mikeinctown wrote in post #17980826
I know this is an old thread, but to be honest the modified photo looks 10x better for the intended purpose than does the original. Since wording needed to be added to the photo itself, it makes perfect sense to lighten the photo so that their advertisement is very noticable.
yeah, no. I've worked in advertising design for more or less 25 years, I have never once had to destroy an image so that written copy could be seen. Never.
Cropping it as they did also goes from what looks like a shot that anyone can take from the grass/seats/whatever to one that loos like it was taken by someone with special up front access.
LOL, the guitarist's head is too close to the edge of the frame and his amputated fingers look creepy. The girl's cut off elbow doesn't help at all.
I know many of you have a style and you don't want any changes to your work for fear that someone will think you produced crap, but in this instance the changes suited the need and made the photo more usable.
sorry, the edited image is crap. Everything about it sucks, from the use of two different sans serif fonts (frickin' Comic Sans :LOL: ) , to the blood red type, to the text placement, to the photo editing.
It has nothing to do with "my style" in fact, as someone who primarily produces photos and layouts for other businesses it is important for me to be style agnostic. I don't use presets and do not have any actions that I run to get a certain look with a photo or set of photos. I create a look for virtually each and every client based on their expectations and my vision for their project.
PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20