Hi Wade ! I really like this picture, all these little stains and highlights add depth to your picture.

I have to say I think the splotchyness (if thats a word) detracts from this piece. I know it was planned, that's just my personal opinion. Other than that it looks great to me.

There's no point in arguing who is right or anything. People have different tastes and stances.
If it will make you feel better, read the comments on one of my submissions from demoscene here:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/18527.htm
I too felt like shit and threatened for a while but then I realized what it's all about.

When one first comes to PJ it's a bit of a culture shock. The trend here is to use as few colors as possible to maximum extent, just as when AGA amigas came, everyone wanted to make their pics as smooth as possible. Just consider PJ as a different kind of scene and you'll probably have a lot of fun.

Darth Mandarb: Thanks man, I appreciate the support. You are right and I should really just let them have their say and leave it upto other users to form their own opinions. I guess I have been a little on the defensive, especially because I came here with a really positive and humble attitude, happy to answer questions and encourage people's work.

Anyway, it's good to know there are some cool people here. :)

Wade - Trying to argue against the piss-poor attitudes of SOME of those that post here is a lot like pissing in the wind; sure you're relieving yourself but in the end you're just covered in your own piss.  Don't waste your time dignifying the negativity.  Your piece[s] are being accepted into the gallery and that means they ARE pixel art.   Just move forward and ignore the pompous/ignorant/negative remarks.   That doesn't mean you should ignore (or bash those that give) constructive crits on your pieces (like Big Brother in one of your other pieces - he really was just trying to help!  But given the negativity of others before his post I can easily understand your reaction). 

A good portion of those that post replies really do have 'helpful' intentions.  Sometimes you just have to wade through the shitty attitudes and negativity to see it.

I, personally, have enjoyed your pieces and hope you keep posting more.

Sorry but i can't write positive comment on photo-reduced piece...
(thats not my point of view on pixel art)

And yes! on Scene was lot of COPY artists - but somehow on PJ lot of  people see SCENE as that COPY.
But there was a lot of talented people with original work.

b.o.b: I agree with what you say about the copying trend being unimaginative, but demosceners generally saw it more as a technical challenge. One guy would draw a Vallejo scene or a glamour model, then another would try and do it better, with more detail. The demoscene is competetive like that and is very much based on this philosophy.

When the Photoshop trend kicked in, I really wanted to stick with the Amiga and see if I could still hang with the 24 bit artists. While they were using airbrushes, anti-aliasing, colour adjustments and filters, I was working one pixel at a time. I think I did a good job of it in my later work, and although it lacked imagination, I was quite proud of the technical challenge I'd achieved. So although some people would accuse me of betraying "true" pixel art, I was actually being very faithful to it.

When people started bitching and asking what's the point, I realised I was better off using Photoshop and gave up on pixelling. I came to this site feeling quite motivated to pixel again and maybe even do a timelapse video, but after all these negative comments and insults, I decided it's not worth the energy.

*adding to iLKke's statement*...which is partly the reason why so many regard most old demoscene stuff unacceptable by today's standard of what true pixel art is. Pixel art started off as a medium that was held down due to restriction, and people who made sprites, tile sets and whatnot for games that had technical limitations where only a certain amount of colors were usable, within a set palette.

   After new technology spread, more leeway was given toward restriction with pc's and whatnot, enabling users to use as many colors as they wanted. Enter the Demoscene. Users began making more detailed art now with they're programs. There were some talented artists, however, and the art these guys produced were made by pixel programs, no doubt. The only problem is, the stuff they made seemed to merely be reproductions of other artwork, and photos with other designs and whatnot slapped onto them, for splash screens, and such. Grid work, and other tools were used in creating them. However, in doing so, it started to create a fine line between it's origin, and the upcoming stylings of hi-res digital art that we see much of today. There in which is our problem here today, with pixel-art minded websites, such as Pixeljoint, pixeltendo,and pixelation etc.
   So it's fairly simple for most of us, in that any work submitted that contains more colors than normal(ie, breaking 32-50 colors, or higher) will be kept by watchful eyes. So in respect to previous statements: NO, the program in which pixel art is made doesn't matter, as long as it's pixel art without the use of "dirty tools". I'm not sure what artistic background you're from, but from most, stating your references is EXTREMELY important, not only for artistic integrity, and also for legal reasons as well(plagiarism).
   And what I think the Serb team below is getting at, is that what we're seeing here is no different. IE, we don't understand, nor have most ever understood, the point of demosceners reproducing a photo or picture almost EXACTLY as the original. What does the artist achieve when he does this? If trying to make it look as close to the original, why not just go hi res, instead of pain yourself and do it pixel by pixel, with so many colors, that one loses the whole focus of pixel art in general? It's not so much a question of pixel art, than it is a question of art itself. With things like this, imagination really takes a dive, and unfortunately, many demosceners seemed to follow suit in this style, slowly killing interest in their works all together. Talented, mind you, but unfortunately, unimaginative.

