Pixelation

Critique => Pixel Art => Topic started by: ndchristie on November 06, 2007, 10:58:33 pm

Title: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 06, 2007, 10:58:33 pm
(http://pixeljoint.com/files/icons/full/warriorbroc.gif)

"a warrior with humanoid body but fruit or vegetable for head"

c+c?  i know there's a spot i missed some AA already :X
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 06, 2007, 11:01:51 pm
That is quite wonderful! Finally a cohesive palette from you! (some shades burn still, but ok). This works great on the forum bg color, but would it on another one? If you're going to aa to bg color, don't set it to transparent, just select a color and do it on that.

There is a slight balance issue I think. He should be falling backwards, especially with that huge bat.

Also, huge bat. Could use some shortening.

One of my favourite b-movies.


edit: Wee, critique! The contours of the pants are overaaed.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 07, 2007, 01:37:49 am
heh, i always have to have at least a couple burning colors, don't i?  the blue is the only one i'd really consider over the line, but you're right that some others come close. (edit - actually the red-to-gray on the bat is pretty obnoxious too, isn't it?)

the AA can be toned down, originally was worked for having a background scene but then realized that the rules mandated transparent bg. 

I already submitted it (a bit prematurely), but that's no reason not to rework this copy.  Do you think his left leg should be pushed back, or that his shoulders should come forward? (or both)?

PSEDIT: zoom function seems gone, maybe a side-effect of restoring the board yesterday?
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 07, 2007, 01:56:21 am
legs pushing back a few pixels should do it I think. Consider his center of gravity.

and yeah zoom script broken because of HAXX
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: AdamAtomic on November 07, 2007, 02:30:20 am
this is pretty badass.  my only beef is some of your detail work where the stalk joins with the chest hints at some pseudo-facial features, and the right pectoral seems about a pixel high, making it read a bit like his arm is coming straight out of his chest there.  Otherwise, great values and contrast, gorgeous colors, all around rock solid!

And yea, zooming is busted.  I fixed it this morning, along with the PM text notification, but something with the file IDs is messed so I can't upload the fixes to the server...
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: sharprm on November 07, 2007, 04:48:25 am
Could you be persuaded to make a version with a pallete like 'fool' does, nothing fancy like brown pants with green highlights, just basics brown highlight on brown pants. Imo its a great piece but your random colors detract from it. Even more so with your tiles, just think it makes it harder to work out what things are.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 07, 2007, 05:37:40 am
we were restricted to 10 colors for this, else i wouldn't have mixed the way I did.  Fool tends to use that many colors in a single ramp, and seldom combines.

As far as tiles are concerned, it's a little hard to speak to those, since there are none in this thread, but the only ones i've done in the last several months http://pixeljoint.com/pixelart/20669.htm i thought were very straightforward in the application of color.

And what do you mean by "random"?  Even the larger jumps between colors are choices.  Your welcome to disagree with my choice, but calling it "random" frustrates me to no end.  I like to take credit for my work, good or bad.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: sharprm on November 07, 2007, 06:19:42 am
I said it was a great piece, sorry if you got offended. I didn't realise that it was a restricted pallete.

Yes I meant those tiles. For some reason I assumed that these tiles wouldn't follow color restrictions either.

By not 'random' I mean use colors in a single ramp that follow reality more closely. Take the roof of buliding. Roofs are made of tiles. Tiles are made of stone or lead right, so I would draw a roof with grey colors. Everyone has different tastes but I think for realistic colors would be better. If you're using restrictions then forget what i said. I should have said 'unrealistic' colors.

edit: heres what I mean about using ramps which don't mix too much, imo this is more readible and uses same no. of colors, although colors are not realistic in this case. Ideally I would prefer more colors and make it more 'fool' like, but there is that restriction on colors.
(http://pixeljoint.com/files/icons/full/warriorbroc.gif) -->10 colors(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e199/sharprm/brokalie-2.gif)-->more colors(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e199/sharprm/brokalie2-1.gif)

edit2: I just wanted to make myself clear.  I think the original is better because of the details and the unrealistic pallete is the only way you keep those details like the shoes. This edit is to show what kind of a pallete i prefer. My point is that i dont agree with using low color palletes like adarias's when you have a choice.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Elk on November 07, 2007, 07:47:42 am
i liked adarias version better :P its more detailed
as i said on pixeljoint when i commented, i like it really much :D
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 07, 2007, 10:49:53 am
sharprm, in my opinion both versions you made suffer from bad color choice (realism has nothing to do with it) and I find Adarias' original way more pleasing to the eye, restrictions or not. I'll be the first to say Adarias mixes colors where they can't live together, but even with the problems this practise creates, it still creates a cohesion that is far more welcome that 'RED STUFF IS REDS. GREEN STUFF IS GREENS' like you've got going now. I don't know even if fool, who you say you'd like to see more people color like would agree with what you did here with pulling the ramps towards disparate ends.

