34: Flowers

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 22:48, 3 March 2013 by St.nerol (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is actually pencil on paper, just inverted and colored
Title text: This is actually pencil on paper, just inverted and colored


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect:
Please include the reason why this explanation is incomplete, like this: {{incomplete|reason}}

If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Inverting colors is a method of image manipulation where colors are switched with their opposites; Black becomes white, red becomes green, orange becomes blue, and so on. To create this image, Randall tells us in the title text that he drew the outlines of the flowers and stems with pencil on white paper. He likely next scanned the drawing and used image editing software such as Photoshop to invert the black-on-white image, producing white lines on a black background. Next, he may have printed the image out and colored it before scanning it again or added the color using software.

See the article Inverted Colors Photo Effect With Photoshop for a detailed example of how this is done.


  • Original quote from Randall: "Original drawing is pencil on graph paper. Bonus points if you can identify the flowers. 'cause I sure can't."
  • Original guess on flower identification: "Trillium!"
  • This is the thirtieth comic posted to livejournal. The previous was 30: Donner. The next was 29: Hitler.


[A sketch of flowers, drawn in red and green]

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif 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 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*". 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed and removed. --Kynde (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)