      |
|
Message Boards |
Recent Search |
| Vexel Art > Vexel Chat > Vexel category at DA? | Page: 1 2 |
Seven |
08th April 2006 - 04:31 pm | |
|
I don't know how many of you have seen this but I'll post it here anyway. It's from Einion's (director of the vector gallery) journal:
Quote
Vexels We've looked into creating a Vexel gallery but for the moment at least that's not going to go ahead. Vexels can fall into a grey area as many of you know, the way some are created means they are truly vectors, being constructed of vector masks in Photoshop for example, and are therefore resolution independent - this is one of the key features of vector art. Other vexels just look like vectors because they are not constructed from vector elements, even though they may have been created using paths initially (as well as including non-vector effects like texture, raster gradients, brushwork, photographic elements/brushes etc.) and these shouldn't be submitted to Vector Art. Some deviants are already careful to submit such pieces to another gallery like Digital Art > Miscellaneous but since it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to tell how something is done we rely on your honesty. Remember, just because a piece isn't suitable for the gallery doesn't mean it's any less good! Don't cheat yourself or fans of your work by submitting to Vector Art if your piece isn't a vector. If you have questions as always, Note me. |
||
Raelynn |
08th April 2006 - 04:47 pm | |
| I think they just want to see how big Vexels get, or if it's just a passing phase. If people keep making vexels, they will eventually add a category. Im guessing Digital Art > Vexels would be the most appropriate. | ||
Andrea |
08th April 2006 - 10:45 pm | |
| I think there will be one eventually. Vexels get more and more well-know. :) | ||
Linda |
08th April 2006 - 11:40 pm | |
| Aw I hope they change their minds. It would clean up the vector category a lot since many people are reluctant to put vexels in the "miscellaneous" category because it's so full of crap. I can't exactly see why they decided against it? Vector goes in vector cat, other vexels goes in vexels cat? | ||
Carina |
09th April 2006 - 12:01 am | |
| There are some amazing vexel artists at dA that don't submit here but put their vexels in the miscellaneous category anyway. | ||
Echoia |
09th April 2006 - 03:00 am | |
| Hmm. : ( It seems like it's popular enough to merit a category, especially since most vector stuff can be classified as vexel anyway. Seems they could easily make Vexels then > Raster and > Vector subcategories. I knew there were lots of good reasons to shake my fist at those people : P | ||
Angie |
09th April 2006 - 04:37 am | |
| Yea, I saw that this morning. I really think they should add a vexel category. It would be nice to have a special category just for vexels, not just 'misc' I'd probably browse more often if there was a vexels category, but whatever...I think they are putting way to much thought into it, and just need to do a few clicks here and there and add a special place for vexels :) | ||
emphaqist |
09th April 2006 - 06:09 am | |
| "Don't cheat yourself or fans of your work by submitting to Vector Art if your piece isn't a vector." Then friggin' create a vexel category so we WON'T submit it to the Vector Art category! |
||
ninjahobbit |
09th April 2006 - 11:14 am | |
|
I submit my work into the Vector Art category, since I used to make 100% vector in Photoshop. Then came my stroke path addiction, which rasterize my work, meaning I probably shouldn't keep submitting it there, but still, everything except hair is vector... :/
Quote Echoia Seems they could easily make Vexels then > Raster and > Vector subcategories. That would be really great actually, since more people might understand what that means than a strange word like vexel... Hmm... |
||
| momo.PEACHiE | 09th April 2006 - 09:59 pm | |
| Y'know, maybe if there's enough demand and people bug 'em enough with petitions or requests or something, they'd prolly cave in. There really should be a vexels category. I hate submitting in the Misc cat, and there's so many vexellers cheating and sticking their work in the Vector cat anyways. |
||
| Seven |
10th April 2006 - 04:08 pm | |
|
Ok, so I asked Einion what the deciding factor in making a vexel category would be, and he replied:
Quote
I actually don't know what the deciding factors might be. There's certainly a lot of interest in it but I don't think that's enough by itself. |
||
| Andrea |
10th April 2006 - 06:12 pm | |
| He means that also a majority of the people has to know what a vexel is? | ||
| Stella | 10th April 2006 - 06:23 pm | |
|
I think it would be good, but people really need to learn the difference between vector and vexel first. A lot of people think that just because you use Photoshop, it's automatically a vexel. WRONG. It's what tools you use with your graphic that defines it as vexel, or vector. It bothers me when people upload graphics with raster-defined aspects into the vector category, and when people have a completely true vector graphic but upload it to the Digital Art > Misc category because they don't know better (since here at www.Vexels.net, let's face it, vector artists upload their vectors here anyways and it's not a vexel). In short, knowledge first, then action.
