A first go at 'Kaikoura'|
Two versions so far - ragged left
and all over the place really
. Neglecting the jpeg artefacts - opinions anyone?
ETA a variation on all over the place
- do you mind me playing round with your line structure, or would you prefer if I didn't?
ETA a variation on ragged left
I *really* like the second version, because it draws my eye to different points in the picture as I'm reading the text.
|Date:||July 11th, 2008 08:59 pm (UTC)|| |
I prefer the ragged left, but they're both lovely.
I prefer the ragged left format, but the yellow color and serif font are hard for me to read. The black text in the second piece was easier. *ponder* Could you you "fade" the background on the right side of the picture, behind the text, to make black lettering pop out better?
It's possible - I'll give it a go.
|Date:||July 12th, 2008 01:54 am (UTC)|| |
I like the all over the place on.
humm like first version of all ova the place. 2nd one hard to read. yellow colour txt is yuck. and all txt on right looks....to normal.
I like the new black-lettered ragged left. It's almost perfect, aside from the last few lines disappearing into the pebbles.
But I like the new all-over one too, the way you made it look like some of the verses are wrapping around the beach. I wouldn't have thought of that, and it's clever. On the other hoof, usually I don't like having line-endings messed with, because in poetry, those aren't arbitrary; they mean something. On the third hoof, it's fascinating to see what other people come up with when they play with my writing -- and some folks really seem to like the all-over idea.
So, play around to your heart's content.
My opinion --
I like the ragged left bc the relationship between the photo and text is good. However, the text is too small to read and the text color is not good -- makes the text more unreadable. The variation on ragged left is really good. Except.. it feels too cold to me now, maybe bc the text is the same cold grey as some colors in the photo. I don't know. It makes the text readable but it's not very interesting a design.
I like the all over the place as an art design -- but not as an illustration of the poem itself -- and the text color is better. I think the top stanza needs to be lifted bc it is crashing into a line of the mountains. Crashing is ok if that's what you meant to do, but then make it really crash. This is done halfway. As my design instructor insisted, do it a lot or not at all, otherwise it looks like an accident, and that looks sloppy. I'd also say the 2nd stanza needs to be centered in the water vertically -- it is close to the bottom water line and far from the top. It looks accidental, and again that comes across as sloppy. I like how the text changes colors bc it really needs to, to be read. But again, the text needs to be larger to be read. This poem might be too long to fit on one photo if you want it readable, at least, on a computer screen. If this project was to be printed at say 11 x 17 or poster size, then it works, but on a computer screen it is too small.
The variation on all over the place... I'd only say -- no. Just, no.
Thanks very much for sharing your knowledge.
I have absolutely no training in graphic design, and I suspect it's showing. I was intending it as a small poster sized print. (I have 3700 pixels width to play with.)
I have decided to go with another ragged left variation - I couldn't get the all over the place ones to work well enough to justify mucking round with Elizabeth's line endings.
Well I can tell you that ragged left, to me, is actually "flush right". Big graphics knowledge there. :-)
This is all just my own opinion. I tried to give you some details on why I thought what I did but in the end, it's just what I like. Others may have a different opinion as per their own preferences.
For it to be a small poster sized print.... allow me to give you some info others have regretted not knowing in similar projects, and I wish I had said something to them in advance....
1) Make sure that photo resolution is 300 dpi minimum or it will not print -- unless you are planning to print it on a small home photo printer (then the res can be smaller but it depends on the photo printer itself). Lo res photos printed on bigger machines will come out blurry and pixelated.
2) You cannot increase physical size by more than say 20% without losing image quality in printing. So, if the photo is 300 dpi, but physically only 4" x 6" in size, you cannot really increase it to poster size. Number of pixels in size is helpful in doing web graphics, but not in printing a project.
This is only relevant for printing -- computer monitors are 72 dpi so images shared only via web can be lo res.
3) Keep in mind that computer screens operate on an RGB color model but printing operates on a CMYK model. In photoshop that means you need to change the color mode manually to CMYK. If you do not, it may still print (depending on where and what machine is used -- for ex your home printer will print RGB, an actual printing press will not), but you will notice the colors are not bright and are "muddy". It's disappointing if you are not expecting it and correcting for it.
I always convert any images I am planning to print to CMYK mode before messing with them so I know what I'll be getting.
So! That's all I got.
So let me check my understanding here -
I have a ~ 3000x2400 sensor in my camera (Not exactly, but that's close enough for a back of the envelope calculation)
My current understanding is that dots=pixels.
If I printed a pic at 300dpi I'd get a 10x8in picture, and the quality would be limited by the printer?
Do I understand correctly that I could scale that picture up by 20% - relying on my image processing software to do some sort of interpolation - without an appreciable loss of quality?
Colour management is a learning curve for another day, I think.
If you have a 300 dpi file that is physically 8 x 10 in size that would be a very high quality image and I think you'd be ok no matter what printer you used. Some people have digital photos as low as 150 dpi, and possibly if you printed it on a lo res printer it would come out ok, or at least good enough. But if your file is 300 and 8 x 10 that should print ok anywhere.
I don't think you'd notice any real loss of quality if you went up to 20% more in size. I try and keep it at 10% max myself but you can give 20% a try and see how it looks.
As for color management all you have to know is, if you're printing an image, make it CMYK.
Final version is up - see it here