badam!

@Mermaid :
Thanks for pointing this CSDB thread, It allows me to report the thoughts of the authors, because.. context matters (:

Lastly, I'll be the third (not the last I hope) to quote this appropriate metaphor of yours:

"It's like learning to ride a bike in a way. Pure converts is a bit like sitting in your dad's bicycle basket. Retouching a scan is more like riding a tricycle. Copying something by hand is like riding a bike with support wheels. So get off the tricycle and give that bike with support wheels a try."

More fuel:
I'm quoting Celtic >

I would like to state that most 98% of the pics i do are wirejobs/converts etc.etc. I still spend hours and hours on them refining, adding pixels, removing pixels, etc. but i wanted it out there so i dont get accused for anything in the future.

and lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it.

source: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1

@CONS (to fuel the "how that works"):
I'm quoting Digger >

"Now, the trick is how do you squeeze thousands (if not million) colours palette into 11 colours (hires/multi char mode) and still preserve the high quality of the original image. It took me a lot of hours (besides coding my own pixel editor and displayer) to tidy up pixels and make the details looking good. Haven't added anything from myself as I wasn't supposed to – have asked the author for permission to USE his work but nor REMIX."

source: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1

@ALiEN:
Well, I don't get your variations for the term "originality", IMO, recoloring a piece of art (which is already a finished product in itself) breaks the originality, its a kind of On/Off switch to me. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this topic.

I, however, also consider that a non-original work might attract me, mood, feelings and stuffs.

Now, onto a different topic, because what Mermaid just said made me think about it.

I think that mentinonning the date is an important element for the viewer, to understand the context. AFAIK, redrawing/copying in '92 might have been a totally different story. It seems to me that, in 2011, loaded with cheap scanners, image search engines, quantization and supersoftwares, straight copying may be a pretty easy task.

Original by Chris Achilleos
(ed.CONS:link added,thanks!)

For me it's a copy of someone else's work, in a graphics compo, in 2011.

Does anyone know what picture this is copied from? Here's a C64 version from 1993-2009, not released until 2009:

http://noname.c64.org/csdb//release/?id=81205

mermaid: Your disenchanting morphing images extract all the magic and give an undoubtful reality check, but hey, keep 'em coming!

Even seeing the source here I don't feel disappointed. The notion of originality vary a lot, for me Twoflower managed to put a great mood and fresh details into his illustration.

Anarkhya, there's a discussion on the topic over at CSDb - take a look: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1

C64pixels.com doublescreen compo again...
I'm starting to wonder.. There was a scanner coalition or what ?

Thanks to Celtic himself for providing the original and being honest about it being a touched up convert.

A solid 2 point for trying some colours ideas.

Such a strong ambiance, feels good !

bam!

wham!

Got style.

Just brilliant.