 tips and tricks along the way. I really want you all to show off your pride and joy and hard work in the best possible way. So I hope that you get something out of these postings. They are going to be written specifically for the crafter and quilter in mind...fingers crossed!
Today, I'm going to be talking about the importance of backgrounds. The right background ensures that your handmade item is the first thing that people will look at in your photo. Choosing the correct background will set the scene and enhance your craft piece. Choosing the wrong background and this could take away and hide your handiwork.
When choosing the background be aware of colour and patterns. Too much can be distracting and will hide your handmade item.
It's easy to create your own background. I often use boards which I tape fabric or paper to. This way I can change the background easily and when I'm not shooting, I can easily slide the boards away. Remember though...choose a matt, non-shiny background. Choose a background colour that complements what you are showcasing, remember you are trying to show off your handiwork not detract from it.
Let me show you what I mean. Here's some photos I took of a punnet of berries for an earlier post. It's the same punnet in each of the photos, I've just changed the backgrounds.
Here's the punnet of strawberries taken with a soft, white, neutral background.
All I did was tape a large piece of white gauze behind as a backdrop.
When using colour you need to know a little bit about the colour wheel. Choose colours that are of the same shade (contrasting) or are complementary.
Here's the same punnet, but this time I chose a pink background to contrast the reds from the strawberries. Pink is a lighter shade of red, and therefore is a contrasting colour.
Here I've used a board which I've painted pink for the background.
Ok, can you see a difference? The white background makes the berries "pop" out more, don't you think? Whereas the pink background flows better. It just depends on the final look you are trying to achieve.
Try the same berries but with a blue background. If you look at the colour wheel, blue is directly opposite red on the wheel and is a complementary colour.
Again, the punnet takes on a different look.
You can also think about using patterns in your background. Just remember not to use patterns that are too bold, too big or clash with the handmade item. You want something that is soft and subtle.
Here I've just taped some gorgeous fabric to a board and used it as a background.
You can also think about using different textures, such as woods, linens and tiles. Cutting boards also make great natural backgrounds to use too. Try creating some layers.
Here's another shot of the berries, but I've layered some pieces of fabric underneath.
So next time you are taking a photo think about the background. Can you move it to somewhere else? Can you put something behind it? Is there a colour in the quilt that you would like to highlight by choosing a background that will contrast with it?
Hope I've been of some help. Which photo of the berries do you prefer?
<gh_stars>1000+
/*
   Copyright (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corp.

   Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
   you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
   You may obtain a copy of the License at

       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

   Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
   distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
   WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
   See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
   limitations under the License.
*/

package com.linkedin.data;


/**
 * Represent NULL value in DataMap.
 */
@SuppressWarnings({"overrides"}) //for hashCode/equals contract
public final class Null
{
  private static final Null INSTANCE = new Null();

  public static final Null getInstance()
  {
    return INSTANCE;
  }

  private Null()
  {
  }

  public boolean equals(Object o)
  {
    return o == INSTANCE;
  }

  public String toString()
  {
    return "null";
  }
}Like many people in our country, I’ve reached the point where I accept undoubtedly that we have a major policing issue in our country.
The question now is how do we fix our broken system?
To help answer this question, here are links to the three best evidence-based solution organizations that I’ve found. Note that they’re all endorsed by Obama.
Campaign Zero, 8CantWait, and Color of Change.
Join me in trying to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.Also this week: automating ecology, data transformation vs. global warming, Simpson’s paradox vs. Covid vaccine efficacy, vaccine hesitancy (polio edition), the case for pandemic optimism, another retraction for Denon Start, and more.
Start et al. 2019 Am Nat has been retracted at the request of all authors but Denon Start. The retraction notice is admirably detailed. Kudos to Ben Gilbert and Art Weis for doing the right thing here, after spending considerable effort getting to the bottom of the problems with the data and analyses. Sorry that the burden of correcting the scientific record fell on them, rather than on Denon Start where it belonged. Am Nat EiC Dan Bolnick has a tl;dr version of the retraction notice. Add this paper to the growing list of papers by Start that have been retracted, corrected, or subjected to expressions of concern (see here for a very incomplete list; there are PubPeer threads about 16 different papers of his). As I’ve noted previously, most EEB researchers seem to have stopped citing any of Denon Start’s papers.
This is old but I missed it at the time, and it’s newly relevant in light of some of the links above: maybe scientific funding agencies should allocate a small amount of their research budgets (say, 1%) to researchers who want to reproduce or double-check the work of others. What do you think?
Sociologist David Weakliem with a series of three blog posts on hesitancy to take the polio vaccine back when the vaccine was first introduced in the 1950s (part 1, part 2, part 3). Very interesting historical comparative context for covid vaccine hesitancy.
Timothy Keitt and Eric Abelson on automating ecology.
The Guardian interviews self-described “militant covid centrist” Prof. Francois Balloux.
Reasons to be optimistic about the pandemic.
Simpson’s paradox vs. Covid vaccine efficacy. Good example for teaching Simpson’s paradox, and more broadly the importance of covariates.
Ooh, here’s a good example for my collection of statistical vignettes. Wolkovich et al. 2021 GCB show how failure to use a linearizing transformation makes it look like biological processes are becoming less sensitive to temperature change as the earth warms. Here’s a blog post with the story behind the paper. Fascinating (and depressing, and unsurprising) to learn that there was so much resistance to this paper from the reviewers.
Dan Ariely!?!? Say it ain’t so. I’ll be watching this one. Thanks for the other refs on suspected poor science. That dentist one is disturbing.
“We have worked on enough fraud cases in the last decade to know that scientific fraud is more common than is convenient to believe, and that it does not happen only on the periphery of science. Addressing the problem of scientific fraud should not be left to a few anonymous (and fed up and frightened) whistleblowers and some (fed up and frightened) bloggers to root out.” (Data Colada)..While I still prefer to believe this is uncommon, there’s a commonality with some retracted ecology and other “field study” datasets because of suspected fabrication (or at least upon close scrutiny were shown to be highly implausible). A single person collected or compiled the data and provided them to co-authors, no original lab notebooks, field forms, or such were retained. (Loonstedt, Pruitt, LaCour, Stapel, Otherwise data fudgers can get tripped up by technicians who pay attention.
Yeah, the Writers really need to stop recycling the same fraud plotline.
The full text of retraction notice doesn’t even link to the paper. The web landing page for the abstract has a link “Corrections to this article” but it has to be clicked to show that the “correction” is actually a retraction. Neither the Scopus or Web of Science records for the article show it as being retracted, and since the retraction notice doesn’t even appear in the citing documents. To me the proper way to publish retractions is “Retraction: Indirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food Web” so that a search for the original turns up the retraction. The retraction was only published 8 days ago so hopefully this will change, but …. Worth checking back in a month or so.
I too feel like it should be possible to improve matters here