Your edits look like dos-era pixel art, when artists moved on to unrestricted color access in their vga cards from ega but didn't have the color theory to support their switch and ended up using all these many colors like a 'color inside the lines coloring book'. Red here. Green there. If you study the masters you'll see most great paintings are made with a relatively tight palette, just like we do with pixel art. This is why learning to work with few colors isn't just an anachronistic leftover from when we had to, but a valid artistic effort. It keeps things cohesive. I have a habit of looking at a scene in real life, and counting how many colors I'd need to create the variety that my eye catches. It's not often I count more than 16
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 07, 2007, 12:32:39 pm
(http://xs221.xs.to/xs221/07453/Warriors2.png)

slight edit, haven't gotten to all the comments yet

traded in the white for a brown, it helps a litte i think (although i need to play with the pixels to make the leaves pop more now)

edit - meh, i tihnk ill need to change the whole palette if i adjust that, the pants are just too much their own now...
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Rargh! on November 07, 2007, 02:51:37 pm

In my limited opinion, I think there are both flaws and strengths in both Adarias and Sharp's pieces (am only talking about Sharps 10 colour edit here). When Adarias first posted, it took a little bit to "see" what was going on, and while the palette does justice to the greater concept of pixel art (as I interpret it from Helm's post), the "burn" Helm pointed out does make it hard to look at.

Sharp, on the other hand, has come at it from a more obvious, literal interpretation. Yes, the greens are very green. But there's also no mistaking what's going on. The nail is a nice touch and again more instantly "readable", although Adarias' sneakers, lock (it is a lock, yes?) and indeed overall look is far more authentic for the movie. Of course, the palette pops more on Sharp's piece, making it stand out with its saturation, though I don't like the highlights on the pants, or the spread hand and bare feet.

It's interesting, every day in my work we have to contend with what is innovative and clever and artistic, versus what the general public will understand and relate to (which therefore can also be clever and artful if that connection is the end purpose).

Regardless of edits, it's a very cool final piece Adarias.  :y:

 
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Rydin on November 07, 2007, 04:34:38 pm
"No! Skin isn't light blue...and hair isn't just shades of blue either...you should have brown for brown hair, and skin tones for skin colors."
(http://www.artofcolour.com/picasso-changing-platte/picasso-changing-image-files/tragedy.jpg)

"He's got a big green splotch on his face, you might want to check that out..."
(http://www.virtualdali.com/assets/paintings/21RaphaelNeck.jpg)

"Yeah, way too much green, red, and yellow on the face....and the white streaks you've got, hurt to look at---what, is he wearing a stripe suit or something?"
(http://www.auralaura.com/images/felthat-6.jpg)
I donno,  guess Picasso, Dali, and Van Gogh really didn't know much about art...


Color choice doesn't have to be based on a mirror-like mentality.   It can, but it doesn't have to be.   So, for one, color choice can be a mood/emotion thing.  And so if you are going for this, I think Adarias has succeeded quite well: The original colors definately portray a b-movie, 70's-film-quality feel to them, and does so enviously within the color restraints.
And arguably, I think every color of light is hitting the object anyways...so when you see an apple, there really is blue and green, not just shades of red.

i could proof read this and put in big words to make me sound more credible, but i'm just not in the mood right now...


But as for critiques and such:
-I think the idea is good....broccolifro's a new concept for me.  :y:
-It's not really a color thing...well it sort of is: it's rather inconstant  in value, and what I mean by that is that the pants go way dark, whereas the fold of the fro and branches and stuff really don't go as in depth.  It's an emphasis thing really; what do you want us to see more? Otherwise it's a preference thing I guess...
-The lighting on the bat seems iffy, but almost necessary I guess... Because if you look how you've shaded the rest of the figure, it is really a front-left thing, but the light on the bat is all from the right...up to you I suppose.
-Lastly, the part dangling from the bandanna really, really lacks readability.  Upside down sponge bob?  I really can't decipher what it is...
(I'm going from the first version by the way... :-X)

But, over all, nice work  :y:
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ptoing on November 07, 2007, 04:42:52 pm
And arguably, I think every color of light is hitting the object anyways...so when you see an apple, there really is blue and green, not just shades of red.

