34: Flowers

|< < Prev Comic #34 (November 9, 2005) Next > >|

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 - 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.

Transcript

[A sketch of flowers, drawn in green, red, and yellow on a black background.]

Trivia

• 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.
  • The previous was 30: Donner.
  • The next was 29: Hitler.
• 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!

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)

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 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)

Agreed and removed. --Kynde (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)