Quote Echoia Hmm. : ( It seems like it's popular enough to merit a category, especially since most vector stuff can be classified as vexel anyway. Seems they could easily make Vexels then > Raster and > Vector subcategories. I knew there were lots of good reasons to shake my fist at those people : P Wouldn't it make more sense to do Vector category > Raster subcategory instead? Since vexel graphics are originally based off the look of vector graphics. |
||
Linds |
10th April 2006 - 11:27 pm | |
| ^I thought that the deffinition of vexel was going to be changed so that it would justify a style/technique instead of a 'look-alike vector' idea.. So technically Vexel >> Vector > Raster would work (and make a LOT more sense) better then Vector >> Raster. Really though, Rastor Vectors? What an oxymoron, lol. |
||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 05:42 am | |
|
Quote Linds ^I thought that the deffinition of vexel was going to be changed so that it would justify a style/technique instead of a 'look-alike vector' idea.. So technically Vexel >> Vector > Raster would work (and make a LOT more sense) better then Vector >> Raster. Really though, Rastor Vectors? What an oxymoron, lol. I haven't heard that. Rastor Vectors? What an oxymoron, lol. ^Haha I know, I noticed that myself. *stupid* But think about it, vector art came first. It would not make sense to bring it down to a Vexel category. It all started with vector. |
||
| Linda |
11th April 2006 - 05:47 am | |
| I can't see them making vexel a main category, not enough people know what it is and there are many vector elitists out there who would crack the shits (because they think vector is better.. or something). I also can't see them putting the vexel category within the vector category.. because the vector category is for vector. Again, the elitists would go off their nut. I think it would probably be under misc? or drawings? | ||
| Echoia |
11th April 2006 - 06:17 am | |
| No... Vexels are a style that can be done in either raster or vector. That's why it would be 'Vexel Style' followed by 'Raster Medium' or 'Vector Medium'. My point was NOT to move the already-existing Vector category because not everything that is vector is vexel... my point was that vexels could be divided into raster and vector and maybe then people would start to 'get' it. I'm working on changing my website so that I do not always have to vexel in vector- I'll change the 'vector graphics' to 'vexel graphics' and have seperate pages for raster and vector vexels (which means I'll have to have another page of non-vexel vectors and an explanation page telling people what the hell all of that means... yay, fun stuff for me! : P) |
||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 06:22 am | |
| My point was NOT to move 'vector' at all because not everything that is vector is vexel... my point was that vexels could be divided into raster and vector and maybe then people would start to 'get' it. That sounds like it's asking everybody to pick up the new term 'vexel'. And like Linda mentioned, I highly doubt that very many people, especially those top-notch vector artists (which there are more of vexel artists anyways, I think) would be happy with that. |
||
| Echoia |
11th April 2006 - 06:25 am | |
| ... asking them to add a vexel category isn't asking everybody to pick up the new term vexel? | ||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 06:27 am | |
| my point was that vexels could be divided into raster and vector and maybe then people would start to 'get' it. Aren't you saying VEXELS (big category) > Raster & Vector So overall, it would still be a vexel? |
||
| Echoia |
11th April 2006 - 06:32 am | |
| ... ? What? People have been petitioning them to add a vexel category already, right? I do not use deviant art I think it is one of the most overrated garbage sites on the internet and do not know how their categorizing works or how difficult it would be for them to add a category nor have I any interest in them adding one. If there was going to be a vexels category it could have vector and raster subcategories. I assume they already have subcategories because of the first post which mentions 'Digital Art > Miscellaneous'. Because 'vexel' has a stigma attached to it allowing people to add their vector vexels to a vector subgroup might help shake that a bit and find more people wishing to move over to that more specific classification with their vector vexels. Overall -what- would still be a vexel? |
||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 06:42 am | |
| Scratch all that I said, because you have just confused me even more. In all, I think if a vexels category were to be added, it would be because of the raster elements in vexels. To put vectors in a vexels category wouldn't make sense and vice versa. X_X |
||
| Linda |
11th April 2006 - 06:45 am | |
| hahaha.. this is probably why they ditched it :P | ||
| Echoia |
11th April 2006 - 06:52 am | |
|
Quote Stella In all, I think if a vexels category were to be added, it would be because of the raster elements in vexels. To put vectors in a vexels category wouldn't make sense and vice versa. That depends on what you call a vexel... vexel here is defined as a style of graphic, not a method of creating graphics. Their distinguishing characteristic would be that you can see the shapes they are created from. - http://www.vexels.net/what.php -
Quote WhatIsAVexel So what is the difference between vector and vexel? Vector is a type of art, it doesn't have to look like anything in particular. Just like "painting" doesn't have to look like anything in particular, it is just a medium. Vexels on the other hand are a style of art - usually seen as a cartoon version of a photo (although a photo is not always used). ... Are airbrushes vexels? No. The main defining feature of a vexel are the clean block shapes. Airbrushes or blurred vexels do not have block shapes.
