Pixel Joint Forum: Is there anything wrong with my portraits?

Author

Message

Psiweapon
Midshipman

Joined: 14 January 2023
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27

Topic: Is there anything wrong with my portraits?
Posted: 01 April 2016 at 10:33am

It feels like they're never going to be approved. Do they break any restrictions or anything?

Really, if they come across as borderline or doubtful cases, I'd really want to know why.

All of them are made following a reference photo, using a reference grid but eyeballing the colors. They all have colorcounts in the teens or twenties and explore dithering.

This was an experiment on using two complementary dither layers. One carries color, with several ramps, the other carries lighting and has a single golden color ramp for the whole picture.

This is just a portrait of my girlfriend. The two next pics had this sort of thick outline as an intermediate step, which was then colored, dithered and anti-aliased.

This was a commission by a friend.

Reference from a random internet pic, I wanted to explore how far could I go with interlaced dithering and even anti-aliasing the dithering itself.

I just uploaded this animated process of the last one just in case that helps making/breaking the case for the acceptability of the pics.

IP Logged

jalonso
Admiral
Admiral

Joined: 29 November 2022
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13537

Posted: 01 April 2016 at 2:56pm

Sometimes pixels take us a little longer to get around to them for all kinds of reasons.
I started to review your pixels but stopped because I had so little time when I did and have been sick with the flu...blah, blah, blah.

I started with the the first you list and was hard to decipher what was going on and your explanation here does help me see what is going on.
The semi trans sig on the lower right really stopped me on my tracks because I then had to figure out if trans was used elsewhere and it was so hard to read it all.
Because of that one then I did not even bother reviewing any of the other pixels and so they have sat in the queue for when I have time or when/if another Mod feels brave enough to tackle it.

In an overview the commission of the lady with the dog seems like a reduction that has been cleaned up using ref material that is not yours ???

Out of curiosity are you using premade dither patterns that you then block/erase as an overlay or are they CGd based on rough/reductions/traces?

As a quick overview and as described I think the first (cept the trans sig) and the b/w portrait are fine.

The commisiion worries me on account of plagiarism.
For the same reason the last one seems ok but I would really like to see the original ref...again, for plagiraism reasons only.

I would also like to add that I did review your existing gallery when seeing the first and nothing in your gallery is on this skill level and did cause a little bit of concern.
Your gallery has nice work and decent pixelling but nothing like these pixels show and that always takes more time to review as we are looking at things on the pixel level.

PJs FAQ <•> Sticky Reads

IP Logged

Psiweapon
Midshipman

Joined: 14 January 2023
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27

Posted: 01 April 2016 at 4:47pm

Wow, thanks a lot for replying!! I was getting anxious.

First of all some of the reasons did come to mind... some others are quite surprising.

Originally posted by jalonso

Sometimes pixels take us a little longer to get around to them for all kinds of reasons.
I started to review your pixels but stopped because I had so little time when I did and have been sick with the flu...blah, blah, blah.

I started with the the first you list and was hard to decipher what was going on and your explanation here does help me see what is going on.
The semi trans sig on the lower right really stopped me on my tracks because I then had to figure out if trans was used elsewhere and it was so hard to read it all.
Because of that one then I did not even bother reviewing any of the other pixels and so they have sat in the queue for when I have time or when/if another Mod feels brave enough to tackle it.

Fake transparency, the pixels inside the signature are just a bit lighter within the same ramp.

Originally posted by jalonso

In an overview the commission of the lady with the dog seems like a reduction that has been cleaned up using ref material that is not yours ???

The dog lady and everything else has been drawn from scratch. The client gave me a photo which I re-framed, and then I used it as side-by-side reference. AFAIK the client took the photo himself.

Originally posted by jalonso

Out of curiosity are you using premade dither patterns that you then block/erase as an overlay or are they CGd based on rough/reductions/traces?

I've used some of the dither patterns included in GrafX2, and patterns inverse/complementary to them. Dithering is done with the "sieve" tool in GrafX2, which only allows you to paint in the "positive" pixels of the pattern.

Originally posted by jalonso

As a quick overview and as described I think the first (cept the trans sig) and the b/w portrait are fine.

The commisiion worries me on account of plagiarism.
For the same reason the last one seems ok but I would really like to see the original ref...again, for plagiraism reasons only.

I would also like to add that I did review your existing gallery when seeing the first and nothing in your gallery is on this skill level and did cause a little bit of concern.

Your gallery has nice work and decent pixelling but nothing like these pixels show and that always takes more time to review as we are looking at things on the pixel level.

Well, I hadn't posted anything to the gallery in some 3 years, but that doesn't mean I haven't pixeled in the meantime. I've been doing pixels all the while, but most of it I wasn't free to share or just didn't feel like doing so.

About those 4 particular pieces, I can PM or otherwise send you the reference material and any intermediate stages you'd like to inspect.

All the pieces are done with GrafX2, which means I can't even step out of indexed color, and the tools I used are mainly the stencil tool (locks colors), sieve (locks positions in a pattern), and layers (I set complementary dither patterns in different layers for ease of edition).

I have *not* used the shade or transp tools, which anyways can't go outside the palette you already have defined... the one exception is the signature in the first piece, which is clearly made using one of those two tools... but I can't remember which one it was. Anyways I still keep the original, I can just change the signature.

Say the word and I'll send your way all the associated material, through the channel of your choice. You'll have to open the layered files with GrafX2 though, since they're in .gif format.

