more natural colors

Paul W. Frields stickster at
Wed Dec 13 01:57:18 UTC 2006

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                
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
       Fedora Project Board:
    Fedora Docs Project:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Fedora-art-list mailing list