Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Soo cool :O. I'd buy several.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Great design, but it would make more sense with DNA on it...

Nevertheless, GMV!

squidboots wrote:Great design, but it would make more sense with DNA on it...

Nevertheless, GMV!

There is DNA. The hexagons and pentagons are cytocine, guanine, and adenine, which are the nucleotdes that make up a sequence of DNA.


By the way....this shirt is freakin sweet.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

i love this one!

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

This is a fly shirt. Plus I was born in '88, so you've got my vote.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Interesting. Francis Collins just spoke at my college yesterday. His lecture was fascinating.

I love this shirt! Perfect colors, composition, and such... Great job!

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

this shirt rox, as a microbiolgist as think its extra awesome

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

I know I tend to go on and on about color choices, but this is another one of those shirt designs where the colors chosen may look wonderful on the screen, but won't print well altogether. The darker brown will be too dark for the black and it will get lost in the shirt color. The same could be said had this been done on the brown shirt with black circles. The colors are just too close and therefore won't be as visually striking as it seems on the screen.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Incredibly cool design. Hope it wins!

Webfoot08 wrote:Incredibly cool design. Hope it wins!

I would like to see a double helix incorporated into the design, but it's still awesome. Got my vote.

NCSUCasey wrote:I would like to see a double helix incorporated into the design, but it's still awesome. Got my vote.

look all the way to the right of the man, the sugar-chains almost form one. You can tell alot of thought went into planning this.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

wow, this one had better win.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Very well laid out, nice use of space!

You could teach a thing or two to some of us mediocre designers ;-)

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

I'm so buying this shirt.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

love the fact that you avoided the obvious double helix and really played with how much of an object do you need to see to know what it is. wonderful design

Stuntdummy wrote:Interesting. Francis Collins just spoke at my college yesterday. His lecture was fascinating.

Yeah, Francis Collins spoke at Berkeley a couple months ago. He was a pretty good speaker, speaking about an interesting topic.

But seriously, this is an awesome shirt. I'd get this for my bio GSI's.

sentnl wrote:Soo cool :O. I'd buy several.

Being someone who has considered working at TIGR this summer, I'd buy this shirt multiple times. Thanks for making this!

folkkevi wrote:There is DNA. The hexagons and pentagons are cytocine, guanine, and adenine, which are the nucleotdes that make up a sequence of DNA.


By the way....this shirt is freakin sweet.

why no thymine?

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Awesome. I wouldn't wear one, but I definitely would make my boyfriend wear it all the time. I'm such a science nerd.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

well, since the print colors have been addressed already, i'll point out that the knees make the figure seem bowlegged. try standing with feet together, and observe how your own legs meet up. generally, they'll be pretty close at the knees, the calves, and the thighs. and speaking of feet, these are rather wide and flat. maybe add some realistic contours and depth. finally, there is a light circle just barely cutting into the shoulder on the right which seems to give it very odd musculature. maybe push the circle into the silhouette more? or you could omit the overlay

schizoreaper wrote:well, since the print colors have been addressed already, i'll point out that the knees make the figure seem bowlegged.

Maybe he has the gene for bowleggedness. :-)

So awesome. I'd definitely be in for one.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

I really like this shirt, but the "ribose" ring is sort of wonky. It looks like you were going for RNA (which would explain the absence of thymidine) but the purine should be attached to a carbon vicinal to one of the OH groups.

zpss wrote:I really like this shirt, but the "ribose" ring is sort of wonky. It looks like you were going for RNA (which would explain the absence of thymidine) but the purine should be attached to a carbon vicinal to one of the OH groups.

Now, THAT'S a nerd.



Seriously, I never would have known that. Then again, I don't find this piece wearable for myself anyway. Every time I look at the piece, I see Africa. And since it's on black, I find a sub conscience feeling there's a deeper connotation behind the design, even if there isn't. I'm by no means implicating that the designer was trying to do this, it's just what I see when I stare at it in the FOG. I'm not trying to be racist in any way by pointing out what I'm seeing within the design so please do not take offense at it. However, if you WERE trying to make it look that way, by all means, please enlighten us because I don't want to sit here thinking I'm crazy seeing a design within a design.

JadenKale wrote:Now, THAT'S a nerd.



Seriously, I never would have known that. Then again, I don't find this piece wearable for myself anyway. Every time I look at the piece, I see Africa. And since it's on black, I find a sub conscience feeling there's a deeper connotation behind the design, even if there isn't. I'm by no means implicating that the designer was trying to do this, it's just what I see when I stare at it in the FOG. I'm not trying to be racist in any way by pointing out what I'm seeing within the design so please do not take offense at it. However, if you WERE trying to make it look that way, by all means, please enlighten us because I don't want to sit here thinking I'm crazy seeing a design within a design.

