Talk:Vexel

Citations needed
Are all those "citation needed" tags necessary? Some of the things they are attached to are simple facts man, you can tell just by looking, you dont need someone to tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.123.64 (talk • contribs) 20:16, Jul 25, 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and I've deleted the tags. --Remi de 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

 * A vexel imitates the vector graphics style to give an image a more surrealistic, cartoon-like, or poster-board-style appearance.
 * How is that not possible in vector graphics or photo manipulation as well? Isn't that possible in any form of art? I have removed the sentence since it's not that significant especially in an introduction.


 * a vexel is characterized by the use of the posterization operation (or made to look as such)
 * I feel that that is wrong! The use of posterization can be used beforehand, but the end product is, definitely, not a posterization!!

Xumm1du 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What the fuck is this article about!? It makes no sense at all whatsoever! A high-res vexel image and a vector graphic will look the same on a standard resolution raster monitor, so all this shit makes no effing sense at all! I nominate this article for a complete rewrite!

Awesimo 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't make much sense. By this definition "vexel" is just a vector image saved in raster format. In that case every vector image we vew on the web is a "vexel" as is needs to be rasterized to be viewed in the browser (save for flash-like plugins). It seems more like slang than an art form seperate from any other vector work. Even images drawn in photoshop with pen tool are made up of paths like any other vector until they are rasterized in app, or for output. I do not see how this article is at all necessary. It can be summed up in one line: "Some people call vector images vexels, once they have been rasterized." Maybe the term vexel is more common to other artists somewhere, but it still doesn't seem to be anything more than slang. [or self-promotion for the vexel website]

RICO 68.198.22.162 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary difference seems to be in the tools used; as noted in the article, a vexel uses raster tools such as Photoshop, whereas a vector uses true vector tools like Illustrator. Furthermore, you can view vector graphics on the web, in the form of SVG files. – Mipadi 15:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If a vexel is defined by the tools used to create it and not its current output, then it is impossible to differentiate between a vexel and a rasterized (former) vector image unless you are the original creator of the illustration. Regardless of the application used to create them, (photoshop or illustrator) they are mostly created with the same vector tools, namely the pen tool. If a vector image is created in illustrator and then imported to a raster application is not a vexel because it was not created by raster application, then there is no difference between a vexel and a vector aside from its final output.

"'A vexel does not use paintbrushes, airbrushes or a freehand tool such as pencil.'"


 * These are the raster tools, and vexels do not use them. They are made with same vector tools available in raster programs that are then converted to raster for output. If a vexel is an image that was originally created as a vector image and then saved as a raster image then this entire article can be summed up in one or two lines in the vector article.

RICO 68.198.22.162 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As even the example image proves there is no need for this article, being that the image being called a vector is also a raster image. There is no difference between the "vector" and the "vexel" other than the resolution. I will edit the article to reflect these facts.

RICO 68.198.22.162 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am RICO RicoBlox 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to rewrite the article to bring it up to higher standards, removing many redundancies (geez, can people not see them as easily as I do?) and adding many citations.

I'm moving the criticism section to the talk page pending citations added to it. If you want to put it back in, please find citations for the information below. It's undoubtedly true in many cases, however there are no references, and I'm not able to find any on my own, so it can't be included yet. 76.193.114.134

Criticisms
Since posterized raster images based on photos are inarguably tracings of photographs, they do not require drawing ability to create, while they yield drawn, but somewhat photorealistic images. The lower threshold of accessibility to this art form has been a source of criticism.

Another criticism is the claim that traced vexels do not create anything new (one of the characteristics of Art), when compared to a true vector tracing. A traced vexel using multiple posterized images can be traced up to the point that it is photorealistic. However, since it is a raster image, it does not scale well. This is why a vexel is not seen as valuable to these critics. It has been repeatedly argued that, had the image been created as a true vector (using similar workflow), the image would be an improvement upon the photo because it could be scaled to any size.

The controversy of whether or not vexel images are worth much can be undoubtedly argued. However, many aspects of "vexels" remain unseen. For instance, technically, up until the point that a "vexel" is saved, it can be considered a "vector" image if implemented in a vector graphics program. Also, many vexels are created at very high resolution and thus gain most of the benefits of a vector. Practitioners in the art will often sample their images at low resolution to get a buyer at high resolution.

Some also argue that creating a vexel takes more skill than just simply clicking and coloring, as the artist must still have a keen sense of hue/saturation, skin tone, and an overall propensity to determine what looks correct. The addition of hair colors, accessories, clothing, and eye color is not uncommon.

move to wiktionary?
This page is perhaps best suited for the wiktionary since it is a neologism.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms

This appears to depend on the amount of secondary sources about the term. I suppose there are enough, but the policy doesn't define "enough". 76.193.114.134

Totally agree. Also, in the description of the difference in the image they are both created using shape layers unless the "vexel" was created with paintbrushes(...etc). One just appears to have a higher resolution. RicoBlox 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright/DPI section removed
I removed the section: "Also, with the advent of the Internet, 300 dpi is no longer considered a must in amateur digital art. 72 dpi is considered sufficient for most vexels, since it will not appear in print in most cases. Indeed, since most vexels are tracings, printed versions would likely constitute copyright infringement, unless the use of the image fell under fair use (in the United States)." because: DPI has no matter on the internet. It can be 72, it can be 300, it can be 300,000 and with a corresponding width/height, it will be the same exact pixel size. DPI and document size does not matter on the internet, and it should not be included. Copyright infringement can happen anywhere, not just in print, obviously. The copyright part should not even be included, because it sort of assumes that vexels are made from OTHER people's work. When in a traditional case, it would be assumed that the artist would use his or her own work to create a vexel. Copyrights need not to be included unless it becomes an issue in the vexel community. -- Dan Leveille TALK 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

403 Forbidden on a Reference link
The first link probably requires a log-in to access. Hence, I am marking it as a defunct reference. If someone can provide an open reference, kindly replace it. musically_ut (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)