To me it's pretty clear that only the end result is important. We can't have rules about factors we can't check.
I'm very glad that the PJ people do seem very aware of good practices in applying the various techniques.
Therefor pieces like this might get into the gallery, but might not get a high score.


We can perhaps set an arbitrary standard about how well pixels are controlled. Here I would propose that pixel level control, cluster control, is much more important than palette control. As shown by Doctorcello, a bad palette on good artwork is hardly visible. I do hope that in the future we can automatically display the correct color count next to artwork so that it will be easy for all PJ members to comment on this, but I don't think it's necessary to ban wild palettes from the gallery.

This would continue to flow into artwork with semi transparent layers. When there is minimal layering we can't prove if it's done automatically or not, so I'd say that we can't ban semitrans layers altogether. If it's done in such a way that it doesn't ruin the quality of the artwork or the clusters, which I think is the case on the purple image with the guitar players, I'd say it should fit in the gallery.

There is one small counter argument, that is that when I've notified people about wild palettes, especially if there seemed to be an unintended error, submitters were often happy to fix up their works. Again, I think that with a color count next to all artwork PJ members can comment on each other about this, and people will keep fixing up flaws.

I think this piece was much nicer with the gradient (though tbf the new manual glow could have been done much better)


imo it would have been fine as an exemption – the glow was pretty small but effective, and didn't mess with the pixel-work. also, if i had to guess, i'd say the rain and fog use partial opacity too ;)