I don't get it..

BeZeRkEr · #1 04-16-2003, 01:15 AM

Why do people think that unless you do your work in MSPaint you aren't good?
Pixeling is pixeling.. Just because you use Photoshop has nothing to do with pixeling skills..

Deek2 · #2 04-16-2003, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeZeRkEr
Why do people think that unless you do your work in MSPaint you aren't good?
Pixeling is pixeling.. Just because you use Photoshop has nothing to do with pixeling skills..

Usually those people don't know graphics at all. Your right, your pixeling skills have nothing to do with what program you use. I say it's how you use your skills that matters. I can easily make something in MSPaint as good as something I would make in Photoshop or Jasc PSP, for example. It has nothing to do with what program you use.

--Chris-- · #3 04-16-2003, 02:40 AM

I only have MS Paint XD

Actually the program does influence your work, it allows you to do things faster, more efficiently and stress fee along with having tools to improve certain things =/

AlexH · #4 04-16-2003, 02:43 AM

I think it's because programs like PSP etc all have tools which allow you to do things faster but usually with less quality in the final product.
Even if the person uses it for a base and then goes back and recovers whatever they've done it is seen by other people as sort of "cheating" in making them.
Although I don't see why people wouldn't use them if they could still get a nice final product with it. Why pass up chances you are given?

konidias · #5 04-16-2003, 03:00 AM

It's because most of the time, people that use anything but MS Paint, end up using the filters and special fancy tools that come with the bigger programs. These tools are NOT made for 2D pixel art. Gradients do not pass as shading, and airbrushing doesn't either. Not when you have small pixelated objects.

http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...&postid=808592

There is a good example of why using some kind of photo editor is not good for pixelated artwork. He used some cheap gradient tool to make a "shadow" which looks nothing like a shadow. The thing is supposed to be a pole, and it looks as flat as construction paper.

Then there are the people that uses lens flares and even go as far as using some built in effects to texture EVERYTHING they make, so it looks like crap, but they think it looks good because they are using some big program with all sorts of powerful tools.

Sure, you can make the same stuff in photoshop/paintshop as you can in mspaint, but generally, people don't just use the line and pencil tools to draw in a photo editor. I just don't understand the people that think ms paint sucks. Like the person I heard once that said "it has limited colors". I mean wtf, do you even look at the program for more than 2 minutes? If he did, he'd figure out he can pick any color he wants, and not just the limited colors given on the toolbar.

funnylinkwantsbomys · #6 04-16-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by konidias
It's because most of the time, people that use anything but MS Paint, end up using the filters and special fancy tools that come with the bigger programs. These tools are NOT made for 2D pixel art. Gradients do not pass as shading, and airbrushing doesn't either. Not when you have small pixelated objects.

http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...&postid=808592

There is a good example of why using some kind of photo editor is not good for pixelated artwork. He used some cheap gradient tool to make a "shadow" which looks nothing like a shadow. The thing is supposed to be a pole, and it looks as flat as construction paper.

Then there are the people that uses lens flares and even go as far as using some built in effects to texture EVERYTHING they make, so it looks like crap, but they think it looks good because they are using some big program with all sorts of powerful tools.

Sure, you can make the same stuff in photoshop/paintshop as you can in mspaint, but generally, people don't just use the line and pencil tools to draw in a photo editor. I just don't understand the people that think ms paint sucks. Like the person I heard once that said "it has limited colors". I mean wtf, do you even look at the program for more than 2 minutes? If he did, he'd figure out he can pick any color he wants, and not just the limited colors given on the toolbar.

Yes...i wish their was a amsp program that had more advanced stuff in the menus but everything like pixeling/icons are the same exact

and i like how ms paint its not so confuzin. And you know you love how the zooming icon works

funnylinkwantsbomys · #7 04-16-2003, 01:20 PM

ps: mspaintrox (see attachment)

Spark910 · #8 04-16-2003, 01:28 PM

Doesnt it just!

funnylinkwantsbomys · #9 04-16-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spark910
Doesnt it just!

it ownzzzzz u all (and is very flexible and not so confuzing with so many menus like psp pro) :P

Soul-Blade · #10 04-16-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by konidias
It's because most of the time, people that use anything but MS Paint, end up using the filters and special fancy tools that come with the bigger programs. These tools are NOT made for 2D pixel art. Gradients do not pass as shading, and airbrushing doesn't either. Not when you have small pixelated objects.

http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/a...&postid=808592

There is a good example of why using some kind of photo editor is not good for pixelated artwork. He used some cheap gradient tool to make a "shadow" which looks nothing like a shadow. The thing is supposed to be a pole, and it looks as flat as construction paper.

Then there are the people that uses lens flares and even go as far as using some built in effects to texture EVERYTHING they make, so it looks like crap, but they think it looks good because they are using some big program with all sorts of powerful tools.

Sure, you can make the same stuff in photoshop/paintshop as you can in mspaint, but generally, people don't just use the line and pencil tools to draw in a photo editor. I just don't understand the people that think ms paint sucks. Like the person I heard once that said "it has limited colors". I mean wtf, do you even look at the program for more than 2 minutes? If he did, he'd figure out he can pick any color he wants, and not just the limited colors given on the toolbar.

