Pixel Art Details

Title:	Under Water
Pixel Artist:	Luther (Level 1 Rookie :: 186 points)
Posted:	3/6/2007 4:04:34 PM
Statistics:	51 comments :: 58 favorites :: 0 avatars
I did this one a few years back in dpaint. It's 640x480 and took forever. I used a photo from a diving magazine as reference. It was my last pure pixel image (can provide the creation history if you want it) before biting the bullet and just doing things in photoshop. Since discovoring Pro-motion, I hope to do a bit more of the pixel stuff.

What do you think?

If you would like to comment you will need to be logged in.
Register now. It only takes a moment and it's free!

BillionGull (Level 1 Gangster) at 4/9/2013 8:57:51 PM

Amazing :O

EdJr (Level 6 Yonkyu) at 7/16/2012 3:56:46 PM

Holy sheet.

vampireslug (Level 4 Deputy) at 4/24/2012 7:05:28 AM

Holy cow, this is gorgeous... your use of light is nothing short of amazing.

ThePixelKnight (Level 7 Colonel) at 9/9/2011 11:27:26 AM

@#$% amazing! ¦ :¬O

Dino502Run (Level 6 Serial Killer) at 1/7/2010 4:55:36 PM

absolutely amazing. Anyone who says this is bad is incredibly ignorant.

Laughing Dove (Level 1 Rookie) at 1/7/2009 2:06:32 AM

Holy ca-rackers. Wait, what's everyone argueing about? It's so absolutely beautiful! Colour use seems pretty dern justified... ._. Dude, RSI, are you not affected by it? XD Lord!

Sig~ (Level 6 Hitman) at 8/21/2008 6:50:08 AM

Is a pixel art? omg, amaaazing!!!!!!!!

Hedde (Level 1 Depressed) at 6/24/2008 8:11:07 AM

Amazing, the light looks really nice. :)

LeJourVert (Level 1 Rookie) at 11/10/2007 10:28:15 PM

I'm with FlyGuy, the subtlety of the colors and the hand picking of those colors is important to create the effect.

Xanon (Level 1 Private) at 4/9/2007 2:07:36 PM

OMG! B-e-a-utiful!

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/18/2007 11:13:14 AM

Hi AirJoe,
They removed it as it was essentially a duplicate and it's 'not the done thing' to post WIPs in that way (I've since learned).
You can get the WIP at http://cs-svr1.swan.ac.uk/~cstim/art/under_water_wip.gif

Airjoe (Level 1 Jukyu) at 3/15/2007 3:17:54 PM

Where can we view the WIP? I went to the gallery, but it says it needs a revision before it can be viewed.

FlyGuy (Level 9 Boss) at 3/11/2007 10:24:52 AM

Luther I would just like to say this is spectacular! And I just love the logo in the bottom right

anyway...I see people arguing over the fact that to many colors were used. In this case I think it is very acceptable...Let me show you why.

I looked at this image for a while. You see where the sun is in the water? and the light rays are pouring in....well in the top left of that there is a very very white shade of blue. you can barely see it without zooming in 6x or 8x on MSpaint. if you took the white right next to it and filled it in, it would ruin the feel. it needs those extra colors to make it feel more realistic. I'm kind of getting tired of people who have been doing pixel art for a while and think they are gods saying that more than a set number of colors is no longer professional work. I know almost nothing technical about pixel art, so i apologize if i'm making some bad points here. I just think that if you really look at the picture and see it for true art and not a car someone is working on or something...you can really see why the extra colors are needed.

give it a try, color reduce this and show how it can look just as beautiful.

6/6 good work luther, someday i hope to be this good..

Fool (Level 6 SWAT) at 3/9/2007 6:16:54 PM

Like it for what it is, very moody.=) Greate work.

cerealkiller54 (Level 6 Made) at 3/9/2007 4:14:02 PM

Thanks for a new desktop pic! lol

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 7:58:58 AM

I`ve just had a bit of time to read through your replies properly Helm and I do see your point.
The demo scene was always about demonstrating technical skill.
In a strange way, the demo scene artwork, although heavily based on copies, offered it's own style and charm but my admiration has always been with the technical achievement and not the artistic side.

No offense or disrespect has been implied intentionally. This is a subject that many of us are pretty passionate about and, as there's no easy way of showing emotion in text, it's pretty hard to debate this subject without it sounding aggressive.
We're all outspoken people and I actually admire and respect anyone who stands up for themselves and evokes a good heated debate.

