semantic problem in calling it "censorship" in the first place, because that word implies all sorts of things that aren't necessarily true about a given image. Most people think of censorship as implying something forced on a creator by a third party, or self-enforced by the creator to meet the requirements set by a third party. But sometimes it's just an artistic choice - post #465379 is not the same as blacked out genitals in a doujinshi being sold at Comiket.

If someone edited that image, they would not necessarily be restoring original intent. In fact, assuming to know an author's original intent in many cases is pretty presumptuous. For all we know the artist on those Ikkitousen images that were linked *wanted* the nipples to be obscured, simply because some might consider it sexier that way. And if so, I'd agree.

So the "as it was meant to be seen" argument might be defensible with mosaiced hcg, but it's pretty unconvincing once you go beyond that.