The more I polished it the less natural it looked, so I'm leaving it as is.
Lost the original size reference image. Only have this smaller one.
There are too many indicators pointing towards this being a heavily retouched resize/colour reduction for me to be convinced of it being anything else. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, as by the end of it every pixel seems to have been intentionally placed or left alone; what I will say is that by using this method you've inherrited a fairly dull and poorly optimised palette that could use serious revision.
i don't see any sense in that
(and i like your others work a lot)
reduction + small retouche =(
I think it's great, I find the whites of the eyes a little too bright though, they look too sharp where the rest looks smooth.
I love it
I don't understand the color choices, and by extension the piece itself. If you're going to make an avatar like this, you might as well make it visually appealing or atleast less jpg-y
It's obviously not a colour reduction. Does anyone seriously think I'd do such things over a tiny piece like this? I just wanted a portrait avatar on PJ.
Great work. I feel like the features, mouth in particular, are kinda low-contrast, especially in comparison to the eyes. Could be trying to cram too many details into a 32x32 pixel canvas. If you did grab the colours from the reference you should tweak 'em imo (tweak them even if you didn't :p ), you look kinda ghoulish.
I can't believe these accusation of reduction
Oh hey everyone look how identical these are
I really don't see how anyone who knows pixels could think this was a reduction.
I dig it, but I do think there are a few unnecessary colours in there. For example theres a grey-blue used in just one cluster under his right ear.
it looks and feels like a jpg or resize and i dont like it :/
Well this isn't a color reduction, but the pixel clusters could probably be optimized to look more intentional and 'lock' better. Sometimes when one overworks a piece they will AA into good clusters and make them a bit muddy.
Why are there such inconsitencies in changes in shade then? For instance why are there brown pixels on the highlight of the hair on the left, but not on the right? Why is there a random purple pixel on the left cheek that only appears in three other pixels?
Colors were probably at least pulled from the photo, but I really don't think it was just resized and reduced. In most of it, I'd say you can see a lot of the methodical pixel placement (such as the eyes, mouth, hair). I think the only real thing that gives off any idea of a color reduction are the hues being used.
It's one of these occasion where I'm glad to have laymans' eyes/knowledge
I find it incredibly hard to believe that he sampled those hues from the noise in the original image and used them to create tones and AA in such a random manor. It does LOOK exactly like a downsample with slight changes, and i'm by no means a "layman".
On the other hand it seems strange that such a well established member of the community would bother with something like that.
Either way i don't think it's that great, no offence.
It is and that's something Badassbill could keep in mind. If it looks like a color reduction to the layman, then how is it different from a color reduction, even if it isn't a color reduction?
Thanks for clarify that Helm. But it's hard to say, isn't it?
Because it's not a color reduction, Sergiotron.
It seems a retouched (just a little in the eyes) color reduction to me. Why did it pass the public queue?
Looks like cutted and resized ... ?