A four armed man crosses paths with a curious wolf.

[Helm]

anatomy critique

edit: disregard greens becoming blues, error in importing the art in pro motion on my part. Not intended.

[Darien]

The desaturatedness puts too much of strain on my eyes for my liking, though as helm said as higher zooms it's fine. 

This is a really nice piece though, I'm glad you've made a scene of it instead of having an isolated muscled man.  It makes me think it would fit in some kind of old legend storybook.

[Ryumaru]

destaturations fine, i can make out details with my really bad eye at 1x( vision is 20/200 in that eye)
the only thing i can think of to make the arms look like more of a part of him are to maybe wrap his trapezius muscles around the back of his arms like a 4th tricep head, but i dont know how that would look or if its plausable that you could move those arms with those muscles...

the rock is WAY to smooth for my liking. i dont know how you could add more texture without dithering(seems to be something you dont want in your piece) but i do no that it brings memories of tsugumo's plastic brick.

[AlexHW]

hm, I like those edits Helm, they make alot of sense.

I'm glad you've made a scene of it instead of having an isolated muscled man.

Yeah, after working on the guy, I felt I should make a scene so it wasn't just a muscleguy like I've done in the past which usually felt empty.

[miascugh]

ahoi alex, i'm glad to see something from you once in a while. when i read the thread title i could have sworn that your inspiration came from this, and i also agree that this looks like straight out of some old oriental or far east legend.
low saturation has been my all-time personal fiend i've been struggling to overcome, so i really just can't say i like it . but on a more valid note, there is this deflatedness of the chest that doesn't go too well with me, it must be something in the shading that ultimately makes me perceive it as a concave i can't really figure out

"This isn't the type of critique this place is here to provide"
i disagree helm, i mean, this implies (and sadly very widely this is the case) that pixel art is only about technique, and i'm talking about pixel-specific techniques. but as i see pixel art more as a (virtual) medium on its own, and not an art form, there's a whole lot of theory that just applies for it as it does for any other media. and re-reading this, that actually should have gone without saying, and makes you saying something like this even more surprising to me.

anyways, alex alex alex, what are you up to these days? i've seen you post on conceptart a while ago, but on your page there are no updates in the cg or traditional department, so i wonder, are you making more of your talent or did you decide to take a whole other lane?

[Helm]

I don't want to derail this thread. Mia, a board about pixel art critique is about pixel art techniques, and their application, foremost. Construction and the like do not apply to 95% of what is posted on this forum (mostly game-related art), and if one really wants that sort of critique there's many other places that specialize in it. That being said, as you saw I didn't really shy from said critique, I'm just stating it's usually beyond the scope of this forum. Most people here will always be struggling with some sort of AA or dithering or color conservation issue, and this will be the place to get critis for that sort of thing, thankfully. THIS is the strength of pixelation/pixelopolis. We don't just deteriorate to constant 'lol this has lots of style'/'I like the red it's so bright!'/'I <3 your work!!!!1' type of comments. We deal with specific techniques. There are a lot of people here that know pixels and are willing to help other people and thankfully this will take care of itself for years to come.

Now tell me, how many people here know good construction guidelines, or are prepared to discuss meta-concepts like aesthetics or the symbolic quality of the signifiers used in art? Not many. People make their game sprites most of the time, and they want them to be as good as those on their old SNES and that's it. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm saying this is how it is. If and ever the userbase evolves to a lot of 'art for art's sake' type of pixelling that really is so masterful otherwise that all there's left to discuss is construction and aesthetic qualities, I'll gladly see how this will become part of pixelopolis too. Right now, it's not like that.

[AlexHW]

anyways, alex alex alex, what are you up to these days? i've seen you post on conceptart a while ago, but on your page there are no updates in the cg or traditional department, so i wonder, are you making more of your talent or did you decide to take a whole other lane?

Cool web-app thing, That could be useful next time i got an urge to pixel but dont know what.
I was trying to make the guy look like he's leaning forward, so that's probably whats maknig the chest look deflated.
As far as what i'm doing, Not much is happening with me unfortunately. I wish I could say that I am out doing cool things and such, but I can't seem to find the path which feels right.

[Tinygiant]

I love it, I'm no anatomy expert so I'll leave that, not sure I like the washed out look I think maybe you've gone to far with it, I took the pic into photoshop and upped the contrast and I think it just looks cooler no so washed out.

Wicked work tho.

[ndchristie]

Not to be off-topic, but I agree and disagree with the issue of 'what the board is for.'  Firstly, i completely with Helm's assessment of the board's populous, and second, i completely disagree with the spirit of his post.  True, many people here do not know, appreciate, or in some cases even understand more comprehensive ideas like aesthetics and construction.  However, when people (like helm) who clearly have a much deeper understanding and perception of art and nature refrain from posting critiques of that nature, it's a real shame.  It's great to get tips on dithering, or anatomical form, or directional lighting etc, but these are all things that either a calculator, miror, or desk-lamp can tell us without need to go to a forum and ask people, and i have all of those in arm's reach.  Style, construction, composition, symbolism, themes et cetera are all paramount in real art, and it is because of the common lack of these that pixel-art and game-art are often not considered 'real.'  Its true that i dont always think of those things when working, in fact in pixel art i do much less often than i should, but anyone that can point that out and offer advice is a real asset.  (sorry....rant over )

speaking of aesthetics; in traditional media we learn to push darks and conserve lights; to obtain a broad range of values to strenthen composition.  In this, everying is very close in value.  i dont care if the colors are desaturated, even if it doesnt serve a purpose, but for god's sake this low-value-contrast work looks like someone using a dirty brush and not enough pigment.  you dont have to go black, you dont have to increase saturation, but if you want people to look at your work, it needs to be eye-catching unless you are making a point by making it 'muddy' (as its called in painting.)


looks beautiful when raised by 60%.  To give you an idea of how much your work needs its values extended a bad scan of a pencil _sketch_ only needs about a 30% raise to have a decent range of values.  I think it would really help you to take this under consideration, or at least offer a reason why not to.  Most people who use low-contrast styles are incapable of good blending, but this obviously isnt your problem, so what is the reason?  Nate out ---->

[Helm]

That's the thing, Adarias. I know a few things about composition and theory, but not nearly enough to give a crit I can stand behind. I have two semesters of history of art behind me, but still, I don't know nearly enough to pretend to HELP PEOPLE in that way. It'd be like going to a pixel art board and somebody telling you why pillowshading might be good after all. We're experts to other things here, and this is fine. I feel tremendous responsibility about critiquing people's style because there's no right or wrong and because even the way I sell my position is more about the sale than it is about the facts. Some people are charismatic enough to sell shit for gold, you know. But even in less severe cases, for example here you post a very valid -in my opinion- style crit that can simply be countered with 'I am trying something different, something that requires low saturation'. If it were game art, you could counter with 'well the game's not going to PLAY well'. If it were scene art you could counter with 'well that thing won't show at all when they put it on the big screen at the party' but if it's just art for art's sake you can't actually say anything that is more or less (in)valid than anything else. As you saw, Kon can play by the rules before he breaks them (he's done a lot of high-sat work) so it's not a matter of masking bad skillz, it's just... a choice. As valid as Mondrian drawing in horisontial and vertical lines instead of painting mountains. The misty effect is nice, and I was personally fine with it from the start. And I come from a comic art background where usually we work and have been used to seeing art that must read amazingly well very fast, high contrast, almost 1bit work.