I haven't used reddit much really, how well could it support stuff like the ISO collabs? If I remember correctly it doesn't sort replies chronologically, that could be a problem.
I'd rather the focus remain on the forum here. It's janky, but at least it's here and not some 3rd party site, and it also has links to everyone's PJ gallery.
I also suspect that unless it's very carefully moderated, a PJ subreddit would just turn into yet another pixel art free-for-all and would not be a good place to talk to PJ folks or about PJ.
Forum should be clean with some blockers added but Sedge says maybe we can run a PJ subreddit. What do you think?
Ohhh cool, those castle buildin' people are doing it slowly so more people can go check out the process IRL. That's actually a good idea.
Nice Schoq, gonna give it a listen.
Tracker music is an adjacent interest to pixel art right?
I made a thing that I thought I'd drop by and tell y'all about.
Using only a Commodore that they also built themselves, at that! Hopefully they will at least have better schematics to go off than the drawings of tools that the Guedelon Castle builders have xP
It's worth mentioning that Guedelon Castle is deliberately being built slowly, to give more visitors the chance to see the process.
I can't wait until 500 years from now when they try to create video games for the commodore using only the commodore, for educational purposes! It will be great
I really miss how PJ used to be, just a fun chill place to post your MSpaint oekaki and you didn't have to worry about anyone putting you on a burning cross for it.
Those were the good times. 
There's dudes in France that've been building a castle for 20 years with only medieval tools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2063FitRHQ
Hey, whatever floats their bloat. But if it were me, I'm bringing my power tools, that's all I'm sayin', mang.
Use the PJ forum? oy nahh nevermind.
gotta go, there's pixel blasphemy a plenty that needs committin'.
Keep up the good work.
*Plural* art thieves in the queue today D: Why does anyone even bother to upload stolen art on PJ, this isn't that popular of a website.
On that note, a user's website being hidden until they're level 2 makes it harder to check if they're an art thief or a spammer, since it reduces the amount of information available about that user. I wonder if it's possible to make it so that website URLs are always displayed, but have rel="nofollow" by default (to greatly reduce the SEO benefit), and you have to reach some a rank that requires prolonged participation and commenting (so, at least 4) to have that removed.
And if that gets added, rel="noopener" should be added to all external links too, especially untristed ones, it prevents certain hijacking scripts. Most browsers add it by default to target="_blank" links, but not all links, and not all browsers do this.
@eishiya: I think you mean @Mathias. But I agree PJ forum is a good place to post it, for now. 
@Mathias: I'm definitely not as concerned as I used to be either. AI pixel art is going to be a kick in the nuts for PJ, I think, but we're not there yet. If someone else wants to post a piece that required fairly little skill and relies mostly on tracing, color reduction, dall-e 2, etc, I'm not losing sleep over it. PJ already has a number of those, in my opinion, and I think several of them got trophies. I'm just not into it. Commercially, I can see how the product is more important than the process. But as a hobby, it's all about the journey, and those tools (to me) are like being carried in a litter when you're going hiking. And then taking selfies at your destination. Not cheating so much as missing the point, as far as I can tell.
@Mathias: Why not the PJ forum?
@jeremy: I guess the difference between skilled and newbie artists using reduction is really just rule #3 of PJ: controlled pixel placement. Reduction doesn't give you pixel art, it gives you a starting point. You still have to do the work. As reduction tools get better, reductions will come closer to having controlled pixel placement, but artists will still be able to make better, more informed decisions than a tool.
@eishiya: yeah, i'm in the "process is king" camp
i think my overall take on reduction is that it's fine for good artists who can resolve a piece into polished pixels, but sucks when someone uses it as a shortcut to wow people without having much of a grasp on the fundamentals. which feels pretty elitist, idk.
Oh that's good info, StevenM.
I think CELS has the right take - stuff with higher artistic merit usually floats to the top anyway, especially amongst those in the know. The examples he cited both contain undeniably great pixel level precision, for which there really isn't a shortcut for.
