This one is very nice!
Looks 3D! good job!

Gil: I still don't know what you would define as "valuable pixel art", but it sounds like you prefer conventional techniques.

In terms of technique, I was always quite obsessed with new and unconventional methods of dithering to create texture or add my personal style. This is the first time I broke away from the conventional "chessboard" style and tried to make something more rough and textured. So I really don't agree that it has any less pixel value than other works.

beautiful peace! pixelart? you are very patient

Nice work.

@Arylic: It's pretty natural for one eye to be bigger than an other as faces are not symmetrical. In fact - if your face was symmetrical you would probably look like a freak!!!
@Gil: It's probably not an "incorrect" perspective. Just his/her perspective.

hilariously, after a quick measure, the comment that one eye looks bigger is wrong. they are both the same but due to the shading, one eye looks bigger then the other. It's acutally kinda surreal to see the difference and then measure it out and discover your eyes are messing with you.

@RoboBOT: What doesn't make sense is that analogy. I'm just implying that this piece doesn't contain much value, and that he has much better pieces to show off here. I just assume he has an incorrect perspective on what makes a good piece of pixel art, because it means something completely different to most demoscene artists.

While we embrace the medium, demoscene is and was always about pushing limits.

It is, of course, still a pretty picture :)

Very cool if PA. I think the eyes may be a little big. The iris on [his] right eye looks funny, I personally think it could continue up a bit further. A smattering of eyelashes on the bottom lids could  just make it pretty much perfect

Asking why someone didn't do a piece on paper and pencil or CG makes about as much sense as asking why Monet didn't use crayons.

Nice, Wade, well done. Can we see your references?

If it's done pixel by pixel then it's pixel art. Amazingly well done.

This contribution is fine, it's pixel art and I don't want to see it removed. I just think you might have the wrong site for this sort of contribution.

A lot of people are more about pixel detail and complex pixel art technique here.
I know you're an excellent artist, so I'd love to see some other kind of pieces.

Are these yours? If so, any one of them might capture a weekly showcase and lots of attention. The pixel technique is much better with them.

http://gfxzone.planet-d.net/personal/wade/01/wade-noah_from_the_relic.html
http://gfxzone.planet-d.net/personal/wade/01/wade-the_standoff.html
http://gfxzone.planet-d.net/personal/wade/01/wade-ganesha.html

I am confused then. I had an image rejected where I used anti-aliasing tools, which is fair enough, but this was done completely with pixels like everything else on this site.

But when it comes down to it, I just love this site and want to make a contribution.

Pixel art is not just any art with 16 colors done on an old machine.

Index painting is not pixel art, not everything out of DPaint is pixel art.

That's just my opinion though. It's a pretty picture and it's definately some form of pixel art (decent AA, some pixel level detail, etc), but it's not good pixel art.

Gil: It was done in 1994 on a machine with 1mb ram, so CG/Photoshop wasn't even an option. Plus it was to be used in a 40k intro, so it needed to be pixelled in only 16 colours.

this is wonderfully dithered and very realistic.

Woooo ! very realistic

only thing I dont like is the lack of shading on the eyes, especially the right one :/

Try zooming in Antiboton, it's definately done with pixel detail.

The question begs asking though Wade: why post this in a pixel art gallery when it could be done better with CG or even paper and pencil?

I don't see the pixel value here...

Yes, this was all done pixel by pixel, but I used a rough dithering technique to simulate skin texture.

This is truely pixel-art?

That looks awesome but the left eye looks bigger then the right.