It would be cool if you edit the post to denote that the original images should not only be cited but also shown, just like when you quote someone you use quotation marks or >> and do not let the viewer to guess what part is quoted, when the material used is visual it should naturally be shown, not forcing the viewer to open another tab, in this manner the viewer can readily appraise what exactly is the transformation in view of both images. Thank you for your consideration.
In another line of reasoning, if the image is good enough for someone to copy or modify, or be inspired by it, then it should be good enough to show in your post.
I've been meaning to do another post, a sequel, that deals more about how people should do the denoting / quotation when dealing with images. In this post I wanted to emphasis the fact that people should always at least mention somehow the original artist and not take all the credit to themselves.
So you really have a good point / valid fact there. It's really important to make it clear in every way that some of the words / images aren't your own and merely a link isn't enough because people may not notice it or decide to not click the link.
And also there's the never-ending problem with: when the art is new enough? When people think they don't need to mention the original artist. Which I think is also a big problem and these two subjects I think go together in some way.
So I'll do a sequel at some point as this is already 7 days old and people forget. And I'll upvote this with my puny accounts so that this comment would go to the top on those front ends which show the most popular comments first.
It would be cool if you edit the post to denote that the original images should not only be cited but also shown, just like when you quote someone you use quotation marks or >> and do not let the viewer to guess what part is quoted, when the material used is visual it should naturally be shown, not forcing the viewer to open another tab, in this manner the viewer can readily appraise what exactly is the transformation in view of both images. Thank you for your consideration.
In another line of reasoning, if the image is good enough for someone to copy or modify, or be inspired by it, then it should be good enough to show in your post.
I've been meaning to do another post, a sequel, that deals more about how people should do the denoting / quotation when dealing with images. In this post I wanted to emphasis the fact that people should always at least mention somehow the original artist and not take all the credit to themselves.
So you really have a good point / valid fact there. It's really important to make it clear in every way that some of the words / images aren't your own and merely a link isn't enough because people may not notice it or decide to not click the link.
And also there's the never-ending problem with: when the art is new enough? When people think they don't need to mention the original artist. Which I think is also a big problem and these two subjects I think go together in some way.
So I'll do a sequel at some point as this is already 7 days old and people forget. And I'll upvote this with my puny accounts so that this comment would go to the top on those front ends which show the most popular comments first.