No it's not Africa and the design is on the front of the shirt. I did not mean for this design to have any racist connotations whatsoever.

sundbe10 wrote:No it's not Africa and the design is on the front of the shirt. I did not mean for this design to have any racist connotations whatsoever.

I believe you misread black for back, but I'm happy to see you were able to answer fairly quickly. I hate making such comments for fear of the flaming, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't seeing something that people weren't commenting on.

schizoreaper wrote:well, since the print colors have been addressed already, i'll point out that the knees make the figure seem bowlegged. try standing with feet together, and observe how your own legs meet up. generally, they'll be pretty close at the knees, the calves, and the thighs. and speaking of feet, these are rather wide and flat. maybe add some realistic contours and depth. finally, there is a light circle just barely cutting into the shoulder on the right which seems to give it very odd musculature. maybe push the circle into the silhouette more? or you could omit the overlay

The silhouete is a picture of myself, I happen to be mildly bowlegged and those are my real legs and feet.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

just to reiterate this shirt freakin' rox. excellent work

bigbadblackman wrote:just to reiterate this shirt freakin' rox. excellent work

Africa?? Are you serious? This is one of the few shirts I feel like I could actually wear...PLEASE let it win.

JadenKale wrote:Seriously, I never would have known that. Then again, I don't find this piece wearable for myself anyway. Every time I look at the piece, I see Africa.

I kinda see what you're saying, but to me it looks much more like Florida than Africa. Hey... Rorschach test, everybody! What land mass does the design of this shirt make you think of?

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

The Human Genome Project officially started in 1990. It unofficially started in 1983. Where did you get 1988?

superspryte wrote:The Human Genome Project officially started in 1990. It unofficially started in 1983. Where did you get 1988?

This site said it was initiated in 1988.
http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/eibe/ENGLISH/U14.HTM

superspryte wrote:The Human Genome Project officially started in 1990. It unofficially started in 1983. Where did you get 1988?

It was initiated in 1988. Your article says it began "formally" in 1990....in 1988 an organization was formed that was basically the roots of the Human Genome Project.

sentnl wrote:It was initiated in 1988. Your article says it began "formally" in 1990....in 1988 an organization was formed that was basically the roots of the Human Genome Project.

But mine's also the official government website. I'd trust that over random sources. Makes it a little misleading. The design is no less cool but I think it's innacurate.

EDIT: See my edit below also. If you read the article that website is the abstract for, it also says the HGP began in 1990.

sundbe10 wrote:This site said it was initiated in 1988.
http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/eibe/ENGLISH/U14.HTM

I'll trust the US government website and countless other sources over a single European website. Not everything on the internet is accurate; be sure to check for multiple sources.

EDIT: It says that was the founding of HUGO, the organization that did the project...not that it started that year. I just clicked on and read the article that abstract is for and it also says the HGP started in 1990.

superspryte wrote:I'll trust the US government website and countless other sources over a single European website. Not everything on the internet is accurate; be sure to check for multiple sources.

EDIT: It says that was the founding of HUGO, the organization that did the project...not that it started that year. I just clicked on and read the article that abstract is for and it also says the HGP started in 1990.

Just type "Human Genome Project 1988" into google, their are multiple sites that say it began in 1988.

sundbe10 wrote:Just type "Human Genome Project 1988" into google, their are multiple sites that say it began in 1988.

Just type "lunar landing" or "moon landing" in google, there are multiple sites that say it was faked.

The fact that there are many misinformed people with internet access does not make a thing true.

sundbe10 wrote:Just type "Human Genome Project 1988" into google, their are multiple sites that say it began in 1988.

All of the reputable sources say it was first "articulated" then or something similar. They all go on to say it started in 1990.

superspryte wrote:All of the reputable sources say it was first "articulated" then or something similar. They all go on to say it started in 1990.

Dude, you're both right. The organization that put together the Human Genome Project started in 1988...so you could say it started there. Or you could say it formally started in 1990 when that organization presented their plan for the project to congress. Either way, it started in some year, and the date isn't on the shirt lol. It's a sweet shirt, and I must have it O_O.

superspryte wrote:EDIT: It says that was the founding of HUGO, the organization that did the project...not that it started that year. I just clicked on and read the article that abstract is for and it also says the HGP started in 1990.

HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) was started in 1989, though, wasn't it?

I could be mistaken.... or maybe the site has it wrong.