Well, sunlight has pretty much the full spectrum of colours visible to us which adds up to to an almost white, slightly yellow light. But objects have the colour which they don't absorb. Something that is black absorbs pretty much all light and reflects none. Something which is blue absorbs everything other than blue from the spectrum and so on.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Rydin on November 07, 2007, 04:45:29 pm
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Thanks for the clarification   :):y:
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: big brother on November 07, 2007, 05:57:22 pm
Great piece! I especially like the positioning of the legs and the stance; it definitely conveys the attitude of the movie. One crit -- it might look more interesting if the broccoli stems from his neck. The shapes along the stem could nicely approximate the sternocleidomastoids. Right now it seems to be sprouting from his chest, the ends of the stem running into his pecs.

Also, the Dali painting is of Frida Kahlo, so "SHE's got a big green splotch on HER face", Rydin.  ;D
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ptoing on November 07, 2007, 06:03:38 pm
Also, the Dali painting is of Frida Kahlo, so "SHE's got a big green splotch on HER face", Rydin.  ;D

Haha, why would anyway wanna paint Kahlo, really (apart from herself). Funny joke tho :P
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 07, 2007, 07:36:29 pm
i don't think shar was implying that alternative color styles are bad, just that they are more difficult to understand, which i agree with.  I also agree that I put together colors that agitate each other and that this doesn't help readability at all. 

Personally, I enjoy when, in certain pieces, the colors fight each other because i think it creates an excitement.  This comes from a personality however that prefers not to really look at the subject matter but rather to revel in the interplay between the hues and shades.

i'm engaged in a constant struggle between finding certain things appealing (garish color mixing) and making good (readable) art.  I love representative abstraction (to the point where it isn't always even clear WHAT is being represented anymore), and that isn't readable, either.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Rydin on November 07, 2007, 09:01:25 pm
Big Brother, are you sure? It says it is a self-portrait on the site I got it from... (http://www.virtualdali.com/21RaphaelNeck.html)  :P But I do agree that it looks a lot more like Frida's likeness than Dali's...  Anyways, back to critique and such.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Doomcreator0 on November 07, 2007, 10:06:26 pm
Great Job Adarais, however a comment on the legs. Some of the AA there near the back of the leg, doesn't look good. The red-brown color doesn't help with aa and instead to me just makes it stand out more.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: sharprm on November 07, 2007, 10:16:25 pm
I think the old one looks better. Maybe just make his right arm a bit bigger (its too small i think). On his jacket, what is that blue thing? Could you make it more readible or remove it? I think the belly button is too big.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 08, 2007, 06:50:40 pm

Also, the Dali painting is of Frida Kahlo, so "SHE's got a big green splotch on HER face", Rydin.  ;D

What? That's Dali himself.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: infinity+1 on November 08, 2007, 07:08:46 pm
doesn't look like either to me.
edit: retarded
<-- doesn't know anything about dali.
did the homework. yeah, it's a self portrait, or more specifically "Self-Portrait with Raphaelesque Neck."
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 08, 2007, 08:25:59 pm
the blue is supposed to be the big blue sticker that my grocer puts on every organically grown meat/vegetables :P

it makes less sense out of context i suppose; that and the price tag hanging off his rubber-bandana

Dali was such a pretentious self-absorbed fucker and that portrait is in no way similar to Raphael's work.  Raphael's necks, though elongated (it's a matter of idealization imo), are never more than about half a head and the shin is always upturned to make it work.  Dali just made himself an ostrich and proclaimed it masterful.  [/rant]
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 08, 2007, 08:30:30 pm
Dali was such a pretentious self-absorbed fucker [/rant]

Before you judge Dali as if he's your cousin, you should invest some time in learning about Surrealism (as an art movement in a specific point in history) and realising that every surrealist essentially had their own surrealistic experiment going on, and Dali's isn't in his art, it is in how he handled himself and his position as 'artist'. When it comes to his sayings and publicity stunts, read between the lines. [/rant]
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 08, 2007, 10:56:02 pm
it wasn't clear from my post at all, but:

i've studied the movement(s) (it fascinates me), his public self, and personal self (through his writings and those of his friends).  I'm no expert, and i certainly did not know him, but don't think i'm judging based on a single digital reproduction of his work. 

