AuthorTopic: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint  (Read 36957 times)

Offline crab2selout.png

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 643
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • lost my left-most pixel in the war
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #10 on: February 25, 2009, 02:28:03 am
Was Miascugh's underwater pic really removed? This one right here?
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/15585.htm

I gotta say that I am shocked. I remember that piece and it looked 100% pixel goodness to me. That removal doesn't sit right with me.

I also didn't know that the demosceners were starting to get their stuff knocked around. Although personally, I don't really enjoy their stuff that much, there is often very interesting techniques or information to glean from those pieces.

Some of these examples almost seem like zealotry by people starting out. I know I used to think the rotate tool should be forbidden. Fortunately, I've realised how stupid that is now.

I can accept the uses of brush and tools in pixel art, but I rarely like the results when there aren't any touchups. I don't like the Daydream pic you linked to. There may be 32 colours but there are a lot of missed opportunities for colour optimising. The blending between out of focus and in focus parts is harsh due to a lack of colours for providing that transition because of the general waste. And there's plenty of jaggies that need a manual touch.

I sometimes like Ikke's index painting, and other times find it a bit smudgey. I like seeing waht can be done with dpaint/promotion index painting since I thought ms paint was the only available drawing tool on computer till photoshop came on the scene.

Offline Larwick

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 738
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • Larwick
    • http://www.pixeljoint.com/p/3794.htm
    • View Profile
    • Artstation

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #11 on: February 25, 2009, 02:33:58 am
I don't believe pixelation has the right to discuss on pixelation what should happen with pixeljoint. If the community as a whole has a problem with pixeljoint, then bring it to pixeljoint's doorstep, because this right here feels more like behind-the-back talking and creating or attempting to create a rift between the two sites.

I shouldn't worry about this, i think it's good to have a discussion here as well as over at PJ because we (or i personally) enjoy the input of Pixelations members, and i know many do not set foot into the PJ forums. Gil nicely linked us up as soon as he posted here so we were informed. Me and PB can jump back and forth enough to not have this as some kind of behind-the-back discussion. I believe sometimes at PJ they have behind-the-back discussions about Pixelation and it depresses me - so we'll fight that sort of thing.

It seems quite clear to me that PJ needs some work. The mods have been working very hard behind the scenes with ideas though but it's taking some time. The issue of PJ being fundamentalist or purist etc seems to stem from the fact that people feel we are somewhat making up the rules for pixel art as a whole, and this idea offends them. We're gunna have to make sure these issues are looked at first. We'll have to stop using certain terms as you guys have pointed out, as they seem to just feed the problem.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 02:36:17 am by Larwick »

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #12 on: February 25, 2009, 02:36:01 am
I was thinking of one of your pieces too though. The progress animation of your robot piece clearly shows a use of index brushes to create a base to work off. Under PJ rules, that wouldn't actually be allowed. They probably just let it true because none of the pixels involved survived in the final piece.

[RANT]
So what? Pixelart is about result more than process. I think when in the end everything is pixelled and controlled and what not you can start by shitting on a piece of paper and taking a photo of that and working over it. As long as in the end every pixel has been thought over and manually revised, fine, pixelart IMO.

Seriously, people who think that the process is what makes pixelart are just trying to stack rules onto stuff that does not need any. IMO pixelart mainly is a medium and an aesthetic. As long as all the tools you use only create 100% foreseeable results then that is fine. Tools are shortcuts. If i want a 1 pixel outline on something i pick it up from the bg in Promotion and press O, which adds an outline, or I set the fill mode to outline. So now if you think, OH NO NPA, he should have pixelled every pixel of that outline himself. Why should I do something I know exactly what it will look like if I use a tool (which would be same outcome as if I did it myself only way faster) by hand. I have better things to do than waste my time.
It's like saying you can only call something oilpainting if you use a 1 meter long brush with 2 hairs max at all time and you can only mix the colours while doing a handstand. Really, think about it. At some point stuff is getting ridiculous and it is hard to take people serious anymore.
[/RANT]
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline pixelblink

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • pixeljoint

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #13 on: February 25, 2009, 02:42:42 am
I wasn't personally involved with the removal and readdition of miascugh's piece but I didn't have a problem with it nor did he seem to have a problem with dogmeat's request either.

I am continually mystified by the handy tools everyone's talking about with ProMotion and would like a copy of my own so I can see what they actually do.

[EDIT]

And I agree with you, ptoing. I think for me, personally, I am more annoyed by seemingly useless high colour counts more than how a piece was created.

[/EDIT]
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 02:47:33 am by pixelblink »

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #14 on: February 25, 2009, 03:06:45 am
I'm going to try not to jump into the discussion too much, as I first want to see lots of different views before commenting on them. Here are some motives for my post, so I don't come off as bashing PJ:

- I am a pretty active member at PixelJoint, I enjoy it there and I check it every day
- I do not want to imply that Pixelation is somehow better than PJ, I'd just like to point out that there have been some excellent improvements here that could benefit PJ
- I posted here, because I think there will be more meaningful response here. Less people defending their turf and all. I consider this forum neutral ground. I posted a link to this thread on PJ too
- I do this with the best intentions, I want PJ to do well

Offline pixelblink

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • pixeljoint

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #15 on: February 25, 2009, 03:16:11 am
I understand your intentions, Gil. I am always grateful that someone wants to stand up and defend their beliefs. I respect you alot for that and don't hold it against you. That said, I think you should continue jumping into this discussion as I'm sure you have alot more to say on the matter.

Question though, what "excellent improvements" are you referring to? I am open to any ideas that could benefit PJ as a site and as a community.

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #16 on: February 25, 2009, 03:26:44 am
Well, basically I'd say that Pixelation has slowly over the years dropped a lot of the rules on what pixel art is supposed to be. Biggest example of this is the addition of the Low Spec forum (not an option for PJ though obviously)

Here are some of my suggestions:

- No focus on tools used to create the art. Only watch the end product for NPA, even if it was created with only a blurry brush and photoshop filters. The end product would have to be pixel perfect of course
- Allow NPA parts of an image if sufficient parts of the image are pixel art. Examples are mockups. Sky gradients with brushed clouds are okay if the tilesets and sprites are all pixel art.
- Create different categories on the site such as "spec art" (art following a ruleset restriction like NES or C64), "pixel pure" (current standards) and "hybrid" (containing some NPA elements, not detracting from the piece being pixel art)

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #17 on: February 25, 2009, 03:33:32 am
- No focus on tools used to create the art. Only watch the end product for NPA, even if it was created with only a blurry brush and photoshop filters. The end product would have to be pixel perfect of course
Problem is, how do you define what is 'pixel-perfect' if not for the process?

I was under the assumption that most people follow the rule: pixel-art is a method by which the artist has full control over what is being placed, pixel-wise and color-wise. This would be a clear contradiction to your proposed method of ignoring the process and only paying attention to the end-product.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 03:35:28 am by Dusty »

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #18 on: February 25, 2009, 03:37:17 am
Dusty, thing is: If you make a sketch in Photoshop and then reduce colours, shrink BUT THEN start going over it and doing pixel revisions = pixelart. The process is not as important as some people make it out to be, really.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline Feron

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1123
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Carpe Diem
    • View Profile
    • Pixelheart

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #19 on: February 25, 2009, 03:46:31 am
to be honest i don't really think it matters what process you use, as long as the final result is one that the creator intended and not some product of the computer.
Use whatever tools you have, and use them well.


I don't really see the need for this debate.  Pixelation has it's rules, as does Pixeljoint.  Any discussion/issues you would like to raise Gil, I'd suggest doing it on the Pixeljoint forum.