Anyway, Woot's not going to disqualify the shirt because it got the year wrong, are they?

daedalusknight wrote:HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) was started in 1989, though, wasn't it?

I could be mistaken.... or maybe the site has it wrong.

Yeah... I was right...

HUGO homepage

daedalusknight wrote:HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) was started in 1989, though, wasn't it?

I could be mistaken.... or maybe the site has it wrong.

Anyway, Woot's not going to disqualify the shirt because it got the year wrong, are they?

I don't know if it will be rejected or not. Although if it isn't, can I enter a design that's incorrectly dated? I swear Woodstock happened in 1984. ^_~

daedalusknight wrote:Yeah... I was right...

HUGO homepage

Even worse.

superspryte wrote:I don't know if it will be rejected or not. Although if it isn't, can I enter a design that's incorrectly dated? I swear Woodstock happened in 1984. ^_~

D'oh! You and your logic... making me look bad. :-)

daedalusknight wrote:D'oh! You and your logic... making me look bad. :-)

Not trying to make anyone look bad. Except maybe the faulty sources. ^_^

daedalusknight wrote:Yeah... I was right...

HUGO homepage

HUGO began in 1988, when they got together in Switzerland, the official results of HUGO were released in 1989 ;) and was officially recognized in 1988.

http://www.hugo-international.org/mission_history.htm

superspryte wrote:I don't know if it will be rejected or not. Although if it isn't, can I enter a design that's incorrectly dated? I swear Woodstock happened in 1984. ^_~

I think there are a couple of inacurate dates in this derby.
-Andy

Andy47240 wrote:I think there are a couple of inacurate dates in this derby.
-Andy

To be sure. I feel much the same about those.

The year of this entery is not incorrect. There is just discrepancy in when people say the project actually started, rather than just organized. It is completely accurate to claim that HGP had its start in 1988, and to say otherwise is a moot point in my opinion.

superspryte wrote:To be sure. I feel much the same about those.

IF you look at the HUGO website you will see 1988 listed several times as the starting date for the organization (April and Sept). This is a quote from the HUGO website....

The Human Genome Organisation
History, Purposes and Membership - Victor A. McKusick

The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) was conceived in late April 1988, at the first meeting on genome mapping and sequencing at Cold Spring Harbor.

jsinteractive wrote:IF you look at the HUGO website you will see 1988 listed several times as the starting date for the organization (April and Sept). This is a quote from the HUGO website....

The Human Genome Organisation
History, Purposes and Membership - Victor A. McKusick

The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) was conceived in late April 1988, at the first meeting on genome mapping and sequencing at Cold Spring Harbor.

HUGO isn't the HGP.

jsinteractive wrote:IF you look at the HUGO website you will see 1988 listed several times as the starting date for the organization (April and Sept). This is a quote from the HUGO website....

The Human Genome Organisation
History, Purposes and Membership - Victor A. McKusick

The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) was conceived in late April 1988, at the first meeting on genome mapping and sequencing at Cold Spring Harbor.

Yes, but the Human Genome Project did not come into existence until 1990, when the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health presented the HUGO ideas to congress, which began the 15 year HGP.

"The Human Genome Project (HGP) refers to the international 13-year effort, formally begun in October 1990 and completed in 2003, to discover all the estimated 20,000-25,000 human genes and make them accessible for further biological study. Another project goal was to determine the complete sequence of the 3 billion DNA subunits (bases in the human genome). As part of the HGP, parallel studies were carried out on selected model organisms such as the bacterium E. coli and the mouse to help develop the technology and interpret human gene function. The DOE Human Genome Program and the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) together sponsored the U.S. Human Genome Project. "

Or if you really want to go in the way way back machine: http://www.genome.gov/25520329

"The Human Genome Project officialy begain in 1990. Beginning in December 1984, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and international groups had sponsored meetings to consider the feasibility and usefulness of mapping and sequencing the human genome. The DOE had become interested in studying the human genome as a way of aiding the detection of mutations that nuclear radiation might cause. Groups like the NIH and the Wellcome Trust in Britain had longstanding interest in understanding biology for the sake of advancing medicine.

In 1987, DOE proposed a Human Genome Initiative to Congress. Meanwhile, NIH had started funding occasional grants for genome projects. In 1988, an influential National Research Council report recommended a concerted program to map and sequence the human genome. Later that year, the U.S. Congress held hearings on the idea, and DOE and NIH joined forces on the project.

In 1990, DOE and NIH published a plan for the first five years of what was projected to be a 15-year project. The goals of the project included: mapping the human genome and eventually determining the sequence of all 3.2 billion letters in it; mapping and sequencing the genomes of other organisms important to the study of biology; developing technology for analyzing DNA; and studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research. "

You could argue that it started in any of these years, it doesn't really matter, I'm guessing the artist was born in 1988 and that's why he chose that year.