While the overall compositions could have started out as hi-res paintings then scaled down so all the major edges and shapes are good, but then cleaned up and colors fixed, I couldn't care less - the end result is convincingly well crafted awesome exemplary pixel art which I'm confident required a deft hand.
A binary REDUCTION = BAD stance is just dumb. This was ranked #1 June 2013 and was done via reduction. Should it have just been yeeted and deleted instead? If I can zoom in and I see nothing but well placed pixel action - little or no 1px noise pixels, nice clusters, good clean AA, etc then I'm very happy with it.
I know from experience that taking a scaled down, posterized image and reworking it into quality pixel art can be incredibly laborious, hours upon hours of work. The raw downscaled results are usually extremely bad looking. BUT the composition is there.
Reduced without sufficient post cleanup = probably awful.
Reduced with sufficient post cleanup = might be pretty cool.
And that's kind of the whole point of tool assisted workflows - efficiency. I too was a purist type when I started out in pixel art (don't ask me how long it's been I dont wanna think about it shuddup), being overly influenced by PixelJoint rules and Pixelation/Way of the Pixel. But once I started getting tasked with needing to get a lot done, and quickly, I started exploring options available to me and now have several great techniques I can use if helpful (these techniques are often overkill for small stuff). No doubt the same reason Indigo/Dan Fessler came up with his photoshop index painting setup. He used it on Chasm and is continuing to perfect similar efficiency boosting techniques even now. His results are always very good.
It's awkward discussing such a visual subject only in words. I have a good number of practical visual examples and associated information I'd be willing to share, for general educational purposes. Some might find it interesting. Some might find it personally helpful. Some won't give a %$&#. Some might be horrified. Whatever the case, it would be amusing. CELS, you don't know of a good spot to post such a chunk of junk to do with this sort of discourse do ya, ol' boy? 🤔
The article writer says that after the image was generated it had to be shrunk down to pixelart size and cleaned up and edited over. So basically the pre-shrink process is the same as having a drawing done by hand, which a ton of artists and studios do anyway (Capcom and SNK for example), and the shrink-to-finish process is all editing and artistic experience. e.g. stuff that most people who get starry-eyed at AI as this magic trick of "do all my art for me" are trying to avoid anyway. If you're a good enough artist you have something that does the easy '80%' initial legwork for you, so you can get on with the 20% that feels like the 80%. And if you're not a good enough artist you'll get easily noticed for it. So the status quo hasn't changed all that much for pixelart IMO.
Seems to me that the issue is alleviated by the fact (?) that most pixel art fans don't care that deeply about realism on a large canvas, where color reduction and tools are more helpful. People seem more impressed by clever pixel pushing on a small scale, finding creative ways to use the medium, finding the right aesthetic, etc. The impressive part of lazerka 's Silva or Artificer-111 's Enya the Engineer weren't the parts that could have been done with color reduction. And the realism of details like nose and fingers actually depended on clever pixel pushing, although in the future there may be ways to automate that.
But mostly, when I see people posting huge portraits or landscapes that may or may not have been assisted by color reduction, tracing, etc, it tends not to get much attention anyway. I don't see it as a problem, personally. Artists are "rewarded" more for pixel technique, clever design, nostalgia / pop culture refs, creativity, style and/or aesthetics.
I'm with ink. I care about the process that goes into a piece, but I agree that it's unreasonable to require people to post their refs. Extra work aside, it's not always *possible* - the refs may be non-public and sharing them could be a copyright or privacy issue. Plus, using references to inform your art's style or content is natural and should be encouraged, not punished. Plus, PJ already puts up a lot of obstacles to sharing even art that doesn't use any refs, to the point where I've had a hard time getting my non-PJ pixel art friends to stick with this place :/
Reductions are the issue, not using reference. But as ink said, there's no way to tell except through artefacts from the reduction or tracing process that haven't been covered up by the artist, so posting refs isn't enough anyway. We should not be punishing people who are good at copying, even if we might not be interested in such works. And when the reduction is obvious, we can vote against the piece.