*again, I'm fairly sure you know the history of all this, just letting you know where this site stands in terms of what type of art is more acceptable here...so for future reference, it might be best to keep a keen eye on future pieces that are submitted here, else heated debates like this will most likely occur. We're not an angry bunch, just a curious bunch. : ) *

... about that this is pixel art ...

Ilkke: Yes, I learned a lot and it has helped me go on to achieve great success in my current Photoshop work.

Looking at things around me is a given, I do it all the time. These days I usually get my girlfriend or friend to pose for me so I can capture fine details and something natural that photos can't offer. But looking at photos is just as useful in learning about composition and positioning, focal points and basic anatomy.

Lie about what? I've always said I was an average pixeller who did a lot of celebrity pics and I never claimed to be one of the greats.

Well I hope you learned a lot with your methods.
Actually you learn a lot more by looking at things around you and painting them than by copying. I just don't find it creative and I don't understand why anyone would feel proud of such work. It was a very bad trend that pretty much destroyed the graphics scene back then. Also, it requires no skill whatsoever, that's why everyone was doing it.

NO... you can paint

~ just don't lie your self at first place ~

 

Jamon: It's true, I do struggle without references. But does this mean I should not be allowed to paint?

Ilkke: You're thinking very short term. Why do people do/did we pixel photographs? As a demonstration of skill, a kind of man vs. machine, and above all, to practice and improve our pixel skills.

Professional artists of any format use photographic references in their work. Not necessarily a celebrity picture like this, but usually their own photos. So if you develop the ability to paint from photos, you develop the ability to paint from your own references, just like the professionals.

And you know what? Most demoscene pixellers who copied references (and got flamed for it) have gone into high profile careers in games, movies and media.

http://gfxzone.planet-d.net/personal/wade/01/wade-extravaganja.png

LOL "people who use ProMotion". You wanted to say 'people who don't use godawful mspaint'.

The main question is not what program you used or how, but why the fuck would you 'copy' a photograph when you can just colorreduce and then clean up. I don't believe there is a single person in the world stupid enough to do it by hand. No matter how careful you repixel it afterwards, the question always remains: why the hell?

This is not the first nor the last picture like this on PJ and it's just silly to go through all the fuss each and every time. If this was my board, I wouldn't approve this kind of 'art' (haha) pixelled or not. It's not my board tho, and sedge and others obviously allow this stuff so deal with it. You don't have to like it or give it points.

Hmm... i think that you can not live without reference files...=) 

show us progress step.... ;) and don't tell us that they are on some HD drive etc...blah,... blah..

I wasn't referring to the standard "chessboard" method.  And this is what I was talking about in my previous comment:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/pixelblink/snoopsketchy.gif

I'm not necessarily trying to sound overly on the offense here, it's just that we commonly see alot of so-called"dirty methods" used from demosceners and people who use Pro Motion. Also, as I said, I do enjoy this image. It's esthetically pleasing, but I do not understand the needless use of such photorealistic methods in pixel art design practices.

I will be curious, as well, to see what NEW pixel art you come up with should you continue with us here, specifically with the challenges and limitations put in place on most of those.

pixelblink: Not all pixel dithering has to be done via the chessboard method. That seems to be the only technique a lot of people here understand.

Haha, considering this is the home of pixellers, I'm surprised how many people here can't get their head around some really basic work such as this.

I don't mind, because my pixel work is years old and I've moved on to much bigger things now, but all I wanted to do was contribute to a great site of pixel artists and all I seem to get is petty bitching from a bunch of amateurs.

pixelblink: I would not call that "lack of skill". It's quite the opposite.

I have to say I'm not a believer nor a fan of this. If one would replace the pure black with another obvious colour, one would easily see the lack of skill. There are random blotches everywhere on this thing. I'm sorry if you don't agree but, I just can't understand this as being a pixel art piece. It is a nice image but I don't see the point in photo-realism in pixel art.

It looks like edited picture.

Hey Elend, good to see you here. Same here, I miss gfxzone and seeing new scene pixel art.



For those who asked, here's the reference pic: http://bigup.cz/images/snoop-dogg-1.jpg

Nice to see all that scene stuff popping up every now and then. Since gfx-zone.org died (?!) I haven't seen  much demoscene pixelgraphics.

Whats up with the part under his nose? And where's the reference photo? Great job anyway!

Dogmeat: It's just abstract texturing, meant to give a rough and scarred look.

Strangles: Thanks! That looks very much like the reference I used (although he does have a similar pose in all his photos).

Where's the link to the photo then?  

http://bigup.cz/images/snoop-dogg-1.jpg  Thats the reference photo?

I like this one!

See, I knew you had better pixeled stuff up your sleeve. The pixel detail around the eyes works stunning!

It looks like hairs or sweat to me, but it IS cool!
Also you have used some nice colors here wade :)