Graye wrote:Yes, but the Human Genome Project did not come into existence until 1990, when the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health presented the HUGO ideas to congress, which began the 15 year HGP.

"The Human Genome Project (HGP) refers to the international 13-year effort, formally begun in October 1990 and completed in 2003, to discover all the estimated 20,000-25,000 human genes and make them accessible for further biological study. Another project goal was to determine the complete sequence of the 3 billion DNA subunits (bases in the human genome). As part of the HGP, parallel studies were carried out on selected model organisms such as the bacterium E. coli and the mouse to help develop the technology and interpret human gene function. The DOE Human Genome Program and the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) together sponsored the U.S. Human Genome Project. "

Or if you really want to go in the way way back machine: http://www.genome.gov/25520329

"The Human Genome Project officialy begain in 1990. Beginning in December 1984, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and international groups had sponsored meetings to consider the feasibility and usefulness of mapping and sequencing the human genome. The DOE had become interested in studying the human genome as a way of aiding the detection of mutations that nuclear radiation might cause. Groups like the NIH and the Wellcome Trust in Britain had longstanding interest in understanding biology for the sake of advancing medicine.

In 1987, DOE proposed a Human Genome Initiative to Congress. Meanwhile, NIH had started funding occasional grants for genome projects. In 1988, an influential National Research Council report recommended a concerted program to map and sequence the human genome. Later that year, the U.S. Congress held hearings on the idea, and DOE and NIH joined forces on the project.

In 1990, DOE and NIH published a plan for the first five years of what was projected to be a 15-year project. The goals of the project included: mapping the human genome and eventually determining the sequence of all 3.2 billion letters in it; mapping and sequencing the genomes of other organisms important to the study of biology; developing technology for analyzing DNA; and studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research. "

Umm, fine, then say this is HUGO and not HGP and it doesn't matter, so everyone shutup about the date!!!!!

folkkevi wrote:Umm, fine, then say this is HUGO and not HGP and it doesn't matter, so everyone shutup about the date!!!!!

That's not a very nice thing to say.

folkkevi wrote:Umm, fine, then say this is HUGO and not HGP and it doesn't matter, so everyone shutup about the date!!!!!

I think it's a valid point...that's the entire foundation of the derby ennit? the designer is basically saying "fine, it started in 1990 OFFICIALLY, but they thought of it in 1988" - well, i think i'll just do a 1970 Star wars shirt, since it's well known lucas had already conceived it then.

all of which is beside the primary problem with the shirt - it's really not aesthetically appealing at all. Dare I say it's downright u g l y?

brizz wrote:I think it's a valid point...that's the entire foundation of the derby ennit? the designer is basically saying "fine, it started in 1990 OFFICIALLY, but they thought of it in 1988" - well, i think i'll just do a 1970 Star wars shirt, since it's well known lucas had already conceived it then.

all of which is beside the primary problem with the shirt - it's really not aesthetically appealing at all. Dare I say it's downright u g l y?

you dont need no alibi

brizz wrote:I think it's a valid point...that's the entire foundation of the derby ennit? the designer is basically saying "fine, it started in 1990 OFFICIALLY, but they thought of it in 1988" - well, i think i'll just do a 1970 Star wars shirt, since it's well known lucas had already conceived it then.

QFT. The derby is about the year you were born, and while woot obviously can't police our actual ages, it means that the year should be important. It means that any shirt with an incorrect date should be rejected for being off theme. Otherwise, why not just do a straight-up History theme?

AdderXYU wrote:QFT. The derby is about the year you were born, and while woot obviously can't police our actual ages, it means that the year should be important. It means that any shirt with an incorrect date should be rejected for being off theme. Otherwise, why not just do a straight-up History theme?

Oh, c'mon... we're not official history policemen here. If the artist made the shirt with a good-faith explanation as to why they thought the year was what it was, and shows evidence supporting that theory, we should accept it as such. As long as it's in the general ballpark. If it's way off and obvious, yeah reject (like saying the Godfather was released in 1956 or something like that).

When it's something like the human genome project, which took a long time for people to get their ducks in a row (so to speak) across many countries and institutions, hammering a specific date/year may be difficult. Just my $0.02 though... I think the shirt looks great.

SkekTek wrote:When it's something like the human genome project, which took a long time for people to get their ducks in a row (so to speak) across many countries and institutions, hammering a specific date/year may be difficult. Just my $0.02 though... I think the shirt looks great.