If we were all in a room talking about this subject I`m sure our current feelings to each other would be much more positive.

So, Luther, how's it been for you so far - Oh Dear. You know, we don't hate each other really

hehe! I`ve just found this and it's pretty appropriate to this debate.
http://www.kameli.net/nocopy/index.htm

This link from the website http://www.kameli.net/nocopy/disint.htm is especially interesting.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 7:09:22 AM

ikke:
I agree, I'm working on a 32 colour piece at the moment (in between builds) which may or may not be as good as some of my old stuff as I'm a bit rusty. Having said that, using Pro-motion feels a lot more natural than photoshop, even though I now know my way around the later, as those dpaint short cut keys are burned in to my reflexes pretty deep :)

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 7:01:41 AM

Helm, I didn't say I have worked with the best pixel artists.

I`ve not added any new artwork recently because I choose to spend the majority of my social life with my wife and two children.
My working day is spent as a graphic artist so you can appriciate I`ve not always got the time or energy, after work, to sit down and start drawing all over again.

This isn't to say I`ve not been busy, all be it a bit slow. There is a new picture in the pipeline and it's 100% my own work.
When it's ready I`ll post it up.

iLKke (Level 8 Guerrilla) at 3/9/2007 6:49:48 AM

This is technically very nice, but not much other than that, I'm afraid.
I personally see no controversy in the way this image was made.
Like I said before, I would like to see you do some new pixel stuff. It's perfectly ok to post old work, but pixeljoint starts making sense as a community when you start posting your new pixels.

Helm (Level 5 Detective) at 3/9/2007 5:39:41 AM

I adore a lot of demoscene artwork. And even Lazur who you see me disapprove of, he's probably my favourite technician in pixel-art. Nothing's ever as simple as it seems. I see the faults in the scene and I won't let a feeling of nostalgia or hero-worship cloud my judgement.

About critique: besides the color usage thing which was mentioned: Your manual AA is very blurry in places. This is good for some bloom effects or whatnot, but sharp 2-point AA is very useful to bring focus and clarity to detail, which you don't seem to do. Limited color AA is a skill one learns naturally from working with smaller palettes, as I urged you before.

A lot of your dithering ( stippling as you say) is messy, and sometimes since you have so many shades, you neglect to dither one level of transition while the others are, which when one zooms in, looks kinda bad. At 1x zoom of course most of these things cannot be seen.

Furthermore, your palettes besides being huge redundant ramps, limit the cohesion of this piece. Instead of 3 blue ramps and a slightly greenish one, you could have maximized cohesion by having a *single* ramp of 32 or even 64 colors, meticulously hand-picked so the tints can both be used as such, but also as AA and buffer colors where needed. Generally palette seems to be your greatest fault.

Pixelling for me is about good AA, dithering, color conservation and promoting the aesthetics of the medium ( like occasionally not hiding the pixels for example). This piece could use work in all the technical fundamentals of the medium, and I can't critique the aesthetics of it because it's a copy - of a beautiful picture, but a copy nonetheless.

If you want more critique, I'd urge you to join Pixelation, as this is a board dedicated to pixel art critique, whereas Pixeljoint is foremost a pixel art showcase.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 4:56:38 AM

Helm,
You seem to have a beef with the demo scene in general and it was those derogatory comments that lead me to write an essay of a post in reply. I've already stated that I don't have the source photo from this, it was from a magazine at an old work place and has probably now been decomposing happily on a compost heap somewhere in Japan for five years, or has been recycled to make 'Hello Kitty' stationary.
Please, by all means crit the hell out of my work. Also note that, of the pictures I've submitted so far, only two used photo references. The rest are original works, some inspired by the style of other artists but none copied from their work. I do not pass of the artistic work of others as my own.
For the Hawaiian picture, I again used photo references for the girl but the rest is from my own head (I'm good at clouds :) I can also draw fairly realistic looking people without the need of reference but I only got to that level by copying from life!
If you want non skill-builder pieces then just look at my gallery. I challenge you to find the 'originals' of those. Actually, you won't have to look far as they are the originals.

Helm (Level 5 Detective) at 3/9/2007 4:42:36 AM

e future your full history in the medium will arrive at amazing, original pieces that will delight the eyes of your fellow pixel-artists.

