Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


teagone posted:

These images are heavy on sepia tones more than anything, emphasizing antiquity. You're using "garish" as a wrong descriptor. Bright =/= garish.

Definition of garish
1: clothed in vivid colors
a garish clown

2a: excessively or disturbingly vivid
garish colors
garish imagery
b: offensively or distressingly bright : GLARING

3: tastelessly showy : FLASHY
garish neon signs

Garish doesn't necessarily refer to color.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


teagone posted:

"Bright" also doesn't necessarily mean garish.


Garish implies using a combination of different colors that are overly vivid/heavily saturated to jarring effect imo. Being "bright" alone doesn't make something garish. The resulting effect of employing a garish palette can be considered "bright" or "showy" or whatever the gently caress, but that is dictated by contrasting color choices. You really can't have a monochrome image with muted tones be garish because a monochrome image with muted tones is just that: a monochrome image with muted tones, lol. But sure, if you want to argue semantics don't matter much, by all means.

No? Garish implies excessive, tasteless embellishment. A garish color palette would probably imply high chroma, but a garish monochromatic film would be something like Sin City.

Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


KVeezy3 posted:

The very definition states a subjective judgement of poor taste. Like, would the Sin City films look better with less extreme contrasts?

No! But tasteless and garish also don't mean "looks bad". I think Sin City looks great, and I think its depictions of sex and violence and sexualized violence are purposely garish to condemn our worship of violent heroism. Similar to how they hyperreal stylized violence in 300 is used to depict the Spartans' propagandization of its soldiers.

Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


KVeezy3 posted:

Actually, a crucial part of the meaning of both tasteless & garish is that something is aesthetically bad. I think you're mistaking that for irredeemable.

Not in this context. Here, tasteless is the opposite of tasteful. Do you think Sin City is a tasteful movie? Is it nice and inoffensive and polite, or does it punch you in the face like a Joel-Peter Witkin photograph? Words are fun!

Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


Roth posted:

Quoting the dictionary at somebody is the ultimate own. hosed up if you ask me.

I mean everyone else seems to be arguing that a word can mean ONLY ONE THING at all and using it in any context that does not refer to the color saturation of an image is objectively incorrect. You'd think they'd at least start with a dictionary if that's they argument you wanna make.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Squinty
Aug 12, 2007


Roth posted:

It's the Snyder equivalent of arguing that the Star Wars prequels look like video games.

No one will give you anything beyond vague feelings.

If you use too much green screen, you get gross chroma green light bouncing into the actors that doesn't match the lighting of the CGI set you're comping in, so everything looks kinda weird and vaguely artificial. Bounced light is something people perceive but don't understand, so they have a hard time articulating what feels wrong and might use imprecise language. :science:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply