Can the moderators please clarify their definition of quality.
I've tried a couple of times to upload a picture which is ostensibly the same size as an existing one but with a much larger file size (please forgive any erroneous terminology, I'm no photographer!). In cases where I've previously downloaded the 'smaller' picture, I've noticed that the quality is often quite poor in comparison, with areas of pixelation etc. What finally prompted me to ask is my discovery of a picture for Ratatouille which has a file size ten times larger than the existing picture (2114 X 1028 but only 141kb, whereas mine is 1.41MB). Surely this is higher quality, it certainly is to the naked eye but I doubt it would be approved. Thanks.
I've tried a couple of times to upload a picture which is ostensibly the same size as an existing one but with a much larger file size (please forgive any erroneous terminology, I'm no photographer!). In cases where I've previously downloaded the 'smaller' picture, I've noticed that the quality is often quite poor in comparison, with areas of pixelation etc. What finally prompted me to ask is my discovery of a picture for Ratatouille which has a file size ten times larger than the existing picture (2114 X 1028 but only 141kb, whereas mine is 1.41MB). Surely this is higher quality, it certainly is to the naked eye but I doubt it would be approved. Thanks.