Giving Credit Where Credit is Due
Philip Mudd has been a huge asset to my learning this semester, in both the worlds of CSS and Rhetoric. I didn't know the guy before this class, but I quickly warmed up to him—most of class, if not all, would probably say the same thing. He knows his CSS really well, and there were plenty of times that he went out of his way to help me understand it. I owe a lot of my CSS knowledge to him. He also exemplified great rhetoric as he talked in class. For example, he owned the "Funny Bone" pitch. His use of pathos and ethos to persuade the class to vote for the word was brilliant. In short, Mudd is a bright guy, and he is definitely going to do some cool things in the future.
A Text I Might Pick Up
I pretty much enjoyed every part of this class. Dreamweaver and Photoshop were enjoyable and intriguing; Comiclife was not my favorite, to say the least. With that said, as I look back on what I picked up on the quickest, I would say it was Photoshop. Who doesn't like taking a normal old picture and turning it into something cool? Maybe not everyone, but I definitely do. I found a book written by the renown photographer Jim Zuckerman titled "Be a Photoshop Guru - Unlocking the Hidden Genius Behind Photoshop's Tools", and I think I would like to pick it up and learn more about the possibilities with Photoshop. I only scratched the surface in the few weeks we tackled Photoshop—this book would take me far beyond what I currently know.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Documentary.
After the discussion in class a few weeks ago, I am a little hesitant to apply a definition to "Documentary". It seems that there is so much bleed over between non-documentary films and documentaries that to set them apart from each other with a narrow definition is somewhat trivial. For instance, I searched freedictionary.com for a definition of documentary, and here is what I found: "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film". There are at least two problems with this definition. First of all, a documentaries loyalty to true, objective facts is subjective in its nature. My take on a factual event may be different from someones else's take on the event. The two displays of "factual events" set against one will definitely differ in some ways. Secondly, are there not some films that do not fall under the "documentary" umbrella that present facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter? Definitely. In short, that definition doesn't suffice.
With that said, I have come up with a brief definition for "documentary" that I think sets it slightly apart from "film". The definition is this: a progression of images and sounds that take a stand on an issue and work as visual argument. (slightly changed from Hampe pg 4). Other films can be this, but I might argue that that film is a documentary. The definition might be vague, but I think it suits its purpose. What sets a documentary apart from other film is its intent to act as an argumentative media. A blockbuster film about Batman has a different premise and intent than a Michael Moore documentary. The former is to entertain and maybe to show the fight between good and evil, whereas the latter is to stir up controversy and to argue a side of the story. Both might entertain and both might engage. Most of the time, documentaries differ from other films because of their intent to persuade and argue, hence the definition. I expect that this definition won't but it, but it's worth a shot.
With that said, I have come up with a brief definition for "documentary" that I think sets it slightly apart from "film". The definition is this: a progression of images and sounds that take a stand on an issue and work as visual argument. (slightly changed from Hampe pg 4). Other films can be this, but I might argue that that film is a documentary. The definition might be vague, but I think it suits its purpose. What sets a documentary apart from other film is its intent to act as an argumentative media. A blockbuster film about Batman has a different premise and intent than a Michael Moore documentary. The former is to entertain and maybe to show the fight between good and evil, whereas the latter is to stir up controversy and to argue a side of the story. Both might entertain and both might engage. Most of the time, documentaries differ from other films because of their intent to persuade and argue, hence the definition. I expect that this definition won't but it, but it's worth a shot.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
IMAGE
Top three take-away in order.
GIFs, not like the peanut butter brand Jiff.
Why all the riffraff? Why can’t images just be images? As I learned from the reading, different file types have different purposes. For example, GIFs are great for web design because they allow for one color to be transparent, which is a big deal if you want your website to look good (188). Who wants big white backgrounds in their images? Nobody. As I approach web-design, I want to know how to create quality images that aren’t cheesy looking—unintentional white backgrounds are just that. When in doubt, use a GIF.
Anti-alias
It’s actually the preferred choice for the author when it comes to graphics. There is no need to surrender anti-alias in order to get a smaller graphic: “there are other ways to reduce the file size that don’t compromise the quality of the image” (192). How does this snippet of knowledge help me with web-design? That’s easy, I didn’t know there was such a thing as anti-alias prior to the reading. That should say enough. If there is a way to maintain quality graphics while tweaking sizes, I want to know how to do it—anti-alias seems to be the answer.
JPEGs anyone?
Photographs, or anything that even slightly resembles—looks like, smells like, feels like, tastes like—a photograph should be saved as a jpeg (202). This is good to know! I hate to admit it, but in the past I always applied some arbitrary file name to an image, hoping that it didn’t really matter. Now I know it does. As I approach web-design in the future, I will know the proper way to save photograph-esque images.
Williams, Robin, and John Tollett. The Non-designer's Web Book: an Easy Guide to Creating, Designing, and Posting Your Own Web Site. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit, 2000. Print.
GIFs, not like the peanut butter brand Jiff.
Why all the riffraff? Why can’t images just be images? As I learned from the reading, different file types have different purposes. For example, GIFs are great for web design because they allow for one color to be transparent, which is a big deal if you want your website to look good (188). Who wants big white backgrounds in their images? Nobody. As I approach web-design, I want to know how to create quality images that aren’t cheesy looking—unintentional white backgrounds are just that. When in doubt, use a GIF.
Anti-alias
It’s actually the preferred choice for the author when it comes to graphics. There is no need to surrender anti-alias in order to get a smaller graphic: “there are other ways to reduce the file size that don’t compromise the quality of the image” (192). How does this snippet of knowledge help me with web-design? That’s easy, I didn’t know there was such a thing as anti-alias prior to the reading. That should say enough. If there is a way to maintain quality graphics while tweaking sizes, I want to know how to do it—anti-alias seems to be the answer.
JPEGs anyone?
Photographs, or anything that even slightly resembles—looks like, smells like, feels like, tastes like—a photograph should be saved as a jpeg (202). This is good to know! I hate to admit it, but in the past I always applied some arbitrary file name to an image, hoping that it didn’t really matter. Now I know it does. As I approach web-design in the future, I will know the proper way to save photograph-esque images.
Williams, Robin, and John Tollett. The Non-designer's Web Book: an Easy Guide to Creating, Designing, and Posting Your Own Web Site. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit, 2000. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)