Why "tools" are so hated here?
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: Pixel Art
Forum Name: WIP (Work In Progress)
Forum Discription: Get crits and comments on your pixel WIPs and other art too!
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26190
Printed Date: 12 September 2025 at 3:41am
Topic: Why "tools" are so hated here?
Posted By: emedg
Subject: Why "tools" are so hated here?
Date Posted: 24 March 2018 at 6:07pm
|
I made a pixel art and post it here in my gallery, but it was rejected!
The reason: I used some gradients... 
What do I do? I used a transparency tool to find the ideal color so I follow the lines across the way. Is this crime so terrible? 
Searching around the forum I read some messages like "G word is evil", and people who try to make easy the creation of the gradients in pixel art couldn't find his posts. Deleted? Excluded by the search engine? Who knows... 
The point is: Why? Why did you hate so much the gradients? How different is make some math 6 times to make a good color is so different to use a tool who make it easier for you? If to use a tool to find colors is a crime, why to use Aseprite to animate it, with layers, is not? Who killed Laura Palmer? 
P.S.: I understand the purism of a classic pixel art and the beauty of a limited palette of color, I just prefer my style and a lot of people like my work. If you say it is not a pixel art is kind of sad for me. |
Replies:
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 24 March 2018 at 6:22pm
|
There's nothing wrong with gradients in themselves. The problem with automatic gradients is that they produce a large number of colours that aren't controlled by the artist, it looks messy. This is the exact same reason that soft/varied-opacity brushes aren't well-liked. You can use these tools all you want, as long as you rein in the results with some pixel polish afterwards. The problem with this piece is that you did not. |
Posted By: emedg
Date Posted: 24 March 2018 at 6:33pm
| But this art just does not need it... It's really how the sand works, glass and shadow across the doors too! :/ |
Posted By: eishiya
Date Posted: 24 March 2018 at 8:32pm
|
The big problem areas are the noisy water, the "texture" on which doesn't read like anything, and the gradient around the water, which, again, doesn't really read like anything. Sand is rarely so perfectly uniform, as well, there would most likely be variations in how quickly it fades from one colour to another. The banding also makes the whole ring of light sand look blocky rather than smooth. Manual fixes would do wonders here. Windows are generally not gradients, and would probably read much better if you used the limited space to show either reflections or what's beyond them, instead of spending it on a meaningless gradient. Even a solid dark colour would resemble transparent glass more than a gradient does. You're missing out on communicating texture, shape, and detail that could improve the piece, and it's all because you're letting the tool create the final result rather than merely give you a starting point. Your tools don't know what you're trying to communicate. At small sizes, every pixel matters to communicating the whole, which is why it's important for the artist to take control at the pixel level. Using "dirty" tools is fine, the problem is that most artists fail to make them work for the piece rather than against it. The hate against them comes largely from the fact that the time it takes to reign them in could be better spent producing effective work in the first place, and they distract inexperienced artists from learning how to do better. |
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 26 March 2018 at 5:34am
|
Originally posted by emedg P.S.: I understand the purism of a classic pixel art and the beauty of a limited palette of color, I just prefer my style and a lot of people like my work. If you say it is not a pixel art is kind of sad for me. Just to clarify (as I have commented on your work why it was rejected), I am not saying this is not pixel art, and perhaps using a texture and gradients for the sand might be the best solution to make this artwork. However, pixel art or not, the usage of these tools make it unfit for the PJ gallery For more on the discussion of what should and what shouldn't be in the gallery, http://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26048 - see here. |
Posted By: emedg
Date Posted: 27 March 2018 at 6:01am
|
I saw you had a long discution about that before. I understand now how important is it for you guys, I'll not be that one who dirty your gallery because I saw what happened with DA and another good galleries who does not had the same curatorial work.
Sorry. |
Posted By: Hapiel
Date Posted: 27 March 2018 at 9:07am
|
No worries, we have long discussions because we still don't have all the answers, and I am always happy to discuss why we do things the way we do them. And again, none of this discussion disqualifies any artwork or technique in any way, it is just to keep the gallery clean, coherent and high quality! |
Posted By: NancyGold
Date Posted: 31 March 2018 at 12:28am
|
Dunn about other gradients. But that water pool at the back of the house has some noticeable banding. I would suggest using some antialiasing colors. |