>>1886914I fully agree.
Truly, OP's standards are crazy.
In fact, the only thing crazier than OP's standards are the artists who go out of their way to comply with OP's standards in the first place.
To ask for a high-quality image is perfectly normal, but to demand one without JPEG artifacts and also actually looks good--that's crossing the line. These two requests in no way correlate in terms of tone, and asking for the pictures posted to not look like shit in terms of compression or aesthetic is taking the whole high-quality image request too far. To all the people who think OP's second statement is just a clarification of the first, just know you're wrong and autistic because why should I be bothered to go into my pictures and check to see if they have compression or not, let alone reverse image searching them to see if there's an acceptable version of them? I already saved them once, why the fuck should I do it twice? And don't even try to get me to recognize an "aesthetically pleasing" picture, because I'm not autistic enough to care what looks good and what doesn't.
I just want to be complimented on an anonymous image board when I post my wallpapers regardless of how bad you think they are. If you honestly think they're bad (because they're not) then you're fucking autistic, doubly so because you called them out for being "shit."
All of you autismos need to stop caring about wallpaper quality in a quality wallpaper thread, and just post random images from your folder or google.
