Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyPorViva
Pixel art = attention to every pixel, control of every pixel. When you use an airbrush tool, for instance, it lays hundreds of pixels(depending on the size) of various colors, size, and in different places--none of which did you place directly yourself. You had no control of how many colors it added, where it placed them, and how they directly effected the pixels around it.
Layers are debatable. If you place a layer of a window over a house and make it partially transparent, you're going to add a lot of colors depending on what it's placed over. Many people don't have a problem with this, however, as you are placing pixel art over pixel art, so the color addition would be minimal. If you don't, most people end up manually emulating the same thing anyhow. Manual process is more efficient when you're trying to keep color-count low, though.
Either way, it doesn't depend on the program you use, but how you use it. Photoshop is capable of pixel-art, it's just not tailored to it.
|
I don't see how photoshop is not tailored to it more than any other program.
It offers many different types of pixels for even doing pixel work.
Also, using layers has no real downfall in pixelart as it simply keeps parts off of others.
Opacity, if used correctly, is a great tool for pixelart. It allows you to greatly tone your colors, to a certain look, it doesnt nessacarily add colors unless you use it in a certain way, or only on a portion of the work.
More options for photoshop even include easier rotation rather than redoing the whole work, and color balance lets you see how your art would look in many different tones, and doing so even makes some tasks menial; making potions of different colors requires 1 pixelart and simply color balance them from, for instance, red -> blue.