Helm (Level 5 Detective) at 3/9/2007 4:41:45 AM

Do you see me shouting 'burn this?' anywhere. Please do not make a strawman out of my argument. As with AndyOaks back then I am making a sensible argument, without trying to insult anyone. He got all uppity about it back then, then calmed down and apologized, regardless of his sarcastic rants now. It will be better for all involved if you treat me with the politeness I'm treating you. The issue is not personal.

A lot of people use reference for their artwork. It's frowned upon to depend on them as a crutch in any artistic field, not just pixel art. It's one thing to use reference as a guide and for confidence, and another to copygrid everything. It's sadly a bit of a more pronounced problem in the pixelling world than in other places and I'll explain why later on.

You mention Renaissance painting. A lot was commissioned work like 'paint me and my bride' and since there was no photography, painting served as a very practical service for those with the money to afford. We do not discredit their work because it is valuable in many, many ways in terms of art-history, sociology, and finally for the advancement of the 'craft' aspect of painting ( that is, brush-strokes and color usage and such). In a relevant way, I can understand - and I've done a few 'copies' myself for such reasons - technical reproduction in pixel art, it is indeed useful for learning the craft. The 'copy' problem wouldn't be an issue for me for this piece if you had supplied the reference image and b) I could see no-copy pieces of yours submitted for comparison. The reason I commented on this was mostly about the index painting thing.

Personally, no I don't count any of that period's artwork as my favourite pieces, and those that I do enjoy I enjoy more for secondary reasons ( from a historical standpoint ) than because they speak to me on any visceral level. The more a piece is based on imagination and not on photographical realism, the more interested I tend to be. My favourite painter is Max Ernst, for example.

In the demoscene, a lot of young folks with nothing but time on their hands sat down and said "I'll be the most popular scenester in the scene!". To do this, since they lacked amazingly in traditional drawing skills, they pulled out their dnd books and copied the covers. This created a scene full of meticulously-detailed and often tasteless reinterpretations of muscley Boris barbarians and dragons and babes. Most original work lost in the demoparties to them, and when legends of the scene world like Lazur did no-copy pieces they were so disappointly worse than their copies that basically the scene tries to avoid the issue of copying all-together, instead prefferring the illusionary level that the scene graphicians seem to be than their actual skill level and ability to create evocative pieces on their own merits. This demoscene mentality flourished in the hands of 15-18 year-old scenesters, but it prevails still, and there's people claiming bragging rights as pixel gods for their copied artwork.

Seeing how this is the recent history of the medium, do you understand why it's doubly an issue if people copy (not just use reference)? It's wholey redundant since one can - and oh man, how the scene did - convert photos now and repixel bits for 'pixel cred' and pass it like you're awesome. PASSING AS IF YOU'RE AWESOME IS THE POINT OF THE SCENE. Do you see why it's important for many of us these days that pixel art is more honest than that? I'd rather see people doing their own work and having flaws in anatomy and such, but showing their pieces for critique and trying to get better, than people copying Boris in 30 hours. In your benefit you did say this is a copy, you just didn't supply the original piece. You'd be suprised how less amazed the commenters would be if they could see the original. It's a sin of ommission, but a sin nonetheless. It's the same mindset that leads Lazur to copy a Thorgal comic and then sign it 'Lazur' in the corner. It's technically true the piece was reproduced by him, but would you feel comfortable to sign it without putting a 'copy' sign somewhere?

You say I put people down who are not 'leet' enough. What I say is the opposite of 'leet'. Because in this scene, 'leet'ness arrives at examples like Lazur, who does copies BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS, but can't draw an anatomical figure on his own to save his life.

You say this is a skillbuilder piece. I'll be glad to see non-skillbuilder pieces from you in the future then. I find many technical flaws in this picture, but you didn't ask for any critique so I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

AndyOaks: respect is earned, not requested for. You worked 'with the best pixel artists' as you say, yet I don't see any new artwork from you since we last had a similar conversation, and certainly no no-copy work. I hope in th>*** Message has been truncated ***

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 2:53:36 AM

Helm:
So, we should discount the work of all the renaissance painters because they 'copied' from life, used a camera obscura, or a grid to get proportions right? Should we burn their canvases because their work failed to meet your criteria? Should we lambast them for not being 'leet' enough?
I've found during my dabblings in image creation that in order to improve your skill, both in painting, pixel art, digital painting, 3D modelling and whatever, it is absolutely necessary to do technical pieces in order to learn the artisan skills that you can later apply, if you choose to do so, to original work of your imagination. If you look at my gallery and also at my other, non-pixel, digital and traditional pieces, this is exactly what I have done. I have also clearly stated when an image used photo-reference or was influenced by anothers work.
I'm not the best artist out there and I think that my technical works do look better than my totally original pieces but then, despite having a very good knowledge of how light physically behaves from coding 3D graphics for years, that is to be expected.

