|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 20, 2020 3:54:40 GMT
When designing for example an album cover, book cover, poster etc. Which is better? An image (photo) taking up the entire work or a “framed” image? I’m assuming the answer would be “it depends”… But is there a rule for what it depends on, that is when it is better to use just the image (photograph) as opposed to framing the image with “blank space”. Does it depend on: the image, the size, the font? Some examples of similar photographs, framed in different ways:
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 20, 2020 9:38:15 GMT
I think either option can work but I prefer the framed look in the examples provided. I used both when designing my covers but framing devices can tie the images and text together.
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on May 20, 2020 15:49:04 GMT
For something as in abstract-looking (your #1), non-framed looks best. If specific images as in #3, framed looks best. It draws the eye to focus on the content.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
@autumn
Posts: 4,544
Likes: 3,635
|
Post by autumn on May 20, 2020 18:32:13 GMT
It also depends on if the picture itself is going to be framed.
If you're going to matte it, that's like adding a further layer of a frame, so I'd not want to put yet another frame around it.
I like the first one, generally speaking.
I like the second one if there's, for example, an autograph involved.
Then I like the third one if you're going to frame it and need room to cut the picture down.
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on May 21, 2020 4:09:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 21, 2020 20:41:35 GMT
Have you heard about what happened when the artist Tracey Emin lost her cat? She made up posters and stuck them around her neighbourhood but they started to disappear. People were taking them down and collecting them as artwork. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1898461.stm
|
|