I think the best way to keep PJ focused on process is to *talk about process*. Ask people about their process even when it's obvious there's nothing problematic or when we think there's nothing to learn from their process - it's fun! Thank people who take the time to talk about their process and post gifs. Do more challenges with a focus on process (e.g. tile challenges, challenges where everyone uses the same image or template as a starting point, palette design challenges, etc). Then, people who are results-focused at the expense of the spirit of pixel art will probably not care to post here anyway, or they might feel encouraged to try the more usual pixel art approaches. And some who think colour reductions will get them numbers will keep posting quietly - and if we want them to be disappointed, then we can choose to not fav or rate their piece, and to not approve it in the queue.
In my eyes it's another issue than talking about whether color reduction was used in the workflow somewhere. When someone just color reduces a photograph and cleans that up, I agree that it's not pixel art. But the talk was about posting references- a wholly different can of worms! Because what Ziska is implying is effectively punishing people that hand-crafted something from eyeballing a reference. You are effectively punishing people for being good at realism or doing an accurate study. Whether something is a photo reduction can NOT be seen just from realism levels- it can be seen from the way color reduction algorithms usually behave, color choices, a lot of factors, although I agree with some more modern ones it can be tricky. However the issue is that instead of providing reference the user would need to provide a whole process gif to actually be able to tell. Otherwise it's a higher standart than expected in any other artistic medium - "You must draw everything from imagination fully always!" does not sound like a good rule to go by at all.
Also my position is definitely influenced by me having been in the shoes of the person being wrongfully accused of cheating or faking.
When I created those two stereoscopic images in pixelart, doing the effect was just super stressful on my eyes. It would be great to see more pixel art stereoscopic image, but I would have to recommend using a tool to create the stereoscopic effect as it's a real strain on the eyes. I would of liked to have done more and submit to PJ, but there is no way I am doing that by hand again; as although I felt that there was some technical achievement in creating the effect, I also achieved an uncomfortable headache.
I really would love to see a challenge in which you had to create a stereoscopic image and was wondering, if PJ would allow a tool (of PJ's choosing) to be used to create the stereoscopic effect for you?
It's just safer on the eyes.
I know about Deceiver, I saw him at work many times, both on streams and in person. He even makes animation by laying out the phases in Paint, without the onion skin. I dont understand this when there are more convenient programs, but - why not, if the final result is worth it?
What is considered pixel art (is it only hand-made?)? What is pixelated image, but not "art" (photo-video pixelization?)? And what - "art", but not "pixel" (high-resolution paintings that claim to be pixel art only by the lack of pixel smoothing?)? Hard and controversial questions, to which, I think, you can find ansvers if you wish.
Everyone has a different take, but I believe that when an open and equal competition in challendge is arrived on the site, it is nessesary to ensure that the conditions are strictly observed by all participants. Otherwise, what's the point in it?
For example, to me, that's fantastic:
https://pixeljoint.com/files/icons/full/basemus.png
Really captures the spirit of pixel art and I doubt it was automated in some way.
Anything which as to do with painting on top of a photograph is 'cheating' to me although I understand those standards are (somewhat) arbitrary.
I understand your point of view and I'm likely one of the few 'pixel nazi' still around who cares about the process but I can't help it, it matters to me. As far as I'm concerned, pixel art is about doing the most out of limitations, being able to make the most out of a limited palette and tools. If a picture is filtered and then the final result ends up an automatic process, there's no point for me, there's very little human interaction. To me, pixel art isn't about who's the most tech savvy and using tools to fool people into thinking you placed the pixels yourself. There are so many tools for digital artists now, it's hard to tell if people who use those tools have any skills or if they're just good at using Photoshop.
To each their own I guess. I understand some people only care about the final result and look, I don't. I often feel that sting of disappointment when I learn that some artist I value ends up just being good at using tools which is also why I much prefer traditional art than digital art. 'Wow those clouds look great!' 'Oh, that's just a picture I googled and filtered' 'Ah, ok'.
