Close
This post belongs to a parent post.
Search
Tags
  • ? personal ami 332
  • ? brand new animal 80
  • ? hiwatashi nazuna 15
  • ? breasts 95759
  • ? nipples 188710
  • ? no bra 187881
  • ? pantsu 169883
  • ? panty pull 32876
  • ? pussy 110239
  • ? shirt lift 28820
  • ? uncensored 62091
  • ? undressing 37658
    • panties vulva pantsuga breast underwear dressing pantypull nipple nobra big breasts small breasts medium breasts huge breasts pantsu2 large breasts panties under pantyhose clitoris spread pussy pink panties black panties cervix pussy pils bna pink pantsu blue pantsu boobs pantsy vagina bow panties white panties red panties wet pussy bikini bottom pull frilled panties visable panties panty peek inverted nipple plump pussy blue panties orange panties puffy nipples lace panties maid panties panties aside
Options
Related Posts




brand_new_animal breasts hiwatashi_nazuna nipples no_bra pantsu panty_pull personal_ami pussy shirt_lift uncensored undressing

Edit | Respond

BattlequeenYume
over 1 year ago
I doubt you got it from this artist. The quality is bad.
yrumddldluxduzrf
over 1 year ago
BattlequeenYume said:
I doubt you got it from this artist. The quality is bad.
Objection from the sidelines:
since when they (personal ami) were much good?
BattlequeenYume
over 1 year ago
Oh, I was talking about the artifacts in this.
fatmangoth
over 1 year ago
it is subsampled 94 jpeg, not great but not bad either, no jpeg_artifacts. I'd rather ask poster why image has Nikon sRGB profile and metadata, which should be deleted automatically, from some Nikon software:
Software=Capture NX 2.2.6 W
DateTime=2023:05:25 09:56:24
Does Nikon make scanners?
yrumddldluxduzrf
over 1 year ago
fatmangoth said:
it is subsampled 94 jpeg, not great but not bad either, no jpeg_artifacts. <...>
I'd ask about where the jpeg_artifacts were, but then I saw it, on the edge between the thigh and black railing, in the left half of the image. And a random other image from same artist doesn't seem to have those.
fatmangoth
over 1 year ago
And you have to zoom 4 times to see that on 4500 by 7000 pixel image!!! This booru has tons of worse files with no such tag.
>other image from same artist doesn't seem to have those
far-fetched, but do you assume it was edited? That would explain that metadata. It is not a photo, at least, then something was done to it using Nikon software.
..those pixels look like rushed painting and replacing part of image or cutting. Looks original.
BattlequeenYume
over 1 year ago
It's just weird bc the other images of the same set have a better quality. Just look at the mb size. I think it could be edited. I checked it again and the quality isn't "bad" it's just worse when compared to the others.
yrumddldluxduzrf
over 1 year ago
Pls don't shoot me, I'll readily admit I don't know how to spot jpeg artifacts reliably.
Perhaps indeed the uploader was optimizing their personal hoard of images and this post has mistakenly been uploaded after their compression.
fatmangoth
over 1 year ago
It was just badly re-encoded from 98 jpeg not subsampled to subsampled which added more artifacts. Those hard-edged leg lines are original, copy pasted from other image, or just bad mask. As for Nikon metadata, looks like personal ami bought recently a new camera to shoot sketch, upload to pc and then proceed with painting.
fatmangoth
over 1 year ago
post #10903 now that's what i call ARTIFACTS!
38 jpeg
It will be 37MB after converting to png