The information you presented is decently informative and thought out, and I congratulate you on compiling this. However, there is a statement here; or rather a thought, that is inherently flawed and out of principal almost stopped me from bothering to read this.
"I believe there is logic behind why a picture works or not. I also believe that humans are meat machines, and that one day computers will be able to emulate humans and what we do."
Yes, there is a sort of science to composition, colours, lighting, and so on. It has been recorded and studied by the masters for ages. Yes, you can program a machine to produce results within the tolerances you set for it using those guidlines. But that is the end of it. Humans introduce an intagible and imperfection into the equation; it's called beauty, and it's something a non sentient machine can never prodcuce. You can have a machine produce a 'perfect' image with 'perfect' composition, lighting, colours and forms, and set it next to an imperfect image produced and processed through the human heart and a 4 year old could tell you which is better. A machine can only make marks on a page. It cannot create. It's images may nice, but it cannot understand the why, it cannot concieve the image; place emotion and thought into those marks to turn them into something meaningful.
Side note: You do not very clearly nor accurately explain Hue, Value, and Saturation clearly when covering gradients and shadows; this could lead to alot of confusion to less well read art students. You consistently interchange saturation and value, making horribly incorrect statements. And it's diffusion, not diffraction. I could go on, but through much strength of will I digress. Since alot of people read your thing since it's a sticky, I strongly urge you to revise.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks