Members Surrealistic Posted March 17, 2011 Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 [ATTACH=CONFIG]333012[/ATTACH] This is the CD cover - front the right, back on the left. I think it looks okay - maybe not staggeringly good but okay. There's a hint of a nod towards the Clash London Calling (which of course they "borrowed" from Elvis) which I think works. It's just the basic layout so far so there'll probably be a few additional elements in the finished work. Anyone want to tell me why it sucks and what I should do to change it? Cheers Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Westorbust7 Posted March 17, 2011 Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't want to tell you it sucks....but... No really, my suggestion would be move the title from the lower left and make it easier to read. Not a big fan of Photoshop filter effects on your cover photo. When in doubt, keep it simple. I like the back cover photo. Maybe make the back cover font more similar to the front, and maybe use the tones on the back cover photo, the tans and browns and carry that into the front. That's my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 17, 2011 Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 It sucks! OK, my more reasoned out input - It looks very much like you are being hit by an alien death ray and your face is melting. Which means you should either rename the CD "Alien Death Ray" or simply remove the Photoshop filter. I like the font choice and placement on the cover and on the back - it looks nice. I like the idea of the photo on the back but the viewer's eye is automatically drawn to the big white flash in the upper right hand corner. Is it sunlight coming in through a basement-type small window? Is it flash from the camera? Is it annoying? Yes. You might just darken that in the photo. Or maybe I'm wrong and there's nothing wrong with the bright white light - I'm not a photographer or artist. Maybe it's OK. I'm not wrong about the cover, though. I want to see what an artist looks like. The cover should look like the music sounds. I also agree that it'd be nice if the cover and back had more in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 17, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 Thanks guys. Couple of points: In the original (Corel Draw) the white flash on the back is nowhere near as pronounced. Seems the export to jpg for uploading here has enhanced that. Also, conversely, the front cover lettering stands out a lot more in the original. Yep, I take the point about the front and the back not having much in common ('cept me being in both of them). That worries me too. As for the effects on the front photo - yeah I suppose I take that point too but I always seem to want to avoid showing myself too much - I'm no spring chicken and don't want people to gag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 17, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 ... The cover should look like the music sounds ... Actually that worries me too. I'm on the front with my acoustic but actually the acoustic only features in a couple of tracks. The album is much more electric than the typical singer-songwriter fare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trevcda Posted March 17, 2011 Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 I agree with the general consensus so far on the front cover. In the case of Elvis and The Clash they look more like commissioned art works. With the filter effect from whatever photoshop program you used, it looks more like it was done by one of those Leonardo photo booths at the mall. I actually kind of like the back cover, flaws and all, though. Reminds me of something you would see on a Harry Nillson album. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 17, 2011 Members Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yeah, it kinda looks like a high school art project. I think you can do better, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVisme Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 The back is okay, the front looks like a zombie playing a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members niceguy Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 Honest opinion: it's terrible. Here's why: Front cover- The picture is very unappealing, looks way too amateur. Looks like it came out of a 1992 computer, and not in a good way. Get a better photo or use better filters (Corel Draw really won't cut it; have a friend with Photoshop run it through various filters). And the font doesn't blend with the photo at all. Back cover- Again, a terrible, unappealing picture. It's just not an interesting scene. And the picture takes up the entire back cover? That's not working. Play around with adding "letterbox" black bars, or something like that. And again, the font just isn't blending. In fact, the fonts you used are just boring and unappealing. You can download free fonts on the internet, but again, Photoshop is the way to go. Just my honest opinion, of course. And personally, if I saw an album like that, I'd instantly think "this is gonna suck" and I wouldn't listen to it. Meaning, if the musician didn't put in the effort to design proper artwork, then it's likely that musician didn't put in any effort on the music, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 You can do a free trial download of Photoshop, and the Adobe Imagemaker is quite good, too. It's free as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 1) I think it's a cool thing you are graciously accepting the criticism2) I think it's a great thing to get that criticism -- at least it's not wishy washy or split down the middle, I think it's pretty clear you should at least consider changing.3) I pretty much agree with the above. I'm not really feeling a London calling nod or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 Thanks guys. Maybe I have odd taste but I quite liked the photo effects. As it seems I'm alone in that view I'll rethink. I definitely agree that the back and the front should ideally have some shared theme, shared colour-scheme or something in common. I do like the back photo. I like that the viewer is eavesdropping and drawn into a warm and cosy bar scene as I'm holding forth on some interesting topic ... actually, beleive it or not I was trying to explain the Schrodinger's Cat experiment to the two women in the scene. "See, there's this box, and there's this cat in it ... " - how nerdy is that eh? 1) I think it's a cool thing you are graciously accepting the criticismThanks. The way I see it, there's not much point asking for criticism if you're going to get pissy about what you hear in return. All criticism is good - the difficult bit is knowing what to accept and what to dismiss. For instance I bet you could put your all-time favourite album cover up here and someone wouldn't like it. It's cool - they're allowed not to like what you like * Just an aside on Corel vs Photoshop ... I may be wrong but as I understand it the CorelDraw suite is able to do pretty much anything Photoshop can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 * Just an aside on Corel vs Photoshop ... I may be wrong but as I understand it the CorelDraw suite is able to do pretty much anything Photoshop can do. It may well, but as one who has used both, I find Photoshop much more intuitive and user friendly. That may just be a matter of preference, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 It probably won't do everything the very latest version of Photoshop can do. The latest version has some stellar tools. I'm still running CS2 because it's what I acquired, but I love Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 BlueStrat: Yep I'm aware that Corel is a bit of a tricky thing to get into, but I've been using it forever so I'm used to it. Richard: You could be right - the version of Corel Photo Paint I have is probably a few years behind the current Photoshop, but then again (I'm assuming here, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) Photoshop doesn't have the artist/DTP/drawing/vector graphics features of the Corel Draw application. I like the way Draw and Photo Paint work together so I've never thought of moving to Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Westorbust7 Posted March 18, 2011 Members Share Posted March 18, 2011 Regarding software>Personally, I've only used Pshop in conjunction with Illustrator and have since 2000, so there was never a need for vectors in Pshop. Used Zbrush a bunch as well..never used Corel products. Most people I know don't just have photoshop, but the whole creative suite, or at least Illustrator. I have CS5 now, it works wonders, it also allows vectors in Pshop. In regards to your front photo, I wouldn't be afraid to put an honest picture of yourself there. A well done photo. I understand being afraid to show yourself if you are older...