Quote Linda hahaha.. this is probably why they ditched it :P Exactly. How can they give something when they dun even know what the hell they're being asked to give? : P |
||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 06:56 am | |
|
Quote Echoia
Quote Stella In all, I think if a vexels category were to be added, it would be because of the raster elements in vexels. To put vectors in a vexels category wouldn't make sense and vice versa. That depends on what you call a vexel... vexel here is defined as a style of graphic, not a method of creating graphics. Their distinguishing characteristic would be that you can see the shapes they are created from. - http://www.vexels.net/what.php - I can't see deviantart adding it because of the style, which is why I mentioned it in that way. If it were to be that way, then I can see the Vexels > Raster and Vector category system working out. But I highly doubt that it will ever happen. |
||
| Andrea |
11th April 2006 - 03:45 pm | |
| To me, Digital art -> vexels would make more sense to me. I don't see the use of splitting that category into vexel--> vector and vexel---> raster though. Maybe OT but... IMO vexels have a defining style yes, it's a certain vector style done in Photoshop.. I believe there are more Vector styles that can't be done in Photoshop and therefore aren't counted as vexels. (like gradient mesh) People who use Illustrator to create actual vectors with the 'vexel style' are allowed to submit them here, as they turn into vexels when they are saved. But like I already said, when people make vectors in Illustrator with techniques that aren't available in Photoshop.. it isn't vexel anymore. :P |
||
| Seven |
11th April 2006 - 03:56 pm | |
|
Quote Linda hahaha.. this is probably why they ditched it :P Wasn't there going to be a clearer explination made or something? |
||
| Stella | 11th April 2006 - 04:20 pm | |
|
Quote Andrea To me, Digital art -> vexels would make more sense to me. I don't see the use of splitting that category into vexel--> vector and vexel---> raster though. Maybe OT but... IMO vexels have a defining style yes, it's a certain vector style done in Photoshop.. I believe there are more Vector styles that can't be done in Photoshop and therefore aren't counted as vexels. (like gradient mesh) People who use Illustrator to create actual vectors with the 'vexel style' are allowed to submit them here, as they turn into vexels when they are saved. But like I already said, when people make vectors in Illustrator with techniques that aren't available in Photoshop.. it isn't vexel anymore. :P If that was how it's defined - vectors turn into vexels when they're saved in a web-friendly format, then there would be no point in calling them vectors, would it? Because all we ever see is a jpeg presentation aka 'vexel'? ^^ |
||
| Andrea |
11th April 2006 - 07:36 pm | |
| Well I mean vexels are vexels, but not vectors... Vectors (that have the vexelstyle :P) are vexels ànd vectors. :P And because the original file is vector, so you can resize it without loosing quality, there is a point in calling it vector? I'm sorry, I'm way too tired and this is way too complicated. :| |
||
| Angie |
11th April 2006 - 08:06 pm | |
|
Quote Linda hahaha.. this is probably why they ditched it :P *nods in agreement* This whole topic confuses me..and I just thought I finally had an 'easy' explanation for vexels... vectors - non raster (resized=good) vexels - raster but looking similar to some vectors (ex: block shapes etc.) ..(resized=crap) o_O |
||
| Vexel Art > Vexel Chat > Vexel category at DA? | Page: 1 2 |
Reply to thread
www.Vexels.net © 2005 · Current Theme by Linda