Hmm I agree. Though truth be told, for larger graphics I make a outline, color, and prelim shading in MSPaint and I touch up shade in PSP with only pencil, and a 20% opacity level x-x. Actually, any other tool is worthless in that program, as it is mainly for web graphics. Pixel art is not compatible with it.

MadWolf · #11 04-16-2003, 07:30 PM

Photshop can be used to make good Graphics, ofcourse. BUT, photoshop is a PHOTO EDITING PROGRAM. Emphasis on the 'edit' please? MS Paint seems to be a favorite choice because of the fact, it's simple and easy to use. I use for all my pixel work. Ofcourse some poeple out there think your not a Pixel Artist without this handy program. That is false, as there are other paint programs besides PSP and Adobe. One I used to use is GIMP. Veru useful. Pixels + Layers = Sexy.

konidias · #12 04-16-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadWolf
Photshop can be used to make good Graphics, ofcourse. BUT, photoshop is a PHOTO EDITING PROGRAM. Emphasis on the 'edit' please?

Haha, how about emphasis on PHOTO. I mean, it's made for editing photographs, not pixelating game graphics.

Deek2 · #13 04-16-2003, 11:02 PM

Gimp=rox. Just as useful as photoshop, and it's free

.

PsYcHoRaYmOnD · #14 04-17-2003, 12:14 AM

entirely in ms paint....yes i realize its a bit small

Ghost Pirate · #15 04-17-2003, 01:20 AM

I use imageready

MKSLAYER · #16 04-17-2003, 02:00 AM

i use image ready too some times photo shop.... its basicaly the same thing as i would with paint the only difference is is that i can zoom in further so i can be more exact.....of course im a real newb at making kingdom gfx (look at the samurai wand and sai i made =_=) im pretty much use to making like im things and junk i dunno but basically im saying that photo shop is more convienent if you have imaging as a job. and also Adobe Illustrator could possibly be a good choice to if you know how to opperate it. of course i cant say that oppions are wrong im just trying to say each program has its strong points. paint is limited to basic graphics. photo shop is a medium tool used to (of course) edit photo's, a little bit of web stuff and the same pixeling skill as paint. Illustrators strong points are exact and precise lines good for most all graphic's. of course with all the editions that photoshop, image ready and illustrator have they are also hard to work with (especialy illustrator)

PsYcHoRaYmOnD · #17 04-17-2003, 03:42 AM

i only use imageready for animating...and photoshop for transparencies...nothing more

BeZeRkEr · #18 04-17-2003, 11:21 AM

Ok..
Made the attachment completely in Photoshop.. Using nothing but pencil tool and layers. No filters at all.

Photoshop and Paint are not that much different besides the photograph editting options. It is still pixeling. I don't get how doing it in a different program that is based on the same things makes you suck at graphics or makes you leet.

UrashimaX · #19 04-17-2003, 11:41 AM

Easier to set transparency in Photoshop, too. I know you can do it in MSPaint too, but.... :ninja:

MadWolf · #20 04-17-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeZeRkEr
Ok..
Made the attachment completely in Photoshop.. Using nothing but pencil tool and layers. No filters at all.

Photoshop and Paint are not that much different besides the photograph editting options. It is still pixeling. I don't get how doing it in a different program that is based on the same things makes you suck at graphics or makes you leet.

It doesn't, just some people feel that way. BTW, nice work.

Quote:

Originally posted by konidias

Haha, how about emphasis on PHOTO. I mean, it's made for editing photographs, not pixelating game graphics.

Exactly

draygin · #21 04-17-2003, 07:32 PM

The only thing I dont like about MSpaint is when trying to make Gif's the colors get all messed up. Is there any way to make a gif with out having it mess up the colors? Such as if I made it with bmp then converted to gif? Or do I have to work in gif from the start and adjust all the colors manuelly since the predefined colors get messed up?

LordZen · #22 04-17-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by draygin
The only thing I dont like about MSpaint is when trying to make Gif's the colors get all messed up. Is there any way to make a gif with out having it mess up the colors? Such as if I made it with bmp then converted to gif? Or do I have to work in gif from the start and adjust all the colors manuelly since the predefined colors get messed up?

I dont ever use mspaint to save in .gif format for that very reason. Unfinished projets I save as .bmp, and when I have a final product I highlight the area I want saved and copy-paste it into Animagic window. From there I can set transparencies, create animated gifs or just plain gifs. Then I use gif2mng.exe (which comes with graal), if I need it in png or mng format.

Umm try that.

draygin · #23 04-17-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordZen

I dont ever use mspaint to save in .gif format for that very reason. Unfinished projets I save as .bmp, and when I have a final product I highlight the area I want saved and copy-paste it into Animagic window. From there I can set transparencies, create animated gifs or just plain gifs. Then I use gif2mng.exe (which comes with graal), if I need it in png or mng format.

Umm try that.

I do that for png's and mngs other wise mine never work in graal. But whats Animagic? Is it something you can download?