I agree, the Genome project was being visualized and planned for years before 1990, so it is impossible to set an exact date of its conception. Also the date has litte to do with the actual design, it doesn't actually say 1988 on the shirt so really this whole argument has been about the title, not the design. Just because the date may (or may not) be off in the title is no reason to disqualify or criticize a quality shirt.

SkekTek wrote:When it's something like the human genome project, which took a long time for people to get their ducks in a row (so to speak) across many countries and institutions, hammering a specific date/year may be difficult. Just my $0.02 though... I think the shirt looks great.

I agree... awesome shirt.
The placement/footprint of it, and I'd even venture to say the way the brown may just blend in with the black shirt a little bit could have a nice effect on this shirt. GMV

SkekTek wrote:Oh, c'mon... we're not official history policemen here. If the artist made the shirt with a good-faith explanation as to why they thought the year was what it was, and shows evidence supporting that theory, we should accept it as such. As long as it's in the general ballpark. If it's way off and obvious, yeah reject (like saying the Godfather was released in 1956 or something like that).

When it's something like the human genome project, which took a long time for people to get their ducks in a row (so to speak) across many countries and institutions, hammering a specific date/year may be difficult. Just my $0.02 though... I think the shirt looks great.

QFT

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

yeeeeah I really digg up on this one. Nice use of color and design.
"freakin' sweet"
Im a designer/ screenprinter, so if you dont win... I will print a gang of them for you. so, so, good

mkdesign wrote:yeeeeah I really digg up on this one. Nice use of color and design.
"freakin' sweet"
Im a designer/ screenprinter, so if you dont win... I will print a gang of them for you. so, so, good

i shant give a damn when it was actually founded, organized, thought about, conceived or whatever. You cant really place a date on something of that magnitude.
At any rate: This is a phenominal design and therefor deserves the first prize.
so there.
I give it three thumbs up.
keep up the good work.

Jambando wrote:QFT

QFLies. The whole concept of this derby is based on the years. It'd be like entering soda or soup in the water derby, rationalizing that it is made with water. An entry using the wrong year is completely off topic, as per the theme itself. If you can't hammer down a year, you shouldn't make the shirt. It'd be like making a Reagan shirt for 86, because hey, he was still the president then. And if you got the year wrong (again, thriller the video, which is the reference in said design, came out in late 83, nearly 84) then it's doubly off topic, because you've either made a design that's not from the right year if you're 82, or you've made a design not from your birth year if you then title it 83. I know woot can't really police our ages, but they sure can police the years. It's an idiotic theme, to be sure, but if they're going to base a theme off this, they should be able to base their rejections around year accuracy. If not, they should have rethought the theme. which is probably true anyway

mkdesign wrote:yeeeeah I really digg up on this one. Nice use of color and design.
"freakin' sweet"
Im a designer/ screenprinter, so if you dont win... I will print a gang of them for you. so, so, good

That would be awesome, how would that work out?

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

This is what the Human Genome Project government website has for its events in 1988

1988
Reports by congressional OTA and NAS NRC committees recommend concerted genome research program.
HUGO founded by scientists to coordinate efforts internationally.
First annual Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory meeting on human genome mapping and sequencing.
DOE and NIH sign MOU outlining plans for cooperation on genome research.
Telomere (chromosome end) sequence having implications for aging and cancer research is identified at LANL.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.shtml

Since Hugo was created to coordinate efforts and the first meeting about genome mapping was held, I hope this can give some credit to my claim.

sundbe10 wrote:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.shtml

Since Hugo was created to coordinate efforts and the first meeting about genome mapping was held, I hope this can give some credit to my claim.

I really hope this puts to bed all this nonsense about year innaccuracies so that this design can once again be focused upon for what it is, excelent and deserving of its place in the top 4 (should be #1).

folkkevi wrote:I really hope this puts to bed all this nonsense about year innaccuracies so that this design can once again be focused upon for what it is, excelent and deserving of its place in the top 4 (should be #1).

Then perhaps I shouldn't point out that dark brown and black have not played well on previous shirts...

superspryte wrote:Then perhaps I shouldn't point out that dark brown and black have not played well on previous shirts...

I could swear you have a vendetta against sunde.. it is odd...
I think the shade of brown over black provide subtly, while the lighter shades combined with the contrasting detail work will give it a sense of space. (And for the matter, yes i do know what I am talking about, I'm a Studio Arts major.)

folkkevi wrote:I could swear you have a vendetta against sunde.. it is odd...
I think the shade of brown over black provide subtly, while the lighter shades combined with the contrasting detail work will give it a sense of space. (And for the matter, yes i do know what I am talking about, I'm a Studio Arts major.)

