
From the Making Safe Things Dangerous challenge. See all 479 entries (closed)
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 19:52, archived)
i switched it
*clutches paper bag of head-doctor's cash*
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 19:58, archived)
I knew you'd do that!
Which is why I switched the bags before I gave them to my chocolate supplier.
The bag you're holding contains dog shit!
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:00, archived)
He was only going to buy dogshit with the money anyway.
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:02, archived)
And, it's Newcastle dog shit.
Creamy.
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:04, archived)
so he just did you out of some money, capiche?
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:07, archived)
*reminds them of their neutrality*
*profits*
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:08, archived)
Edit: I like the way it rolls the wrong way down and up the string ;¬)
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 19:54, archived)
other hand . . . I would like to have four more of these!
Cause I like!
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 19:55, archived)
oh, and a very heartily deserved woo! for the image.
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:03, archived)
could get better quality and a smaller file size with the same pixel-size image by using less colours
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:04, archived)
less colours rarely results in better quality
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:06, archived)
he's used the wrong optimization method and too many colours,
the hand only needs two colours, for one example,
but it looks less quality because of the red that the optimization has stuck in
I'm a graphic designer, not a nonsense :p
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:09, archived)
when better quality makes something worse quality :p
PNGs are totally the way forward for that kind of thing, now that internet explorer doesn't break them.
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:13, archived)
I just was sticking up for the person who said it could be a better quality
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:16, archived)
and decimated what little confidence I had.
But that's alright! WHEY!
(, Tue 7 Aug 2007, 20:23, archived)