I'm honestly surprised that people would only care about the pixelated look and not how it was made considering the medium.
Also, whether or not people now about automatic tools doesn't matter to me. That's like saying using drugs in an athletic event is fine since most people don't know about it. Thankfully, we do have people who know about it who can monitor what is legit and what isn't.
Honestly that's like 90% of PJ's vulnerabilities. If you know how the code works and how site's gears turn you can give yourself extra votes in the weekly contests, extra favs to be #1 in the monthly showcase, free ribbons and gold stars, etc.
Some of us still have see old PJ features that have long since been scrubbed from the public eye.
Oh look! A random bug!!
|
jalonso (Level 11 Godfather :: 64663 points)
jal fromJoined the team Thursday, December 01, 2005 jalonso is known as the People's Moderator II - (BtG) |
Man I miss going wetwork for jal and him telling me to intentionally break the site. I miss being his favorite bug hunter. PJ used to be so much fun once. XD
"Index backdoor" haHa. I used to always try to access peoples' personal site's index by editing the URL when they'd directly link something, too. Found some good stuff a few times . . . I remember digging through Indigo's and Helm's site files heHe. #hackerman
So Zizka, as someone with extensive experience taking hi-res images and video animations, hi-res 3D renderings etc etc, and "turning them into pixel art" via Photoshop strats etc, I see it all the time - people posting stuff with pretty obvious earmarks of posterized photo reductions but not mention their "references", or base image, or workflow.
Whether this is good or bad is a whole other subject, which we all have our opinion on.
A couple things come to mind, though:
- majority of pixel art enjoyers arent even aware of these techniques let alone understand how to do them on their own. So it's hard to have an even footed conversation about such techniques because ignorance causes some people overly demonize some tools. OmG ChEaTiNG!!!!1 FaKE ArTiST
- it's changing now, but originally the default implication with pixel art is that it's hand-crafted and the author did everything from scratch. When a viewer learns this isn't the case with a piece it can feel disingenuous, knocking their respect and opinion down a notch.
-pixel art is just another digital medium, it's not holy and sacred and follows one set of rules - any tool is fair game, BUT it's kinda crappy when an artist posts something under the guise it's not "tool-assisted", yet it is. Though this is somewhat unique to pixel art. Who's fault is it really? - the artist's for not disclosing extra information, or the viewer's for wrongly assuming?
PJ has to draw the line somewhere for its own standards, to maintain order, but essentially the debate is a lost cause, in my opinion.
Nobody is going to tell me what I can and can't do with my own art projects.
But, I'm results focused, not process focused.
Did you know Deceiver uses only MS Paint for all his art? Personally, I'd rather kill myself. Everyone has a different take.
I still have the link in my old bookmarks folder. XD
The same level which led you to do an inverse image search 
.
If the mods don't have the time to ask for references, then perhaps the rule stating that they should be linked in the description should be removed? The people who care to post their refs do it anyway, and those who don't just don't post their refs even though the rules say they should.
There's not much point in a rule that goes entirely unenforced, and I think the smaller and tidier the rules list is, the more likely people are to actually read it.
I mean your avatar doesn't look photorealistic so it's a moot point, come on now, surely you see the difference here 
.
In the piece I linked, I doubt it's made from scratch, some sort of reference had to be used. It'd be interesting to see the source material vs final result to determine whether or not it's legit or not.
Also, I don't personally only care about the end result, but that's different opinions. Showing up at a cycling event and winning first prize when riding a motorcycle is problematic to me, the method used matters or they'd allow drug use.
Since disclosing ref is required by the rules here, but they didn't mention using (or not using!) ref anywhere in the description and it isn't obvious from the art itself, is it not up to the mods to ask before approving?
Sure, the user can lie, but the more likely scenario is that they they just neglected to mention it. And if they didn't use any specific ref, then the best thing they can do is specify that, to make it clear they are following the rules.
Tangent: Is there anything I can do if I vote incorrectly on the public queue?
