Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
This is a drawing of flowers that Randall made. It seems the flowers are based on his imagination, rather than being a real species - see the original quote in the trivia section.
The title text explains that Randall originally drew the flowers in pencil on normal paper; he did not paint them. Instead, he 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.
- [A sketch of flowers, drawn in green, red, and yellow on a black background.]
- As noted in the title text, the original drawing for the comic was made in pencil, then inverted and colored. The image above is a re-inverted, desaturated version of the comic, which gives a good approximation of what the original drawing might have looked like.
- This was the 30th comic originally posted to LiveJournal.
- Original title: "Wednesday's Drawing - Flowers"
- Original Randall quote:
- "Original drawing is pencil on graph paper.
- Bonus points if you can identify the flowers. 'cause I sure can't."
- This comic was posted on xkcd when the web site opened on Sunday the 1st of January 2006.
- It was posted along with all 41 comics posted before that on LiveJournal as well as a few others.
- The latter explaining why the numbers of these 41 LiveJournal comics ranges from 1-44.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
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)
- Yeah, I know it was reverted, that's what I meant. I will improve stuff when I have time and knowledge to do so. Sometimes I will also delete stuff. It's a balance to strike, and often quick decisions, but my intention is always to make the wiki better. ––St.nerol (talk) 22:18, 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 18.104.22.168 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*". 22.214.171.124 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed and removed. --Kynde (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)