Poor Image: It Is Pronounced Tro Pay

The notion has been raised that the page image may not illustrate the trope. It illustrates some general Insistent Terminology regarding verbal pronunciation, but it doesn't illustrate "unusual pronunciation of a common word just to make it sound exotic or foreign".

This may need to wait on a resolution for TRS before acting, but can we brainstorm alternatives in the meantime?

I don't think we can get an image that doesn't rely on text for this one. Here's my suggestion: Fra-gee-lay

edited 28th Jun '13 7:48:13 AM by Rethkir

I like that one.

I kinda like that.

"I wonder if This End is close to Southend?"

The picture works. It doesn't need any more text.

I like it.

The color palette is tiny. What's up with the banding?

I thought that was a deliberate art choice.

Yeah, it looks deliberate. It is from a T-shirt design after all.

It's actually a sticker. That goes on t-shirts. So, yeah, but it works.

As I said, it's pretty much impossible to use an image without text, so I think that's entirely forgivable. I don't really care which one is used. It's just a matter of style.

edited 29th Jun '13 9:13:52 AM by Rethkir

It is deliberate, but it is not an art decision, it is because of a limitation. That is from a movie.

(Also, a strong example of a caption disguised as part of the image. The caption does a lot of work, but I don't think all of it, weak but not terrible.)

Art wise I prefer 2.

Um, huh? Please explain that opinion. Reducing the color palette is probably not an art decision. It is from a movie originally, reduced from film (maybe about a billion possible colors? but uncountable in a way) to an 8-bit image (16,581,375 possible colors)... that palette is crushed to many fewer (looks like maybe 16 or 32 possible colors?), it is objectively a lower-quality image. But you like the "effect" for some reason?

edited 29th Jun '13 3:10:06 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Yup.

Gah not asking if that is true, I know that is true, I mean "how do you figure?" Explain why. Please :)

I'm not sure, actually. If was sure I'd say why I think so. There's just something about the aesthetic, I suppose. It looks more interesting. And it's about as much lower quality as pixel art is compared to "normal" art. Technically lower quality, but not in a way that makes it worse as an image.

Lower resolution (pixel art, etc) is not lower quality. The original is in whatever state it's in, maybe low-res or even few colors. But the smaller-palette version of the A Christmas Story image is not the original, it is a lower-quality version of that image.

edited 29th Jun '13 7:30:18 PM by rodneyAnonymous

And so would a pixel-art version of Mona Lisa be.

The lamp and the box being in the same "off" style makes it look more like they go together.

I think this discussion is over something rather trivial. I'm posting them side-by-side, but I really don't care.

edited 29th Jun '13 8:10:41 PM by Rethkir

The application may be trivial but the principle is not. The difference between quality and style is important. Prefer the lower-quality one, fine, but they are not the same thing.

"And so would a pixel-art version of Mona Lisa be."

Absolutely not. A pixel art version of the Mona Lisa would be inferior to a high-resolution version of the Mona Lisa anyplace a picture of that painting is appropriate. The page would have to be about pixel art, or mods of classics, or something, for the pixel art version to be a good image.

edited 29th Jun '13 8:13:41 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I disagree.

Well, whatever it is you're speaking about it's not any quality that's relevant for this site.

edited 29th Jun '13 8:31:21 PM by AnotherDuck

That is an objective (and relevant!) distinction.

edited 29th Jun '13 8:44:21 PM by rodneyAnonymous