Beyond the model's input size, extra pixels do nothing

A 48-megapixel photo does not give the model 48 megapixels to work with. Nearly every vision model resizes its input to a fixed, small square before doing anything else, and that step is where the extra resolution stops mattering.

The question, answered directly

Once your original image is bigger than the model's input size - commonly somewhere between 224 and 512 pixels on a side, depending on the architecture - every additional pixel beyond that gets thrown away by the resize, not read by the model. A 12-megapixel phone photo and a 48-megapixel one, of the same framing and the same subject, are both squashed down to the same handful of pixels before the encoder ever sees them. So no, a higher-resolution upload does not, by itself, get you a better score, because "better" would require the model to see something it structurally cannot see: detail finer than its own input grid.

The one place it does matter

The exception is indirect, and it is about how the resize happens rather than about resolution itself. Downscaling a very high-resolution image and downscaling a low-resolution one to the same target size produce different results, because resampling algorithms behave differently depending on how much information they are averaging out. A photo that started well above the target resolution tends to downscale into a cleaner, less aliased result than one that started barely above it or, worse, had to be upscaled to meet a minimum. That is a real, if modest, effect, and it runs entirely through image quality at the resize step, not through the model somehow perceiving finer detail.

Very low resolution is the case where this bites hardest. An upload close to or below the model's input size gets upscaled instead of downscaled, which invents pixels rather than discarding them, and invented pixels tend to read as blur or softness, a signal quality gates and texture-sensitive axes both pick up on.

What follows from this

There is no benefit to hunting for the highest-megapixel setting your camera offers. Anything comfortably above the model's input size - which almost any modern phone photo already is - gets you the same downstream result, and the file is simply larger for no scoring advantage. The threshold worth avoiding is the low end, not chasing the high end.

This is a narrow, mechanical answer to one question, and it says nothing about which file format or app produced the image in the first place - HEIC, PNG and JPEG carry metadata differently, a separate concern from resolution. It also says nothing about the aggregate scoring pattern across a session, which is its own subject with its own spread to measure and is not fixed by a bigger file.

Practical photo advice for a specific tool's scan belongs to the tool that owns it: Rate Cock's photo guide is the place for that, not this site. For anyone measuring anything from a photo rather than scoring it, Measure My Cock's method notes make clear that resolution was never the limiting factor there either - scale is, and no megapixel count fixes that. Comparing your own results across repeated uploads is a question Penis Rater addresses from the reading side, and a person doing a manual review has no resize step at all - Rate Penis's judge notes describe a process that looks at the full original instead.