If it would look exactly the same I don't see the point of rejecting it.

Rules are meant to be taken with context , that's why there is a color limit for submissions which I did not exceed. 

As for your idea of the legacy of this website here are a few examples taken from the hall of fame - 1 2 3

As you can see these are a fairly high color count pieces which do not completely follow the traditional color recycling technique  , but pieces like these are a significant part of this website's actual history and legacy. I would even say that my piece is not as controversial as some of them.

There are many pieces like these few which if you strictly apply the rules towards without context would be rejected.

Here is another a few more examples - 1 2  

you can take rules such as intentional pixel placement , blur , AA control and such , you could reject pieces like these as well with the strict literal approach towards such rules. Yet they haven't been rejected and are an interesting part of this website's history.  

I do not think my piece is a special case in that sense , but even if you think it is , I think it's wrong to reject it in this strict careless manner which does not reflect on the website's actual values.  

You should leave me to repost it and delete this whole "thread".

None of you are explaining your logic to me , you are just repeating that it has too many colors.

As I explained in this piece , the amount of different colors does not reduce any of it's pixel art properties.

If you think it does let me know which property is it specifically.

Other wise , you are just rejecting my piece for no good reason and should simply leave me to post it.

nadavsgallery.com/img/(-_-).png ☜

The piece looks clean as it is , no over AA and no noise.

I didn't deviate from the color limit , so I don't see the problem.

If you want to reject it for no reason go ahead , I'm not changing it.

Interesting piece , the textures of your details are satisfying to see , I like the design of the giraffe and the rider.

The movement of the smoke of the incense or what ever he is holding is really nice with the black background.

I am a bit bothered by how while looking at the bigger picture the values all around the image are relatively similar , I think it should have some distinct areas with darker values that would give the environment more depth. 

Here is a very lazy simple edit just to show you what I mean roughly - i.imgur.com/XaPYD37.png.

The mood here is pretty interesting honestly. I do feel that the distance is a bit lost , while having aerial perspective working backwards basically as the background is where the higher contrast and clarity is but it's also creating a subtle strange feeling to the piece which is not too bad. 

Honestly looking at your works I feel like you should just go ahead and start painting landscapes.

A pretty nice one , I think the water has a good color but the texture feel a bit too opaque rather than being more reflective.

Good work.

I like the concept and composition of it , and that sort of empty expression.

I just feel like the orange light could be done better , in the sense of it feeling more like a light source.

Here is a quick edit to show you what I mean - i.imgur.com/eDNvKTT.png

I don't think that's who my reference was , though I don't remember who was it actually.

And yea , I guess I am pretty inconsistent with the subjects of my pixel art.

What I sent you is a rough sketch of how to actually represent the shape of the object you were trying to render , you criticising its jaggieness and flaws is pointing out the obvious and ignoring the bigger picture of it. 

I do not see how my edit is over complicated as you have said , I even reduced some of your unnecessary colors.

And as for why I criticized you in the first place , it is not to show off. If you implement a pillow shaded piece into the website you should expect criticism. I just don't like to see that.

What you have created is rough outlines inside a small shape (which disturbs them feeling like a single three dimensional shape) and then shaded each of these shapes with simply adding light in the middle , I don't know how you can't notice it being pillow shaded.

i.imgur.com/1sem5F5.png

Here is a rough idea of what I mean to define the different planes of the shape , I feel like it automatically gives you a better metallic texture.

Thanks.

Nice work on the abdomen.

You overdefined the lines and pillow shaded inside them. 

I feel like you could have accomplished a lot more of a convincing shape and a better metallic texture by just defining the different planes of the metallic part of the gramophone.

Thank you. what I have done is choose that background color , and then following my source while sort of using the color I chose as the general temperature (rather than the original one).

Thanks

Thanks, and probably not.

At least not in a centered manner.

nadavsgallery.com/img/Nice..png ☜

If any thing , that is a rat.

I got shaky hands. 

I don't think a high color count matters if you can hardly notice it.

it looks like pixel art and it is pixel art.

Nice work

I feel like this could have been a lot better if you would have changed a few bad habbits.

I like the concept of it honestly , the colors are pretty good even and the main tree looking object is pretty cool.

I feel you are harming the clarity and the potential of the scene by focusing on the micro and not the general image , for example with the textures.

You are texturing elements of the sky as if they were rocks , which is sort of an easy solution but it harms the image. Its not clear what is clouds or mountains really. And at the top part of it I think you should just have gone with a smooth gradient towards a darker more ultramarine hue of blue , a variety of textures in the image would make it a lot better and would even distract less from the tree looking object at the middle

If you are not up for CC just scratch all of that..

Thank you.

Maybe I wasn't clear , every thing besides the face I made myself on Photoshop.

It's not a screenshot or anything.

Thanks you.