Necky (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 2:03:06 AM

I think I speak on behalf of us oldies. Our techniques have been aquired by studying scanned images when they were pretty rare to get hold of. I used to load up a photo in DPaint (when one was possible to get hold of, which wasn't very often) and study it to see how you could achieve the antialiasing, shading that you get from a photo.

At the time it wasn't nastolgia that drove us to create fresh work, but inovation. This can't be replicated today because of the advancements in computer graphics, but back then pixel work was cutting edge stuff.

I don't count myself as a 'demo scene' pixel artist, and do I do find that term deogoratory. I've created pixel work for many games for over 16 years, and still continue to do so. I've seen every aspect of pixel work, worked with some of the best pixel artists there are. So defining what consitutes as pixel art today is like telling an eskimo what snow is.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 1:35:33 AM

Hi guys,
I wasn't really expecting all the controversy- I'll try and use less colours with any new pics I post here, not because I'm trying to save on disk space (although I have done things in fewer colours for that same reason) but because it's less likely to boil blood.
I often use more closely packed colours in the brighter ranges as the eye is more sensitive to changes of intensity in bright colours than dark ones, which is why I can get away with those large areas of stippled colour in the rocks on the left. It's the same reasoning behind gamma correction - that packs more colour detail for bright shades and less for dark ones to avoid banding and as a kind of colour space lossy compression.
The kind of blurred effect is fairly easy, if a bit laborious, to achieve using standard tools. Just set up your ramped palette in dpaint, get the fingers over the '[' and ']' keys for cycling the colours and get to work with progressively smaller brushes. Then go back and tidy, adding stippling where needed. Anti-aliasing by hand is one of those skills that is now almost totally redundant in professional CG but which took me an age to get right. I can now anti-alias as well as the best rotated grid, edge enhancing 128 sample AA routine but not as quickly. The AA in this image was all done by hand.
One of these days, when I've finished my other programming projects and probably in my advanced dotage, I'll write a bloody dpaint clone that does record every pixel you drew and can save the results out to an animation.
Also, where on this site is the FAQ that defines exactly what is considered 'pixel art' these days?

Helm:
Yes, I can see the difference but you're probably right, I could have used less colours. I could also have decided to do it in photoshop, ega mode, as a 3D model or not to do it at all. However, I did it as I did it and I'm afraid those are the breaks. Please feel free to remove duplicate colours if you like. Whilst this was indeed a technical piece, using a photo for reference, I can, infact, draw freehand as well!

Haash:
Crap, don't say that! I sometimes feel that way when I see what I consider to be awesome work and sometimes it inspires me to improve my own work, depending on what side of the bed I got out of. This image was the culmination of around 15 years experience in pushing pixels and also, probably more importantly, results from actually having the time to create it. It took a week working 9-5 whilst I was criminally underemployed at a web design department - they really should have found something useful for me to do.

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/9/2007 12:14:21 AM

B.O.B - point taken dude

I`ve experienced this first hand and saw red when I saw it happen to another newly joined artist.

I suppose if art is about evoking a reaction then there's no mistaking these technical pieces have caused a bit of a stir

Helm, you wrote 'You can understand why people are sceptical of the demoscene practises nowdays? This picture - as with many copies - looks quite formidable, but if you take away the reference, are we left with skillfull pixelling?'

Are we left with skillful pixelling?
My question is 'could anyone draw this with the same reference material in front of them'?
My answer would be, I seriously doubt it. The level of skill involved here is incredible.

ceddo (Level 6 Yonkyu) at 3/8/2007 12:55:42 PM

This piece is beautiful. The rocky background look indeed like legitimate pixel art, but I think it's that surreal blur that eats up huge amounts of colors that have close values that brings up the skepticism.

ptoing (Level 7 Underboss) at 3/8/2007 12:31:02 PM

Necky, by that definition someone who does a painting is photoshop is a pixelartist. You put pixels where you want them, what colour you want them - and not what some blur, autoaa, soften or whatever tool decides for you.