Everyone who has ever had someone make a negative comment about the design they made/liked has presumed said person has a vendetta. I'm sure the mod forums are cluttered with tears every time I make even a mild critique, because people can't take it. Sometimes people just don't like a shirt. Sometimes they shouldn't. It's not because of personal vendettas, as such, but because of either trying to help the artist grow, or sheer bad design. If we got rid of that sort of critique from the derby threads, we'd have an oppressive board where everyone was too scared to say anything at all. Just because you find this comment offensive doesn't mean the poster should be censured for it... if we could censure for any little thing just because people called on it, the atmosphere would be tyrannical. Just because people are offended that people dislike or disagree with this shirt shouldn't mean that there's some sort of vendetta in the works. They're just expressing their opinion, and should be allowed to do so. Anything less would forfeit everyone's right to opinion, including your own, or else reek of hypocrisy.

folkkevi wrote:I could swear you have a vendetta against sunde.. it is odd...
I think the shade of brown over black provide subtly, while the lighter shades combined with the contrasting detail work will give it a sense of space. (And for the matter, yes i do know what I am talking about, I'm a Studio Arts major.)

Hardly a vendetta. Here's an example. Click for larger photos:




As you can see, dark brown and black don't play well, even with the presence of brighter colors. The fact that the black and brown are switched is irrelevant. (I'm an interior designer, a professional, not a student; I understand color too, but I don't think profession is important this time. ^_~)

folkkevi wrote:I could swear you have a vendetta against sunde.. it is odd...
I think the shade of brown over black provide subtly, while the lighter shades combined with the contrasting detail work will give it a sense of space. (And for the matter, yes i do know what I am talking about, I'm a Studio Arts major.)

The colors look fine together in the drawing. Spryte is trying to tell you that ON THE SHIRT THAT WOOT USES it may not show up as well. This is a contest to determine what drawing goes on a tshirt, not on a poster for the National Science Foundation. In this case, life experience is just as important as formal education.

As you can see, dark brown and black don't play well, even with the presence of brighter colors. The fact that the black and brown are switched is irrelevant. (I'm an interior designer, a professional, not a student; I understand color too, but I don't think profession is important. ^_~)

The brown on the genome shirt is supposed to be acting as a background, it aids the foreground and is not the main focus. In this design the black on the brown is the main focus so the contrast that gives this shirt its asthetic qualities is lost. If the shirt had been printed on the same color as shown in the design it would have been fine.

Jigsaw13 wrote:The brown on the genome shirt is supposed to be acting as a background, it aids the foreground and is not the main focus. In this design the black on the brown is the main focus so the contrast that gives this shirt its asthetic qualities is lost. If the shirt had been printed on the same color as shown in the design it would have been fine.

You're telling me you want a barely visible plastic coating on your shirt? Sweet. What I'm saying is this is going to disappoint many people because it's not going to show up particularly well. What you see on the screen is not what will print because the screen equivalents are lighter than the printed equivalents, which was as much my point as the interaction between dark brown and black.

Jigsaw13 wrote:The brown on the genome shirt is supposed to be acting as a background, it aids the foreground and is not the main focus. In this design the black on the brown is the main focus so the contrast that gives this shirt its asthetic qualities is lost. If the shirt had been printed on the same color as shown in the design it would have been fine.

Honestly, i have to agree with this. The picture posted seemed to suffer primarily from two things. One being that the concept brown wasn't available to be printed on, so the t-shirt field was matched too darkly. Secondly, it sufferes from small detail work that is not present in this design. I appologise if i offended anyone previously, as i was attempting to make a point about the date arguement, not the issue raised about color which is certainly a concern. However, given the size of the shapes, the values used, and the correct use of an official woot-background color, i don't forsee many problems with this design personally.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

I meant to mention one more thing. This is a trick I picked up in design courses for printing. Squint your eyes at the design, and you will see a "worse case scenario" of the printing. If you look at the tree design, you can foresee problems, if you look at this one the same does not occur. It looks fine to me.

folkkevi wrote:Honestly, i have to agree with this. The picture posted seemed to suffer primarily from two things. One being that the concept brown wasn't available to be printed on, so the t-shirt field was matched too darkly. Secondly, it sufferes from small detail work that is not present in this design. I appologise if i offended anyone previously, as i was attempting to make a point about the date arguement, not the issue raised about color which is certainly a concern. However, given the size of the shapes, the values used, and the correct use of an official woot-background color, i don't forsee many problems with this design personally.

