Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 12/06/05 01:46

On 4 Dec 2005 05:27:24 -0800, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote:

>> >Even if it is nothing more than putting a Copyright (C) on
>> >some graphic you're going to give away.

>> ...you don't need to put any sort of "(C)" on anything to make it
>> copyright, it simply *IS* copyrighted, it is inherent.

>Inherent in the USA.

....does copyright really mean anything in any other country BUT the
US? I mean, really, how many other countries mimic the land 'o
litigation?

> In any case, adding the (C) mark is simple and
>cost free, and it immediately denies the attempted lame excuse of "but
>it wasn't marked..."

....that lame excuse wouldn't hold up though in any US court. *shrugs*

>when you catch some twit using your stuff without permission.

If some twit was using my stuff without permission what would stop me
from simply obliterating their pathetic Geoshities site?

>> The iPod doesn't even HAVE any graphic design, it's PLAIN WHITE...

>Lesson 102: Know your Art History.
>
>For example, Paul Revere was a silversmith whose hallmark was in making
>extremely plain silver pieces, even though the graphical norm of the
>day was highly decoratively engraved pieces. Revere was contemporarily
>recognized as a Master Silversmith because engraving allows you to
>conceal flaws in the underlying piece, whereas a "plain" piece had to
>be flawless to look any good at all.
>
>http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rvre/hd_rvre.htm

That's great...except that it really doesn't have...anything at all to
do with the subject, but uh, thanks for the bit 'o trivia.

>> Do you actually bother to READ any of these? I mean, OH MY GAWD:
>>
>> "A computer readable medium contains media player application code
>> which implements the procedures of generating in a user interface an
>> application window having a window frame and a plurality of stiles to
>> define a plurality of panes within said frame..."

>Yes, the typical strategy for any application is to claim
>everything...not unlike Politicians :-).
>
>In this example, the terms of "frame", "stiles" and "panes" describe
>the visual graphical layout in words and it is necessary to be wordy in
>a Patent. FWIW, I usually look at the illustrations first and then go
>back and wade through the "maximal claim" phrased text descriptions.

....you DO realize though that, that description doesn't REALLY say
anything about GRAPHIC design.

Here, let me give you an example what a GRAPHIC design patent
description would look like:

Glass Effect
--------------
Create a gradient, color filled structure. Bevel the outer edges and
apply an inner shadow. Replicate the layer and apply a vertical
distortion filter and resize the layer down. Pull the image section
to the bottom of the structure, apply a gaussian blur then lower the
layer transparency and set the layer blend mode to dodge. Make
another duplicate of the first layer, reduce the size, move it to the
top of the structure, remove the contents and color fill the selection
with a white horizontal linear faded gradient, set the layer blend
mode to luminance, lower the layer opacity and then apply a gaussian
blur to the layer.

The result is nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/glass.png

THAT is a graphic design.

>> Regarding the CB image though...yeah, I'd say a 10 on improving the
>> original there too:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/enhanced.png

>Assuming that's your version is on the right, what you've done is made
>a better version for the specific context that you put it in.

I think you mean "left", Kiddo.

>> >(Damn, here I go offering sincere advice again to an asshole): my
>> >constructive suggesion would be to get rid of the background image for
>> >the time being - - it only serves to conceal your desgin flaws in the
>> >quality of the button's 3D topology illusion.
>>
>> The 3D buttons are flawless, Stupid:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/gamblin-boi-is-a-retard.png

>Thanks for removing the background.
>
>However, I'd still characterize those buttons as barely having any
>substantial 3D effect.

Well you're a novice whose never even made one so you're not exactly
in a strong position to be critiquing it in the first place.

>Perhaps its because the buttons are opaque and
>this lack of translucence then only provides a weak surface effect.

The layer mode transparency is reduced so they're see through.
Further, the button inlays and the small size of the buttons compound
the reduction of a 3D feel...this isn't something that can be changed
though, Stupid. At most you could make the buttons solid, but unless
you want to take out the button inlays and make them larger...yeah, it
looks as good as it can get. Oh but hey, if you think otherwise, go
ahead and prove me wrong with some examples of your own...or you know,
just keep talkin shit.

>Oh, and thanks for the "Hero Worship" of me on your website. :-)

It's sad that you think being called a retard is "hero worship".

>> >Sorry; my media is photography.

>> Yeah, sure it is, Spin Boi. Be careful, you don't know how much I
>> know about photography...

>More bragging, eh? Then I expect to see URL's to some of your
>photographic works.

Begging for MORE examples of MY work when YOU haven't even provided
ANY of your own? Like I said, Kiddo, you can sure talk shit...but
that's about it.

>FYI, comments on my works are not being solicited. I do it simply for
>my own personal enjoyment, not to try to make money.

Well if that were true I'd expect you to be better than a
professional.

>For example, I'm
>currently experimenting with a digital technique I've recently learned
>of which allows one to effecively increase Dynamic Range of the
>recording media for those situations that would otherwise exceed the
>capability of the medium to record it in a single exposure.

I would just use two exposures with different lenses and then merge
the two later.

>The recommended technique is to use a tripod and remote shutter release
>so that you can most easily perfectly overlay the frames,

If yer skill in digital photo editing is good enough it doesn't need
to be that precise, but you should still use a tripod.

>but I've not
>been out in the field yet to shoot new originals in this method (yet).
>However, I was thinking about this bit while I was recently carrying a
>little P&S with me while on a business trip, and I found a test vehicle
>to apply the technique: a test subject with 'exccessive' DR which would
>have a relatively simple disembarkation border to manage. To that end,
>here's (downsampled) the two originals that were the starting point.
>Note that for exposures, -4 is optimized the right side and -5
>optimized to the left:
>
>http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
>http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg
>
>Normally, if one just took a single image and mucked around with
>Photoshop's "Levels" controls, the below is typically about the best
>that you can expect to salvage because the recording medium's dynamic
>range was exceeded:
>
>http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/levels_adjust-4.jpg
>
>
>However, by using two originals of different exposures, one can extend
>the dynamic range ... if you can fit them together (hence why a tripod
>is recommended). My cherry-picking of the test subject allowed me to
>overcome my lack of a tripod. YMMV if my final experimental result did
>or did not reasonably successfully achieved its stated goal:
>
>http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/tower(3864+5).jpg

Well, it's mediocre, I'd suggest a better camera...something you
didn't buy at Wal*Mart...also make sure you're taking the pictures in
a lossless format and don't ever use jpeg...even "lossless" jpeg,
which more often than not isn't that lossless...at least as far as
color quality. And make sure you get one with interchangeable lenses.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Back to original message]