I didn't have a problem with anything said in here.. but I think claiming that it was 'pixel by pixel' is taking it a little too far.
ahahah ! what a lot of comments here for an old picture made when I was children ! :)
Yes BoB you are right, I was 14 years old, I used the software named "prism paint" (I think nobody knows) on the computer named "Atari Falcon" (maybe not a lot of people knows...), then you can vomit on it if it makes you happy, I don't care ;-) You were 3 years old when I made it... eheheh !
Anyway, it was pixel by pixel
http://www.pandafox.fr/temp/skull.gif
The piece WAS originally sent back for general quality standards. However, Pandafox submitted it back with new background, and the userbase voted enough points for us to notice, and submit it in. In my honest opinion, I think the piece still lacks severely in form, volume, and several other facets of artist merit, and hovers over a more abstract form that I'm not too fond of. If you were to take this piece, and color reduce it to a couple of colors, one would be able to see how bad the form of the skull is, almost comparible to that of an upstart artist, aged almost around 8-15 years of age...(don't take this as an insult, just a critical observation...)
But although I voted against it(I'm not shy about my opinion), enough of you felt compelled to vote for it; and being a fair site, it was decided to let it in, as we care about your votes. The thing I find funny is even when we decide to give something a chance when people complain about it's inability to access the gallery, once we decide to let it in, than minds change and decide to argue to send it back. Can't please everyone....
what if people lied. good point about 2x. looks better at 2x (firefox blurring also) for me. maybe closer to original that way.
If only people were trusting enough to ASK the person in question how exactly they made the piece. Only then could the populace debate on whether or not it's 'against the rules'.
I personally enjoy looking at this at 2x, but my monitor has a very high contrast.
lol @ stupid hippy arguments. what's next? everyone has to use default paint pallete because its not fair to the retards who can't figure out how to change colors? anyway tools are accessible. try 'graphics gale' or 'graf2x' or 'pixen' (for mac), all free. graph2x has most tools (like blur). doesn't promotion (many tools) let you use it after the trail has finished?
dawnbringer says it best. contradictory place. maybe because everyone has different ideas about what good drawings are. if you think underlying things like composition, construction, color choice are most important then tools don't bother you. if you think that its surface and polish of piece that matters most, then tools annoy you. that's fine but i think some people who can't draw imagine that the tools maketh the drawing which is wrong.
now that pandafox is staying maybe i could be frank and say this piece should piss off both camps: there isn't enough polish (eg. white crack) and there isn't good underlying stuff (eg. bone structure). so 'revision needed' because it looks bad rather than paranoia about tools would make sense.
"The difference with Pixeljoint, is we have already came"
Does it make me immature since I burst out laughing when I read this? XD
I only don't like seeing tools used because it knocks balance off the playing field. Not everyone has access to expensive programs like Photoshop (and are too ethical to download it illegally) or simply cannot run programs like GIMP on their computer. Everyone has Paint. That's what makes pixel art "fair" to me. No matter who you are or where you come from, you can always go to pixel art due to its simplistic nature and ease of use (haha, but not necessarily ease of creation).
Yup, I agree with all your points, B.O.B. Hopefully it means that when controlled use of those tools is demonstrated, it will be accepted into the gallery more often than being shunned.
I agree as well, Blackbeltdude, the only issue is most of the time, people who use auto. tools tend to "overuse" them. ie, the lack of technique is covered by what the machine is designed to try and control...but by the human eye, we can tell when this happens; and this site is NOT about to let you guys cheat yourself on making great art.
I'm fairly certain that some more popular users DO use auto tools, but the point is they use it to the point where clarity and control is definitely seen. Sadly, most demosceners back in the day lacked severe technical prowess(anatomy, form, you name it), but they tried to make up for it, in pretty designs, and flamboyant colors. Some were great in the technical portion, just not enough...it came and it went...
The difference with Pixeljoint, is we have already came; but we sure as hell aren't leaving.
Gah, I've always hated that stigma about some techniques and tools not being acceptable. My argument would be that tools are tools regardless of what they do. A tool always requires some skill to use effectivly. A chain saw is a great way to get a tree chooped down faster than an axe, but if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to screw something up (in both cases really, but I think you get what I mean). If the tool can save you an hour or two worth of work, and give you the same result as if you did it by hand, than I just do not see the harm in it.
But to comment on the actual PA, seems like an odd skull to me, as far as bone structure is concerned. :P I kind of dig the fire though.
Agree with sharprm; I think this was hand-made. (and it's 95 colors right now)
Let's explain some things:
Auto-Dithers/Color-ranging is...not allowed...but you can still find many images on PJ that's uses it...so what does that say?
There is nothing that says you can't use 256 colors in a picture...however it's considered good form to use as few as possible (or just as many as you need and have good control of). So what does that say?
So if things are confusing and contradictory...you got it right! 
So while I think this image is a bit simple and more a play with a plethora of colors than an example of pixelcontrol...it does not violate the submission rules...eh, unless you didn't design that font...!?
Welcome to the mayhem of PJ! 
I'm sorry for my bad mood at this time !
I won't leave this website because I can see a lot of really good prods and it makes me happy !
there's nothing to suggest it was a color reduction. gradient tool is a possibility but still may have be done by hand. angel of great - style not matching up suggests only laziness.
I thought there was a 100% proof thing? shouldn't someone make a solid color skull that matches up with shape, gradient fill it using graf2x, and look for similiarities before 'revision needed'? anyway, i hope you aren't burnt by the decision. I thought your other pieces were alot better (and well thought out) than this.
I don't care what people think.....
You don't want believe, ok
When people are in doubt of the athenticity of your work its best to actually defend yourself with something like a WIP or the like, and certainly not just a "trust me" and a wink. It was sent back because the folks here couldn't be sure what you did wasn't using 'dirty' (automated) tools or color reduction, neither of which are allowed on the site, and you didn't do much to convince them otherwise.
what happend here ?
don't you want this picture ? why ?
anyway, as you want... I don't care, it is ok
There are a lot of areas that don't match up in style.
The skull contains many, many colors. All of it smooths out softly. However, you have things like the cracks around the skull. The color is very sharp and the exact same all around. Comparing it to edges such as the places around the eye holes, the style simply doesn't match up.
121 colors?
I'm not sure, if this piece with its gradiend is a fully handpixeled piece. :x
How many colours are in this? Something seems a bit 'off' with it.
uh - no.
It looks like you used the automatic gradient fill tool like the one deluxe paint had.
i spent only a little time on this but i got dpaint 2 enhanced working, tried to draw a similar skull and reproduce the fill results. it didn't look like it. so i buy the story it is a very patient 14 year old's work.