Hi I submitted a picture called lightning and I got a message requesting it be revised for the following reason:

Reason: Any art you post should be PIXEL ART! Pixel art implies that each pixel is placed by hand (no filters, paintbrushes, gradient fills, etc).

I'm complimented in a way that someone thought I "cheated" but I assure you that I wouldn't consider submitting something that wasn't pixel art. It took me quite a while to do this picture.

I don't have any wip versions of it as I didn't think I'd need it.

Here is a link to the same picture on deviantart so you can see the picture.

http://fav.me/d4977le

Thanks for your help and time.

Again, I must politely disagree, I never cheat, dodge or lie. I never use blur tools. I did this pixel by pixel.

I understand you want to keep non pixel art out but how can you be certain? You certainly didn't see me make this picture. (which makes this tricky for you, no doubt)

I have a mixture of feeling complimented that I did such a good job that I fooled you and feeling insulted that you think I 'dodged'.

If I am good enough to make you think I used a blur tool, how will pixel art pictures that are more life like ever get into Pixel Joint? They will always be rejected.

I am really beggining to wish I saved wip versions of the picture.

How can I rework it if it is already pixel art? make it worse? Make it obvious that a person did it by making mistakes? I aim to be as realistic as I can in some of my pictures.

Yeah it is a lot of colours, I wanted a seamless effect but whenever I tried to use less colours it became obvious and "clunky". I am trying to be realistic and real life doesn't have colour limitations. I try to limit colours where I feel I can (it saves time and why use more than you need!) but some times you have to use a lot to get the look you are after.

I'm always trying to improve though. :)

In my reply, I never suggested you cheated or lied. I simply stated my opinion on the piece and started by stating my fear of hurting you.
When I reject any piece (unless its waaaay obvious) I always look at the person's gallery or if I'm familiar with the artist, base any opinion on their own standard and work. There are several rejection notes I could have sent with this piece and opted for NPA as it seemed the most appropriate at the time. Minimum Quality Standarsd and Low Member Votes were also options here.

We who Mod do make mistakes and just because we reject a piece does not mean we got it right. We are always open to revise our position. All rejection form letters say so. Just as you have done here, posting for feedback is the thing to do when needed for further review or explanation.

When thinking and reviewing this piece I weighed your gallery and current skill and found you do use a lot of colors and generally don't use a lot of contrast. Actually, you are working behind the 'color' wall. I did find a rather large gap in design/quality/artistic sensibilities in your work. Part of me wondered how you got from this
to this
to this
to this in 9 months...not impossible but I thought of it. I wondered but did not hold it against you at all.
From a technical standpoint your work is inconsistent and rather primitive. There are certain ways you place individual pixels that say more to me than you could ever explain or show in a WIP or are even personally aware of. If you could then those pixels would be in a different place, a different color or removed.



No one can be certain but we come close. Even tho we're all very handsome with titanium abs we were not picked to join the staff for these reasons. We can quite easily determine the process of any piece just by looking at it. Sometimes, we will download a piece, inspect it and even 're-create' it, if needed. All fraudulent pieces eventually get discovered, by us or by community members. It may take some time but it always happens...always.
I didn't do any of that with your piece as I felt it wasn't needed. If you had used a 'tool' then its just a PJ gallery technicality not an accusation. If all made by hand then its bad form and terrible technique. I know you pixelled this piece. I said so. The AA on the wire is so OTT no computer would auto generate that. The tree on the lower right side (good composition) is just about as terribly pixelled as any single shade item could ever be. However, all that banding and shade changes around the bolt and some of the water droplets make it impossible to overlook. It is, as far as pixelart is concerned, just terrible form and ugly to look at.

I opted for 'npa' as a revision note. At the time I just didn't feel like PMing you for feedback and explanations. Waiting for you to discuss it. Having it sit in the queue and racking 'no' votes and then another Mod just sending it back for the same reasons I did (its that obvious). This would have wasted my time and I would just figured I'd evetually be writing this reply and these explanations in the long run as I am the rare Mod that even bothers with this. I just knew it...its why I started by mentioning my hesitancy and apprehension and the almost assuredly hurt feelings that would happen here.

Most Mods just decide, move on and let you deal with it. I should too but someone has to be the People's Moderator*. As I write here I am pixelling my own projects in my head, while I am at work, with a long to-do list of things...blah, blah, blah.



Oh, I wasn't fooled at all. There is no implied compliment. I didn't say you dodged, I said 'used some tool' as a possible reason or explanation open to discussion. I always take into account that something could be made by hand but just because it can, does not validate it. Pixelart has its own inherit quality and it just is the way it is. Style, from cartoony to hyper-realism is irrelevant. The same techniques are used for both.



No. Many hyper-real pieces get in. We look at technique when reviewing, NOT artistic vision, expression, idea or concept which are irrelevant.
You did not fool me at all. I could not determine what was done exactly but I was 100% sure that something wasn't right.
Why has my using the term 'dodge' struck a nerve ?



This can be helpful with certain type of pieces. When a well-known ref is used, when a piece looks 'to good to be real' or when the piece is a demoscene piece.
Had you made WIPs and shown them while working on it. This piece would have never looked this way. A blind chimp would have mentioned the obvious problems in time.
Personally, I don't think WIPs/refs are needed. Pixelartists can just see the obvious because we all work on the pixel level and can easily just see the process by zooming in and looking at the piece.
If this were MathJoint and you posted an equation like this, for example:
(1+1+1) + 3 = 6
It would be rejected because
3+3=6
uses better form and technique
you however seem to be saying that
1+1+1+1+1+1=6
should be acceptable.

All 3 equations get to 6

If you Mod'd MathJoint would you add the equation below?
((5x5+75-100)+(100-100)+1) x (500-498 -1) + (5x5+75-100)+(100-100)+1) x (500-498 -1)+(5x5+75-100)+(100-100)+1) x (500-498 -1)) x2 = 6



Of course making it 'worse' is the wrong attitude. Its all about making it better by making your technique better. This is all 100% technique and execution!

You stated above that you don't care about colors. Sadly, this is a wall and hurdle you have set for yourself.
Unlike other art forms, pixelart is soooooooo much about color control...pixelart is about controlling everything... every pixel. Its placement its color, its relation to the pixel right next to it. Its the 'pixel' part of PIXELart.

Indeed computers are able to generate millions of colors and you can make a piece 'pixel by pixel' using 1million colors and have it be NPA because it has no control.

If colors and palettes were not important in pixelart creation then why do people state color counts, struggle with palette development and all to often post the palette in the piece itself?


Your gallery shows this being the first 'realistic' piece you've created.
With over 50 well chosen colors this could be hyper-realistic but you aren't there yet.

* © c[ ]