|
|
Posted by dorayme on 07/17/07 03:46
In article <9QImi.192552$lm3.79213@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> Scripsit dorayme:
>
> > The power of css is such that one can add padding and borders to
> > things in a most simple way, including pictures.
>
> I don't think CSS was really meant for any image processing. It is true that
> you can use it for very elementary operations on images
>
> > Once you fix
> > something into a picture, that is it, it loses all practical
> > flexibility.
>
> Padding and borders are, more or less, part of image design, just like the
> colors and the shapes of the image. Surely it is one of the most trivial
> parts of image design, but it should not be ignored in image design.
I both agree with you and not. I have spent about a quarter of my
life worrying about borders and frames and the mounting of my own
photographs and I regard it as part and parcel of the whole show,
very important indeed. But it is not a fruitful question whether
it is part of image design. It is part of image exhibition. If
you would kindly bear with me a moment.
When getting a photographic pic ready for exhibition, one can
make decisions about borders in the process of enlargement (e.g.
I had a negative carrier that I filed specially to be a tiny bit
bigger than the neg so that a little light would shine through
and make a border photographically. It was in a certain period of
my photography). Later I preferred not to do this but to have the
flexibility to not have the border or have it by other means (I
would use Indian ink on the photo white space or the mounting
board).
The situation with a web page is not that much different in
respect to the placing of a basic border or padding, it does not
really matter when the decision is made to do this with many
types of images, leaving it to the css seems to me a perfectly
rational one in many cases. Perhaps not in all cases (here I am
thinking of borders that might strain the types available in css).
In other words, I do not think your action (see below in your
confession) was wrong at all. What matters is the aesthetic
decision and the easiest and most flexible way to implement it.
>
> If you are thinking about re-using the same images in different contexts on
> different pages, fine. But you should always check, for each use, whether
> the image really fits, esthetically and pragmatically. You may need to
> modify the image, e.g. resize it, pick up a different part from an original
> photograph, or change the colors of a drwawing to fit into a particular
> color scheme on a page. This is a job for an image processing program, not
> CSS code. The same applies to padding and border.
>
> (Confession: I have sometimes forgotten to add borders in an image
> processing program and then "fixed" this using border="1". But I'm not
> saying that this was right.)
>
> > CSS is for styling.
>
> Not for styling of images.
>
> > Borders and padding are style issues.
>
> So are colors and shapes in an image.
The point I am making is that while they are both aesthetic
matters, that does not mean that one is not best handled by image
software (clearly, colours and shapes are) or that borders and
padding can be handled by other means in many cases.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|