IP Logged

Resources and Support
Pixel Joint Forum : The Lounge : Resources and Support

Author	Message
Psiweapon Midshipman Joined: 14 January 2023 Online Status: Offline Posts: 27	Topic: Is there anything wrong with my portraits? Posted: 01 April 2016 at 10:33am
	It feels like they're never going to be approved. Do they break any restrictions or anything? Really, if they come across as borderline or doubtful cases, I'd really want to know why. All of them are made following a reference photo, using a reference grid but eyeballing the colors. They all have colorcounts in the teens or twenties and explore dithering. This was an experiment on using two complementary dither layers. One carries color, with several ramps, the other carries lighting and has a single golden color ramp for the whole picture. This is just a portrait of my girlfriend. The two next pics had this sort of thick outline as an intermediate step, which was then colored, dithered and anti-aliased. This was a commission by a friend. Reference from a random internet pic, I wanted to explore how far could I go with interlaced dithering and even anti-aliasing the dithering itself. I just uploaded this animated process of the last one just in case that helps making/breaking the case for the acceptability of the pics.
	IP Logged

jalonso Admiral Joined: 29 November 2022 Online Status: Offline Posts: 13537	Posted: 01 April 2016 at 2:56pm
	Sometimes pixels take us a little longer to get around to them for all kinds of reasons. I started to review your pixels but stopped because I had so little time when I did and have been sick with the flu...blah, blah, blah. I started with the the first you list and was hard to decipher what was going on and your explanation here does help me see what is going on. The semi trans sig on the lower right really stopped me on my tracks because I then had to figure out if trans was used elsewhere and it was so hard to read it all. Because of that one then I did not even bother reviewing any of the other pixels and so they have sat in the queue for when I have time or when/if another Mod feels brave enough to tackle it. In an overview the commission of the lady with the dog seems like a reduction that has been cleaned up using ref material that is not yours ??? Out of curiosity are you using premade dither patterns that you then block/erase as an overlay or are they CGd based on rough/reductions/traces? As a quick overview and as described I think the first (cept the trans sig) and the b/w portrait are fine. The commisiion worries me on account of plagiarism. For the same reason the last one seems ok but I would really like to see the original ref...again, for plagiraism reasons only. I would also like to add that I did review your existing gallery when seeing the first and nothing in your gallery is on this skill level and did cause a little bit of concern. Your gallery has nice work and decent pixelling but nothing like these pixels show and that always takes more time to review as we are looking at things on the pixel level.
	PJs FAQ <•> Sticky Reads
	IP Logged

Psiweapon Midshipman Joined: 14 January 2023 Online Status: Offline Posts: 27	Posted: 01 April 2016 at 4:47pm
	Wow, thanks a lot for replying!! I was getting anxious. First of all some of the reasons did come to mind... some others are quite surprising. *Originally posted by jalonso* Sometimes pixels take us a little longer to get around to them for all kinds of reasons. I started to review your pixels but stopped because I had so little time when I did and have been sick with the flu...blah, blah, blah. I started with the the first you list and was hard to decipher what was going on and your explanation here does help me see what is going on. The semi trans sig on the lower right really stopped me on my tracks because I then had to figure out if trans was used elsewhere and it was so hard to read it all. Because of that one then I did not even bother reviewing any of the other pixels and so they have sat in the queue for when I have time or when/if another Mod feels brave enough to tackle it. Fake transparency, the pixels inside the signature are just a bit lighter within the same ramp. *Originally posted by jalonso* In an overview the commission of the lady with the dog seems like a reduction that has been cleaned up using ref material that is not yours ??? The dog lady and everything else has been drawn from scratch. The client gave me a photo which I re-framed, and then I used it as side-by-side reference. AFAIK the client took the photo himself. *Originally posted by jalonso* Out of curiosity are you using premade dither patterns that you then block/erase as an overlay or are they CGd based on rough/reductions/traces? I've used some of the dither patterns included in GrafX2, and patterns inverse/complementary to them. Dithering is done with the "sieve" tool in GrafX2, which only allows you to paint in the "positive" pixels of the pattern. *Originally posted by jalonso* As a quick overview and as described I think the first (cept the trans sig) and the b/w portrait are fine. The commisiion worries me on account of plagiarism. For the same reason the last one seems ok but I would really like to see the original ref...again, for plagiraism reasons only. I would also like to add that I did review your existing gallery when seeing the first and nothing in your gallery is on this skill level and did cause a little bit of concern. Your gallery has nice work and decent pixelling but nothing like these pixels show and that always takes more time to review as we are looking at things on the pixel level. Well, I hadn't posted anything to the gallery in some 3 years, but that doesn't mean I haven't pixeled in the meantime. I've been doing pixels all the while, but most of it I wasn't free to share or just didn't feel like doing so. About those 4 particular pieces, I can PM or otherwise send you the reference material and any intermediate stages you'd like to inspect. All the pieces are done with GrafX2, which means I can't even step out of indexed color, and the tools I used are mainly the stencil tool (locks colors), sieve (locks positions in a pattern), and layers (I set complementary dither patterns in different layers for ease of edition). I have not used the shade or transp tools, which anyways can't go outside the palette you already have defined... the one exception is the signature in the first piece, which is clearly made using one of those two tools... but I can't remember which one it was. Anyways I still keep the original, I can just change the signature. Say the word and I'll send your way all the associated material, through the channel of your choice. You'll have to open the layered files with GrafX2 though, since they're in .gif format.
	IP Logged