I'm inclined to believe this has been de-watermarked, since it seems unlikely the artist would've shared the clean version with a random LotR twitter account seven years after originally posting it.

blindVigil said:

do you perhaps see any missing hair strands? or an ever-so-slight dip or raise in shading? does anything about the signature at the bottom seem different from the original? are there a few yellow dots missing? is there a strand of lightning missing? anything?

unless you can provide evidence that this was tampered with I'm inclined to believe that your guess is as good as mine or anyone else.

DA seems to be the only place the artist uploads, she doesn't even have a Patreon, yet there's nothing that indicates that this was tampered with otherwise you would've pointed it out, I've asked the account where they found the unwatermarked version, I expect I'll get blocked.

winkywonker said:

do you perhaps see any missing hair strands? or an ever-so-slight dip or raise in shading? does anything about the signature at the bottom seem different from the original? are there a few yellow dots missing? is there a strand of lightning missing? anything?

unless you can provide evidence that this was tampered with I'm inclined to believe that your guess is as good as mine or anyone else.

DA seems to be the only place the artist uploads, she doesn't even have a Patreon, yet there's nothing that indicates that this was tampered with otherwise you would've pointed it out, I've asked the account where they found the unwatermarked version, I expect I'll get blocked.

I'm sorry, but, could you try being less combative right out of the gate? That's precisely what started our last fight.

The original DA version has a giant DA watermark in the center. One of the approvers that reviewed it even pointed it out. This version doesn't have that. It's literally missing a watermark found on the original and, as far as anyone knows, only version. That is the proof it's been tampered with. And, just fyi, lots of people know how to remove watermarks without leaving behind visual defects.

You should be way more skeptical of third party sources. There's absolutely no reason to assume a twitter account posting art that isn't theirs got permission to do so if they didn't explicitly say they did. The fact you even believe they'll just block you makes me question why you're even challenging me on this, with an uncalled-for attitude, when you don't even have faith they would give you an answer.

If they actually come back and claim they got it directly from the artist, even better if they have proof, then you can say they probably didn't alter it. If they give any other answer, or none at all, you should assume it's been edited.

blindVigil said:

I'm sorry, but, could you try being less combative right out of the gate? That's precisely what started our last fight.

our last fright started because you were too presumptuous and jumped to conclusions without stating evidence of the claims you were making, if you had shown evidence and reiterated the rules like you eventually did, that situation wouldn't have escalated into a fight to begin with.

blindVigil said:

The original DA version has a giant DA watermark in the center. One of the approvers that reviewed it even pointed it out.

he said the watermark ruins the piece which is why I looked for one without the watermark.

blindVigil said:

This version doesn't have that. It's literally missing a watermark found on the original and, as far as anyone knows, only version. That is the proof it's been tampered with.

guessing cannot be considered proof in any instance.

for example, for all we know there could very well have been a site that's no longer around that had the original piece without the watermark that the artist had uploaded there from which the third-party source got its piece, or the artist may have had an account on a paywall site that the third party source had subscribed to and bought it from there.

but these are just guesses just like yours, the fact of the matter is we don't know where the third-party source got its piece, and until evidence is provided for either case we should both try not to jump to conclusions.

further diving has shown that the piece has a watermarked version on Tumblr that was uploaded by a third-party source and an unwatermarked version on Amazon that's no longer purchasable.

blindVigil said:

The fact you even believe they'll just block you makes me question why you're even challenging me on this, when you don't even have faith they would give you an answer.

firstly, I never challenged you on whether this is a tampered piece or not, I simply stated that evidence is required to back up such a statement, it may very well be a tampered version, or it may not be, we do not know, and there is no evidence for either case, so until there is, let's try not to presume too much.

secondly, I was once blocked on Twitter over a debate about what is the best cheese, since then every time I converse on that site I always assume I'm talking to a snowflake until proven otherwise, btw the best cheese is Red Leicester with cream cheese as a close second.

blindVigil said:

you should assume it's been edited.

I will assume nothing but will accept the fact that without evidence to prove that this is an untampered piece, then my post shouldn't be approved.

(Undeleted the previously self-deleted comments above at the request of the user)