Haash (Level 3 Enforcer) at 3/8/2007 12:28:55 PM

Ok... If this is indeed pixer art, I think I'm going to give up the whole pixel thing!

I mean... Man... Your work is simply awesome in every aspect!

Necky (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 11:48:31 AM

Dude, if you're dropping down them pixels by hand, you're a pixel artist, fullstop. I do get the impression though that it's the style, and not the technique ,that is always up for scrutiny.

Helm (Level 5 Detective) at 3/8/2007 11:31:48 AM

You say you used more colors than 32 for example, on this, to push for the subtle details. This could be color-reduced into using 32 or 64 colors with absolutely no loss of detail or information. Why do you have a pure white, and another color that's 3 saturation more? Can your eyes see the difference? If they cannot, then you're not persuing control, and pixel art as I understand it at least, is all about control of the picture element. Do you think otherwise?
Why do you have duplicate colors (check in pro motion)? Do those show skill with the individual placement of pixels?

You can understand why people are sceptical of the demoscene practises nowdays? This picture - as with many copies - looks quite formidable, but if you take away the reference, are we left with skillfull pixelling? This is why reference, and index painting practises are always an issue. They lead to an illusionary amping of one's skill in the eyes of others, and that's fine in a demoscene party where drunken scenesters vote on which picture has the best boobs, but this place values pixel technique, imagination and skillful execution of subject matter.

I hope to see more controlled, no-copy pictures from you in the future, besides showcases of old works. That would be much more wonderful than dispondent and bitter talk about 'pixel police' and such.

Necky (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 11:27:26 AM

My neighbours cat died today.

p.s. Nice colour pallete!

Necky (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 11:22:15 AM

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the kings horse are all the kings men.

Couldn't put poor ol' Humpty together again.

p.s. Love the shading!

Necky (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 11:19:21 AM

Mary had a little lamb.

Her fleace was white as snow.

and everywhere that Mary went.

The lamb should surely go!

p.s. Great work!

ptoing (Level 7 Underboss) at 3/8/2007 10:55:56 AM

Luther, in general we understand that an image is pixelart if you have full control over every pixel and colour you place and that every pixel is intended to be how it is in the first place.
So using bigger brushes, ditherbrushes, bucketfill, linetools and so on is all fine, you know what they are doing exactly. Tho if you use automatic antialias (i think later versions of dpaint had that) or stuff like soften, lighten, darken, blend, smear and such then it is considered indexpainting. The tools make decisions for you as to which colour to put where.

The B.O.B. (Level 11 Master Assassin) at 3/8/2007 10:29:50 AM

AndyOaks, please try not to draw sarcasm, and passive aggressive behavior towards this debate. We understand that there are others out there that can demolish the talent we have. It's just that in the past, there have been much art that have been submitted here that weren't actually the correct form of pixel art, but moreover, a higher form of digital art, where more advanced tools such as blur, and others. This is also explained in the rules. Does it necessarily mean that it's the correct definition of pixel art? No. But these are the general rules of THIS website. No one barges into a baseball game, and demands they change their rules to fit their individual needs. I guess you can say that their is a certain artistic quality expected of this place, but there is definitely NOT a limit to the level of greatness. So I don't find it in the least bit out of line, that they would consider this to be a skeptical piece.
I've seen the rest of his gallery, and I must admit, most of it seems very much so, like pixel art. However this one looks fairly good, though still questionable. But after seeing the actual WIP, I guess you can both rest assured that you have my vote to let this in(even though I found it strange that the wip didn't show me much, as it skipped most of the detailed portions. Not that I expected him to document each click, or anything...).

p.s. I'm sure after Luther becomes a more active member here, or in more other pixel communities, there should be less conflict or questions toward his artistic integrity...

The B.O.B. out....

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 9:34:40 AM

No, you see Tim, it isn't a true piece of 'index painting' unless you've drawn each pixel.
You're not even allowed to use the bucket fill. Oh no, every pixel must be painted.
Larger brushes, are you mad man! 1 pixel I tell you, not a pixel more not a pixel less.

And dare you draw ANYTHING above a certain quality level and you'll have the pixel police to answer to. They'll come to your house and kidnap your cat at the slightest hint your artwork might look like it was drawn in Photoshop.