Not that you're going to present this argument, but in case someone does, it seems every time i talk about dali's self-absorption, someone says "that's not true, he hated himself!"  and "that's not true, his artwork doesn't necessarily represent his own personality!" This is something that has never made sense to me, as being self absorbed is not the same as liking oneself, it's about being constantly obsessed with oneself and how one is seen.  if anything, both of those traits are prime examples of the self-absorbed.  As far as pretentious, i think he, like most of his colleagues, would embrace the fact.

really helm, that you might not share an opinion does not mean it is unfounded.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 08, 2007, 11:12:37 pm
I'm sorry but well-founded opinions of artists of such tremendous impact as Dali do not usually boil down to "Dali was such a pretentious self-absorbed fucker". If you've studied more on the subject as you say, you didn't show it in your first post on him, and that's why I said what I said.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ndchristie on November 09, 2007, 12:18:07 am
meh, any opinion that can't be expressed in a single statement can't be expressed in anything less than a lengthy essay, and since this isn't a thread critiquing dali, it hardly seemed like the place to write one.  while of course it's more complicated than that original statement, that's still the general idea of what would take volumes to properly say.

i suppose you can consider the first statement my "commitment in relativity."
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Derek on November 11, 2007, 01:01:01 am
What artist isn't pretentious and self-absorbed and self-obsessed?
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: ptoing on November 11, 2007, 02:33:44 am
I would say as long as you do not pretend that your ideas are more than they actually are you would not classify as pretentious.

I would say pretty much everyone who thinks a bit for himself can develop a view of the world which differs quite a bit from that of others.
And if that leads to ideas which you then manifest into paintings which some way or another represent how you see the world this is not at all pretentious, as long as you do not try to tell others there is an extra profound depth to them which is not there. Easy as that. If you are honest with yourself and your art you are NOT pretentious.

I would also say there are quite a few artists which were not self-obsessed, like Klee or Moser for example from what I read about them.
All depends tho on how you interpret the term "self-obsessed". Is painting a self portrait already self-obsession or can it also be just a way of reflecting upon yourself.

Self absorbed is something totally different again and not necessarily something negative. It's just that some people would rather be alone alot or need lots of space for themselves. My 2 eurocents.
Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Derek on November 11, 2007, 03:53:28 am
That's a good answer, Ptoing. :)

But whether we vocalize it or not, we've all made artworks we thought were masterpieces, right?  Every now and then I make something I think is bloody brilliant.  A few days later, of course, I think it's absolute utter shite, but still... it's that cycle between creative ecstasy and loathing that drives me to keep working at it.  Without either I don't know if I could be bothered to keep at it.

Dali liked to toot his own horn and he was a consummate showman, neither of which makes him particularly pretentious in my eyes.  And he could draw, make sculpture, make films... all of which have had tremendous influence on artists that followed him.  So if Dali enjoyed being Dali, I wouldn't hold it against him. :P

Regarding the piece, I really like it.  The only criticisms I can offer is that 1. the colors are all so low saturation that nothing really stands out.  It'd be cool if you bumped up the saturation of the red bandana and jacket to bring them out, perhaps.  And 2. it's hard to discern what the face is supposed to look like.  Great job, though!


Title: Re: pixeljoint weekly challenge
Post by: Helm on November 11, 2007, 01:04:18 pm
Quote
I would also say there are quite a few artists which were not self-obsessed, like Klee or Moser for example from what I read about them.
All depends tho on how you interpret the term "self-obsessed". Is painting a self portrait already self-obsession or can it also be just a way of reflecting upon yourself.

Yeah. To the uninitiated for example, Klimt is just a narcissist (and Dali just a fraud) but things are more complicated, yes. Also for example, I've been told I am in love with myself too for the number of self-portraits I've done, and I don't even enjoy drawing myself really, I just find things there.

Quote
Dali liked to toot his own horn and he was a consummate showman, neither of which makes him particularly pretentious in my eyes.

Dali liked to pretend a lot, though. I do suggest reading a biography of his or Bunuel's perhaps (who was the surrealist 'straight man' as far as personality goes, in my opinion) to see the why and the how. He overdid it on purpose, it was his surrealist experiment.

On the art: the newest edit by Adarias: a talk of pixel art mathemagic. Wouldn't you say that on the pants directly vertical outlines do not deserve the black color? I'd say you should make the vertical line purple, and then the minus degrees outline below the knee with a black outline where there's even less light. And I'd lose the red single pixels on the shoes. Generally, it's slowly dawning on me a profound truth (hehe, take this with a grain of salt) on the strength and weakness of the 'single pixel'. Do not use single pixels generally unless you're trying to convey a sharp specular. The power of the single pixel is that it stands out like a motherfucker. It stands out way more than two same pixels in a row. So if you're going to colormix the red on the shoes, either do more of it, or don't do it at all. Single pixels just burn holes through the shoes. Granted, they sorta melt into the closeby dark purple lines, but they do not melt in a good way, they burn. Just an idea. I am thinking about the single pixel a lot, lately.