(I guess I am too now), but I think honesty counts for something. There's a zillion people making CD's and pretending to be younger than they really are. Be original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 It sucks! OK, my more reasoned out input - It looks very much like you are being hit by an alien death ray.... But the bar scene smells like best Absinth mountain premium quality !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 22, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 Thanks again for all your thoughts on this. I've played around with some ideas based on the comments I've had here. Back is unchanged so far but I've taken the advice of using a pro photograph unaltered by filters and changed the layout a little. I think it is better - it looks a little 1970's to me (can't exactly explain why) but I don't have a problem with that. And now at least the live photo doesn't look like something I might have had taken in my bedroom This was taken by the official photographer at a big charity gig about 9 months ago. The back and the front still don't have much in common but I think the dark border helps blend them a little better. As before, the export to jpg and the upload here seem to have knocked some of the quality out of the pics but hopefully you get enough of an idea. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dan Acheron Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 I like the 2nd version better than the first. Another option is to get an artist that is experienced with creating album artwork to create the artwork for your album. I am not saying it is necessary but first impressions do matter. It may be worth considering if you are not completely satisfied with your artwork right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, first I do think it's worlds better than the first one While it was pretty much consensus that the first one was aesthetically "wrong" and I think we can treat those statements as definitive, with this one I've got some comments on v0.2 BUT they are more personal taste/judgment call (ie don't buy my BS unless it trends that way with a bunch of users) I can see what you are saying about the "70s" feel, and the "matted photo" style layout rings very familiar -front color scheme. I think it "vibrates" a little too much. the eye can have trouble resolving some color combination (like blue and red in close proximity) and I think the brown might have enough red where I'm getting some of that. I suppose this could go either way : PRO It does create a certain amount of visual drama CON I find it somewhat fatiguing and uncomfortable ...YMMV I'm not in love with the cover photo. I just seems like sort of this stock presskit photo that got pasted in there. I think it feels that way to me because it's sort of a midshot (is that the right term of art?) and you are eating the mic in it It doesn't really show your face (esp with the dark glasses...doable, but with the mic there's very little face), so it doesn't work too well as a "portrait of the performer" type cover the background is abstract and since it's a mid (not wide) shot, we don't get any sort of context, so it doesn't really work for me as a "performer in action" type cover either it feels neither fish-nor-fowl for me on that front I dig you aren't too comfortable with your face (with a face like that, who would be ....zzzzzinggg! I had to -- all seriousness aside though, I can understand where you are at with that), so maybe that "artist Identity" style cover isn't the right choice for this one since you'll kind of tend to hedge your bet on it and pull up short. Maybe a thematic cover is something to consider - it could maybe suggest what the album is about or something; style or conceptual themes that might run through the album or something Especially since you have a "candid" on the back that can serve as artist ID, you have some more freedom to work the front without the performer on it. well, just some thoughts, I don't believe them and you shouldn't either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 22, 2011 The new front pic is...meh...and if nothing else, poorly cropped. Don't take this the wrong way, but a good head shot would be better than what you have there now, and seriously, think about finding a trained graphics person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 and if nothing else, poorly cropped. he has a really good point there - there's stuff like the headstock being cut off, but probably more important is the top 1/3 or the real estate if nothing BUT background, so it's kind of like a mid shot in terms of detail and subject coverage, but it doesn't really function as a midshot in terms of composition. It looks like it was cropped that way to center the face in the image, but it makes the photo composition a slave to the layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 22, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 The new front pic is...meh...and if nothing else, poorly cropped. Don't take this the wrong way, but a good head shot would be better than what you have there now, and seriously, think about finding a trained graphics person... Hmm - I guess it's a matter of opinion but I actually really like the composition of the pic (which is nothing to do with me - the photographer can take the credit/blame for that). I've done some graphics work for other people - posters, album designs etc - so I'm not exactly a novice at this stuff. It is much harder though when it's for yourself. It's like songs - we can all recognise what's a good or bad song (for us) but it's a lot harder to have the appropriate detachment with something you've created for yourself. To the thematic cover point - yep, none of my other albums have a basic photo of me on the front. I have appeared but very much as an artistic rendering rather than a photo per se. I must be getting braver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 22, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 Just to give you a heads-up on what happens when you upload a pic here -- the "Keith Foster" and the "5000 Ways" are exactly the same font with the same colours in the original but somehow they look totally different colours here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PermaNoobie Posted March 22, 2011 Members Share Posted March 22, 2011 I have appeared but very much as an artistic rendering rather than a photo per se. I must be getting braver Consider going all the way: closeup or headshot. At least just rough one out and see how it sits (post it here). I really think that the midshot is a hedge and is not serving the function of showing the performer very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.