oh ho, i would like to ask why exactly i am "close minded" simply because i object to people telling new guys that "u MUST work like this because THE RULES say so" quite honestly i would say that YOU are the close minded one for insisting on rules at all. also u suggest that i am saying that "fun exciting and dynamic" have to be the same for everyone? again i refer u to the fact that u quote "rules" and "methods" not I.

exactly what is the point of being narky about my avatar? my avatar was done by me on a commodore 64 in 1989 and was the last non commercial pic i ever did on said machine and was possibly my most remembered. it has no "deep and meaningful" significance. its just a nice piece of 80s c64 graphics. kind of like the point i have been making about "prententious cobblers" maybe?

oh and point of order, i am telling nobody on here they are "doing it wrong" simply i am saying that is EXACTLY what all your rules and methodology and copious "do's" and "do nots" seem to do.

I too have posted on here a few times and on the pixel joint. but generally my advice to new guys amounts to "stop trying to make it up" and "use real world refs" when they ask for crits. maybe i should start adding in phrases like "luminance quantization" and other invented pretentious rubbish to get noticed?

Steve

i guess basically what gets to me is terms like "pixel purity" and the making of rules and regulations as to what does does and doesnt classify as "pixel art"

pixel art to the generations that never got paid for has now taken on a "fine art" slant with many on here it seems. with much talking about the "trade" couched in such "arty" terms that i guess it just winds up "graphic designers" (or maybe its just me:) )

u have to understand that to many in the trade, it used to be a real "them" and "us" between fine art students/artists and graphic design students/artists.

basically what it came down to was "we" worked for a living and "they" lived on government handouts unless they got very lucky

realistically what i suppose i take exception to when i say "cobblers" is a percieved (by me) "fine art" drift of a trade that was very dear to me and so it really sets my teeth on edge a bit like listening to someone spouting pretentious crap about a pile of bricks in a gallery trying to impress his lady friend

back to the realms of reality and the applications tho, i do appreciate what u say about it being a pixel app simply because thats all it could do, which is completely true. i would ask you to consider that the truth is, if it could have done more, would we have used these options?

YES we would. tbh we would have killed for photoshop airbrush and where would the "purity" have been then? basically YOUR "pixel purity" stems from the fact that OUR apps couldnt do all we would have liked (is that very deep and philosophical or what)

lastly (thank god u say) i have seen since reading this type of forum many, many crits and tutorials that seem to tell any newbie that to show any pixels or jaggies is bad form. i cant say i can agree with this at all. pixels are your media to deny them and to disguise them all makes IMHO for a very flat and boring image. the way i look at it is that its like an oil painter not wanting to show any brushstrokes, it not natural to me.

hopefully some of this will make sense and explain my "knee jerk" post previously in some way.

Steve

bloody hell mate if u just want some dummy stuff to test code why dont u just borrow some for testing. there is loads around on here

the mountains on this:



would certainly fit your needs for testing code.

but obviously dont use it for the final and quick pm to the artist would be good form.

Steve

sumbliminal or not THAT is Jadzia Dax

Steve