The shirt color there is the ONLY brown, so the designer should've known; that's no fault of woot's. Not that that relates to this shirt, but I wanted to point that out.

As for this shirt, many people misunderstand the way colors translate from computer to ink. The brown will be even darker than you see here. I wouldn't be surprised if the darkest one doesn't show at all. My issue isn't really with that, but after reading dozens of complaints from wooters who bought shirts with low contrast (who all said they wished they'd known before they bought) I feel it's my duty to tell everyone that the brown will probably not show up. My issue is with the date. Still is.

superspryte wrote:The shirt color there is the ONLY brown, so the designer should've known; that's no fault of woot's. Not that that relates to this shirt, but I wanted to point that out.

As for this shirt, many people misunderstand the way colors translate from computer to ink. The brown will be even darker than you see here. I wouldn't be surprised if the darkest one doesn't show at all. My issue isn't really with that, but after reading dozens of complaints from wooters who bought shirts with low contrast (who all said they wished they'd known before they bought) I feel it's my duty to tell everyone that the brown will probably not show up. My issue is with the date. Still is.

I also blamed the designer in the case of the tree, not woot, sorry if that was not clear.

But.. How is the date even still an issue, the artist provided a link to HUGO's website (a government website) which directly supports his claim in a variety of ways, so what is your problem with the date exactly...?

folkkevi wrote:I also blamed the designer in the case of the tree, not woot, sorry if that was not clear.

But.. How is the date even still an issue, the artist provided a link to HUGO's website (a government website) which directly supports his claim in a variety of ways, so what is your problem with the date exactly...?

I disagree with it. I've already said as much. That website (which I think is the one I originally pointed out) says exactly what I said too...so I don't feel the need to reiterate. Bust just in case, Hugo != HGP.

folkkevi wrote:I meant to mention one more thing. This is a trick I picked up in design courses for printing. Squint your eyes at the design, and you will see a "worse case scenario" of the printing. If you look at the tree design, you can foresee problems, if you look at this one the same does not occur. It looks fine to me.

Yeah, that doesn't work. The only way to accurately judge colors is to compare the actual pantone swatches in an official pantone book (not on screen, that is never going to be accurate). Anything else is just guesswork.

Woot did step in during one instance where the designer picked a color too close to the shirt color to be visible, but the results were decidedly less than ideal.

Generally, the best way to avoid this is to make the colors less subtle. The bigger the color difference, the more likely you are to have a satisfactory print.

geekfactor12 wrote:Yeah, that doesn't work. The only way to accurately judge colors is to compare the actual pantone swatches in an official pantone book (not on screen, that is never going to be accurate). Anything else is just guesswork.

Woot did step in during one instance where the designer picked a color too close to the shirt color to be visible, but the results were decidedly less than ideal.

Generally, the best way to avoid this is to make the colors less subtle. The bigger the color difference, the more likely you are to have a satisfactory print.

That designer put way too much detail into the shirt's design. That, plus the fact that the very pale colors were nearly transparent, contributed to the actual shirt's faulty appearance. If you haven't noticed, this shirt has very little intricate detail and only sstrong, solid colors.

TEG522 wrote:That designer put way too much detail into the shirt's design. That, plus the fact that the very pale colors were nearly transparent, contributed to the actual shirt's faulty appearance. If you haven't noticed, this shirt has very little intricate detail and only sstrong, solid colors.

technically, since the design was entirely based on clip-art, the designer didn't put any detail at all into the shirt's design, but even so, other intricate pieces have printed up quite well (look at the line-art derby, for example).

And people think -I- complain for no good reason.

TEG522 wrote:That designer put way too much detail into the shirt's design. That, plus the fact that the very pale colors were nearly transparent, contributed to the actual shirt's faulty appearance. If you haven't noticed, this shirt has very little intricate detail and only sstrong, solid colors.

My comment only addressed the color issues in that shirt. I agree that there were many other problems as well, but none of those are related to this discussion.

As that is so far the only case where Woot has changed the pantone colors to improve visibility and other posters mentioned that as a possibility to fix the brown ink issue, I thought it was worth bringing up.

(As I did not vote for and will not buy this shirt, I don't particularly care how it prints. But for those who do care, I think they should have as much information as possible about the printing.)

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

In regards to the petty date debate you all are having on this forum, I feel that it is a "chicken v. egg" argument which ultimately goes nowhere. Yes, some will argue that the actual genome project began in 1990. Others will argue that the group who thought up and created the project began in April of 1988. Without the group, there would be no genome project. Actual birth versus conception. You can't have one without the other.

By the way, the hyperbolic comparisons do nothing. They are a little obnoxious and compare apples to oranges. Such as the "I swear Woodstock happened in 84.”