You've been warned. The pixel police have this place closely guarded and they take no prisoners. Look out for the high level ranking police. They've written more posts than anyone and have acquired a professional eye in the process to match there status. If your artwork looks dodgy in their eyes then expect the worst.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 8:07:55 AM

No really, I've looked for a definition and I can't find it. I created this image using DPaint, using ramped palettes and standard drawing tools. Does the remit of 'pixel art' as defined by peeps here include not using brushes larger than 1 pixel? If so, then I'm guilty: I did use a 5 pixel size brush for roughing it out but surely that's just common sense? If you mean that it's in an indexed graphics mode then well, duh, that's what it's all about.
No blur, no photoshop, just DPaint and too much time on my hands.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 7:55:00 AM

What do you mean by 'index painting'?

ptoing (Level 7 Underboss) at 3/8/2007 7:53:26 AM

index painting, quite a bit different process to what we would call pixel art today.

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 7:27:37 AM

Elk, I`ve seen Tim working them old pixels and I can honestly say he's the real deal.

He's from the amiga days where pixel drawing was the only way and, to give you some idea on the standards set by pixel artists back then, check out the slideshow from an artist called 'Uno'.
Most of the pictures you'll see were 32 colours and under. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHuj2f1t488

I`ve see WIP of the Uno's work and can say, hand on heart, he drew these in the old way.

AndyOaks (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/8/2007 6:51:11 AM

Simply brilliant Tim.

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/7/2007 1:11:30 PM

Hi guys, check my gallery for the WIP, hope it meets your critera.

Nomade (Level 3 Private Eye) at 3/7/2007 11:40:17 AM

i understand why people find it hard to believe its pixel art.
i find too. =x.
Some WIP gif would be great ;D

Elk (Level 3 Stalker) at 3/7/2007 10:37:16 AM

using a photo as reference isnt hard...

Luther (Level 1 Rookie) at 3/7/2007 8:45:51 AM

Hi,
Wow, thanks for the nice comments. I made sure when I did this one that I had the history and I've got it on an old machine at home. I'll dig it up and post it here. What's the best way to post image histories given that the rules state that they don't like users posting partially finished work? If on the boards, which thread's the best?
As for the amount of colours, I know it's pushing the boundaries of what has become considered pixel art. I appreciate that there are aesthetics in this medium that favour as small a palette as possible: I spent my teens honing my skills on 16 and 32 colour machines (Atari ST and Amiga).
With this image, I wanted to push myself a bit further than I'd previously done and wanted to capture the subtle hues of the source image using 8bit colour, rather than aiming to go for as absolutely few colours as possible. It was kind of my DPaint swan song and although it probably lacks artistic merit as I used a photo for reference (which, unfortunately, I no longer have), I did put my heart into it. It's the best pixel pushing image I've ever made.

I've got a bunch of stuff at home that's more unambiguously pixel art and I hope you guys enjoy them.

The B.O.B. (Level 11 Master Assassin) at 3/7/2007 8:20:13 AM

So far, your gallery is astounding. Only problem is, it's not everyday we see such grandiose pixel art. I'm really having a hard time believing whether or not these were done purely with the natural set of pixel tools. If it's possible though, please provide creation history, so we can see just how it was done, to ensure that it becomes submitted. And if this was done purely pixel by pixel, with no color redux, index, or any other type of advanced tools other than the norm, than you sir have my respect, as this, and the rest of your works are amazing....hope to see some more if it is...

Varock Shade (Level 7 Underboss) at 3/7/2007 8:12:26 AM

it looks very good but maybe a creation history would indeed help me believe this is really pixel art... also 159 colours is very much, especially when everything is about the same hue you could have used less colours...

cure (Level 11 General) at 3/6/2007 6:12:51 PM

creation history plz

Keywords

The following keywords are used to help with the Pixel Joint search tool and to help search engines with appropriate key phrases. Make sure to take some time and add keywords to your pixel art submissions. It actually helps!

Under Water avatars, Under Water icons, Under Water pixel art, Under Water forum avatars, Under Water AOL Buddy Icons

User Name:

Password:

Remember me on this computer


Register \| Retrieve Password

Under Water

Pixel Art Details

What do you think?

Keywords

Related Pixel Art

Report Problem

Register

Already Registered?

Donate

Pixel Art Links