Out of curiosity, how do you experts determine that this:
https://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/149273.htm?sec=showcase
Wasn't traced on a photograph or filtered in some way? If it made it to the weekly showcase it's kosher but I'm wondering as at first glance, I was suspicious of that piece.
For instance, in the hall of fame:
https://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/4328.htm
Isn't nearly as realistic which to me gives me the reassurance the piece is legit whereas the other one comes across to me as almost too perfect. There's also no comparison to previous pieces which were made to determine the level of skill of the creator.
yeah so sad to hear that, he was awesome, and an important member of the early PJ days. he helped me out so much, despite me probably being an annoying little twerp at that time.
I recently dug up my first website, and noticed I talked about him helping me.
I'll always remember him, and he impacted this community, even if newer members dont know it.
RIP Ens. Chris is the one who led me here from dA 17 years ago.
This explains why sometimes, shortly before the forums broke completely, I mysteriously heard voices from the forum tab.
So it was NoScript that was fixing it for me after all xP
Looking at the script itself, it seems to be a script that embeds a Twitch.tv player for eric_homu's channel, I guess to inflate their view count, or perhaps it got included by accident during copy+pasting. It seems to have gotten baked into the name for the OPP subforum. The bright side is a forum mod should be able to fix this easily by editing that subforum's name.
So for anyone else using Firefox having trouble with the forums: It turns out it is a weird script that causes it, so installing NoScript solves the problem. Anyone have any idea what kind of script "qbhomu.github.io" is even? Google gave me nothing.
Lung/throat cancer. He's been smoking since he was like 12. :(
I assume - no ranking (best 10 pixelworks) post for september this time?
Oh no! I had wondered what had happened to him and had no idea he passed away. That's terrible to hear. I'm not on social media. Was it an illness?
I have the same issue in firefox with the forums as Trigonomicon has, they're pretty much unusable. I also use an ad-blocker however.
Interesting. I saw Gecimen write in the forum that he also has problems with firefox, so I guessed it wasa general issue, but it looks like I'm gonna have to mess around with my setup a bit and see what works.
Works fine for me in Firefox. I have an ad blocker and a script blocker though, maybe some 3rd party script is messing the site up for you?
So has anyone with firefox managed to use the forums lately? The site loadds, but nothing can be clicked for me. Works in Chrome though.
@Hapiel
Did someone pass away? Was this recent? That's awful to hear.
Aww. I'd have thought coming up with a series of connected challenges would be simpler than coming up with several completely separate ones :'D
I enjoy mockup challenges a lot too, though! Seems that I always miss them.
Ahh, ok then, I can't promise that since it's a bit of too much work to prepare them.
@Gecimen: Pretty sure they're referring to multi-part challenges or challenges that are a continuation of the concepts from the weeks before. Like pixelween!
@Eishiya, do you mean game mockup challenges? If so, we do them time to time.
As time progresses, the internet gradually becomes a mausoleum.
Embrace the void.
I'm still alive, just haven't posted any art for a while >->
Considering doing a piece for Halloween though :3
I'm afraid there won't be as many people as there are now
lemme throw some old names at you:
lawrence, ensellitis, ben2theedge, larwick, iSTVAN, buloght, ManningKrull, snader, alkaline, brian the great
Nice! I wish they would send in some pixels here again.
Though I keep missing Pixelween, I really enjoy these connected challenges and seeing what people come up with. Is there any chance we might see more of those as regular challenges, without prizes and as much pressure to participate in all of them?
Mashpotato: Alive
Cocefi: Alive
Jamon: Alive
4tochkin: Alive
ui_: Alive
miascugh: Alive. No recent social media activity, but his art is featured a lot in the past months (including today) on @minecraft instagram
Mil: Alive
Junkboy: Alive
 |  |  |  |
Reddit's default sort isn't chronological, but there is a chronological sort option, Sort by Old. Unfortunately it's up to the user to set it, and there doesn't seem to be a way to save your preference, not even globally. I don't think it's practicable.