Thanks for reminding me why I stopped uploading album art.

[Mordred]

I thought I'd upload the Red Hot Chili Peppers new album cover that I got from their web site just to see if I still remembered how to use Musicbrainz and Fanart. So I downloaded the picture and had to reduce the size from 1500x1500 to 1000x1000 pixels and copied the album number from Musicbrainz and entered it into Fanart - BAM! HEY! IT WORKED! So I uploaded the new Chili Peppers album cover and thought of a bunch of album covers that I could upload next chance I got. Everything seemed fine.

Now today, I see that the image was denied because the quality wasn't high enough.

I checked your image and it is acceptable (and very high quality). Please reupload this image and put in the comments that I told you to do so. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.

(anyone else trying this without my telling you to will get their images re-denied with extreme prejudice )

[zag]

Yep I have similar experiences and indeed as a mod I tend to not moderate as I know my quality control is less than others I'm not really complaining but I can see how it can become disheartening when you get 15 logos all denied for the same very small(in my opinion) reason.

Just as an example, this image was just denied because its not a perfect size with 10 gutter. To be honest I like this kind of feedback as it makes me a better artist, but I do think the logo should be accepted with a note saying "Incorrect size, could be improved". At the moment this logo simply will not exist on fanart.tv because i didn't save the source. I does however reside on TADB fine as our quality control is far less strict. Infact we allow anyone to upload anything, but also allow people to overwrite images with better ones.

Heres the logo in question:


My advice is to have a "Accepted but requires improvement" button on the moderator panel.

[Esky]

Hi Zag,

It was me that denied all your images, and to be fair .. the rules for logos are very clear cut .. and less harsh than album covers, cdart etc.

As long as you get them the right size, centered and have used a half decent source, they are unlikey to get denied for any other reason (apart from stray pixels).

From memory most of your logos will be ok even if you just resize and centre the denied images correctly. Like the one you have posted above.

I'm posting from my phone otherwise I would have resized a couple as examples for you

If you don't want to re-upload your denied images, let me know, and I'll sort them out when I'm back home and have a few minutes spare.

Cheers,

Esky

[zag]

Thanks, i've just seen I have another 7 denied

When your back at a computer, can you let me know what i'm doing wrong exactly. Happy to learn, but i'm centering the logos and approximately getting the size correct with the gimp scale tool (I think), so not sure where i'm going wrong.

[Mordred]

Hey esky, stop trying to take credit for my work. I denied the image Zag posted (which as I said was great), it just didn't conform to the size requirements.

Here's how I do all my logos. I trim so that all the transparent portions are gone, and the logo butts up against the edge of the image. Then I scale so that the width is either 780 or the height is 290. Whichever doesn't cause the other to go over. Then I resize the image adding 10 pixels to all four sides (this is easy to do in photoshop, not sure about gimp). Then I add a drop shadow behind it, and voila, perfectly conforming logos.

Zag: One of the reasons there's an image uploading limit (of 10 per section I think) is so that new users don't come in, misunderstand a core rule and then upload 50 images all of which are denied for the same reason. It sucks, when someone screws up 10 straight images, and I feel like a jerk denying them, but that's just the way it goes.

You're doing great work, and I approved several of your other logos the other day. Keep it up!

[Esky]

Doh ... I thought it was one of the 15 I denied the other week!

Based on Zag's profile (which lists GIMP as weapon of choice) I've supplied the following link in my earlier denials (but here it is again for good measure) https://fanart.tv/tutorials/size-and-ce ... s-in-gimp/

Also theres the GIMP HDlogo template on this page https://fanart.tv/tutorials/templates/ which is useful for checking finished logos ... it has 10 px gutter guides and various coloured backgrounds

I'm also around on IRC for some one on one tutoring

[edjgraphix]

What happens to this Pink Floyd "The Final Cut" cover on this page?

https://fanart.tv/artist/83d91898-7763- ... ink-floyd/

Does it just have "THIS IMAGE NEEDS REPLACING" on there until someone uploads a better one?

Does it get removed off of the page after a certain amount of time?

Why should the picture be covered with "THIS IMAGE NEEDS REPLACING" rather than showing the image that is "good, but could be a bit better?"

What area does this artwork need to be better? Why such a generic statement?

What are the chances that it will be replaced by possibly the same exact picture that maybe has some "much needed" edit?

I don't want to go so far as to ask who might take the credit for fixing this cover - but what easier way is there than to set yourself up for your own slam dunk?

These are questions that any contributor would wonder about. Many people here just don't want to rock the boat, which is how I felt for a long time too. I'm only rocking the boat because I want to see if anyone really cares about these quiet contributors. If I were in charge I'd be encouraging these folks rather than making them feel like they're not perfect enough for this place. I have had some stuff rejected that I was perfectly fine with. Some moderators will explain what the problem is and will even give you some pointers. Those are the moderators who get it. I don't have any criticism toward them at all, it's the ones who don't get it that I am talking about.

I'm mentioning this so that maybe one of those who will be at the meeting would speak up on behalf of the contributors who do this as a hobby. Some people just like to work with this stuff and don't mind pitching in - but only as long as they don't feel like they are just wasting their time.

[zag]

Here's how I do all my logos. I trim so that all the transparent portions are gone, and the logo butts up against the edge of the image. Then I scale so that the width is either 780 or the height is 290. Whichever doesn't cause the other to go over. Then I resize the image adding 10 pixels to all four sides (this is easy to do in photoshop, not sure about gimp). Then I add a drop shadow behind it, and voila, perfectly conforming logos.

Aha! whats the best way to trim to a path outline? Just do it manually? or is there a GIMP tool to crop to the path maybe?

Thats where I'm going wrong i guess. I'm resizing my path manually to the edges but its not accurate like typing in 290 high or 780 wide as I have to guess the transparent parts.

[zag]

Doh ... I thought it was one of the 15 I denied the other week!

Based on Zag's profile (which lists GIMP as weapon of choice) I've supplied the following link in my earlier denials (but here it is again for good measure) https://fanart.tv/tutorials/size-and-ce ... s-in-gimp/

Also theres the GIMP HDlogo template on this page https://fanart.tv/tutorials/templates/ which is useful for checking finished logos ... it has 10 px gutter guides and various coloured backgrounds

I'm also around on IRC for some one on one tutoring

Thanks! The template will come in useful.

[Kode]

@edjgraphix this will be resolved on the new site, someone uploading small changes will be credited as an edit to the image and the original uploader will stay as the uploader, *unless* the new version is much better than the original