Difference between revisions of "34: Flowers"
(→Explanation) |
(→Explanation) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
From the title text, Randall used the invert feature of a photo-editing program to reverse it from black-on-white to white-on-black. After that he added color to the flowers. | From the title text, Randall used the invert feature of a photo-editing program to reverse it from black-on-white to white-on-black. After that he added color to the flowers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The title text seems to be a reference to The Treachery of Images by Rene Magritte, which has a drawing of a pipe, and a caption (in French) "This is not a pipe", since it is just a picture of a pipe. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== |
Revision as of 23:42, 5 December 2014
Flowers |
Title text: This is actually pencil on paper, just inverted and colored |
Explanation
This is a drawing of flowers that Randall made. It seems the flowers are based on his imagination, rather than being a real species.
From the title text, Randall used the invert feature of a photo-editing program to reverse it from black-on-white to white-on-black. After that he added color to the flowers.
The title text seems to be a reference to The Treachery of Images by Rene Magritte, which has a drawing of a pipe, and a caption (in French) "This is not a pipe", since it is just a picture of a pipe.
Transcript
- [A sketch of flowers, drawn in red and green.]
Trivia
- This is the 30th comic originally posted on livejournal. The previous was 30: Donner. The next was 29: Hitler. View archive here.
- Original Randall quote: "Original drawing is pencil on graph paper. Bonus points if you can identify the flowers. 'cause I sure can't."
Discussion
Instructions for photoshop editing is quite irrelevant here, I think. The comic itself is just a drawing of flowers, and hardly needs much explanation (if any). –St.nerol (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Correct. I'm working on this comic because you did not;)--Dgbrt (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Shit, shit, shit... as Randall would say, but finally I could upload my edit. It's still not complete.--Dgbrt (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I remember it, I removed the "explanation" that was, which wasn't popular. So I just let it be... ––St.nerol (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Check the history, your edit was reverted. When you have problems with some pages do not only tell us what's wrong, just try to give an better explanation. Without a new solution these discussions are meaningless. Everybody is doing mistakes, but the magical word is UPDATE not DELETE.--Dgbrt (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Dgbrt, I did not remove content, I removed redundancy. One sentence about graph paper instead of three. Clearer, shorter wording about botany and picture editing, but no less informative. - Frankie (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Frankie, you did remove the incomplete tag. We still have to review pages like this. But your enhancements are welcome!--Dgbrt (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Uhh, the title text is just an explanation, it isn't a reference to anything... You guys really try to squeeze stuff out of nothing 141.101.98.33 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I dont see how the title text could be a reference to anything, maybe because of the two words "this is" ?... I'm really not convinced. I would be okay if the sentence began with "This is *not*". 173.245.49.124 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The red flowers kind of look like trillium erectum. Just saying. 1234231587678 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)