To try and get a t-shirt disqualified on such a minor technicality, and to even bother pointing it out in the first place, is sad. The purpose of the shirt DESIGN competitions is to challenge designers to produce creative and innovative shirts. If anyone wants to buy a shirt - which I'm assuming most on this forum want to do - then why sabotage a really good design?

This week's theme, like all previous week's themes, is just arbitrary. It's only meant to challenge designers to create the best shirts possible, not start arguments better left to historians.

I'm sure the people of Woot are laughing at this argument, finding it silly and rather insignificant. I sure am.

AdderXYU wrote:technically, since the design was entirely based on clip-art, the designer didn't put any detail at all into the shirt's design, but even so, other intricate pieces have printed up quite well (look at the line-art derby, for example).

And people think -I- complain for no good reason.

It wasn't a complaint, it was a comment.

superspryte wrote:Hardly a vendetta. Here's an example. Click for larger photos:




As you can see, dark brown and black don't play well, even with the presence of brighter colors. The fact that the black and brown are switched is irrelevant. (I'm an interior designer, a professional, not a student; I understand color too, but I don't think profession is important this time. ^_~)

You do know this is the most popular shirt sold on Woot right? ^_^

sentnl wrote:You do know this is the most popular shirt sold on Woot right? ^_^

Yes. And a lot of wooters bleach it too. The design was very nice. The printing was not.

sentnl wrote:You do know this is the most popular shirt sold on Woot right? ^_^

You've seen the most popular shirts every derby, right?

Not to say I don't own a cool breeze (I don't think the printing is that much of an issue) but to claim popularity is quality is still, as it has been, foolish. Do I own it? Yes. Is it on my top 10? Not hardly.

AdderXYU wrote:You've seen the most popular shirts every derby, right?

Not to say I don't own a cool breeze (I don't think the printing is that much of an issue) but to claim popularity is quality is still, as it has been, foolish. Do I own it? Yes. Is it on my top 10? Not hardly.

Meh, give the people what they want. Cool Breeze has sold far more than any other shirt, so obviously the *drastic* color problems you have found in both that and this entry must not ruin the shirt eh? This is a cool design, and I think it still would be even if none of the dark brown were to show up, but I think Woot will do a little better than you expect. Another thing to note is that Woot has only one brown color for the actual T-Shirts...they do however have more than one shades of brown for the print, so you can't say the same problem of not being able to match the brown right will happen on this shirt like it did on Cool Breeze.

The design is spectacular. I'd love to wear this shirt.

I dont know why everyone seems to be crying about the shirt. It is a shirt for the Human Genome Project. It is not a shirt depicting Africa nor are there any racist undertones and the designer has already attested to that. It is an excellent design of a project that was clearly "initiated" in 1988, and it is a shirt that I and many others would clearly love to wear. Let it win and find something else to do with your time then to shoot down a shirt that is an obvious achievement.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Awesome ^_^

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

This shirt is totally awesome. I wanna get two of these..

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

It's a rarity that I ever post a comment on a design...but, damn. I love it. I look forward to buying this bad boy.

Those look like they could be the nucleotide building blocks of DNA.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

This is the best shirt on woot right now. Unless somebody wants to wear a nerdy video game shirt and look like a loser. Not only was the design carefully thought out but is also executed extremely well. People need to stop looking at every square millimeter of the shirt and criticize minor details. Also, who gives a carp when the event "officially started." This is a competition based on design, not historical accuracy. It doesn't have the date written on it. I'd buy 5 if I could. Great job.

voskovle wrote:This is the best shirt on woot right now. Unless somebody wants to wear a nerdy video game shirt and look like a loser. Not only was the design carefully thought out but is also executed extremely well. People need to stop looking at every square millimeter of the shirt and criticize minor details. Also, who gives a carp when the event "officially started." This is a competition based on design, not historical accuracy. It doesn't have the date written on it. I'd buy 5 if I could. Great job.

The fact that the colours may not print properly is not a minor detail. Hopefully it will show up fine (if it wins), but if it doesn't - well, plenty of veteran wooters have given the warning here already.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Ah! So close to the end, this shirt better get top three. I need one. Cmon, vote people!

I dig it! Reminds me of Rez, sort of.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

Love it. I want one.

why nit-pick at such a good design...just say nice going. don't be a grumble and/or bemoan fate

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

God, I like everything in the fog, this is all the way up there - this weeks purchase is gonna be tough.

Re: 1988, The Human Genome Project

I hope this one is for sale in the next couple days. It's the only one in the derby I'd wear. It's fly son!