(no title)
gennarro | 7 months ago
Also I’m wondering is a fixer would help or hurt the testing. This is common with some art, like pastels.
gennarro | 7 months ago
Also I’m wondering is a fixer would help or hurt the testing. This is common with some art, like pastels.
humblebeekeeper|7 months ago
1 header image
1 image showing in process
1 image explaining lightfastness
3 images explaining the importance of lightfastness
1 image explaining the measurement process
1 image linking to another article diving much deeper into the methodology
1 image linking to another article on a different color pencil concern (layering)
1 image representing each brand-line's lightfastness
Every single one of those images seemed relevant to the concept presented and clarified something that would have been difficult to articulate succinctly in writing. For example, the "how was this measured" is a lot easier to understand once you've seen the grid of squares before and after than it would be to try and articulate the fading of colors in small squares in text.
There's LOTS of individual images on specific brands, but given their wild degree of variance, I think it's really useful to perceptually see what's going on with each one.
I'm curious, where do you feel the images were "spammy"? It's a conclusion I heartily disagree with, but would love to understand.
dcrazy|7 months ago
ethan_smith|7 months ago
ezconnect|7 months ago
hoistbypetard|7 months ago
hinterlands|7 months ago
So, I suspect it's legit. It's a case of an author leaning on a crutch for writing, but we're here to judge the results, not the phasing.
humblebeekeeper|7 months ago
I've seen plenty of people "rate every X" in youtube videos or blogs before, this one is just more data oriented than most.
unknown|7 months ago
[deleted]