On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 16:40 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > Mike Chalmers wrote: > > There is no way you can say the Red Hat's colors are natural if you > > think about it. You can't just name any color and say it is natural > > because it looks like red on trees. There is a big difference. > > I really agree here. The Fedora artwork is nice sure, but it really > don't remind me of e.g. a peaceful natural forest or other things that I > associate with nature; it has this certain sense of synthetic quality > that is hard to pin point. It's also a bit too dark and detailed for my > personal taste. To each their own I guess. > > +1 for back to nature. Thanks. I think by "unnatural" the OP means a color that is highly saturated (i.e. high in the "S" field with regard to HSV) beyond what one finds in the majority of natural settings. Our art tends toward cobalt and cerulean, which are maybe a bit more harsh to his eye. I have no beef with it myself -- just hoping to elucidate. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Fedora-art-list mailing list Fedora-art-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list
