Feb-05-2011, 12:38 AM (UTC)
(This post was last modified: Feb-05-2011, 12:41 AM (UTC) by redchild.)
Brightness depends on it's context. Take George Orwell's 1984:
[Image: 1984-cover.jpg]
It's just an iris surrounded by white! But it's been designed with good sense and much thought.
I found this one posted on wikipedia and I want to post it just because I like it so much:
[Image: 403px-1984first.jpg]
Even though this doesn't feature a bright white scheme, this is a very simple but effective design. I can imagine the colors inverted so that the text features various shades of green, or any other color, against a white background, and it would still be effective. But I like it better as it is.
Perhaps being surrounded by colorful, dark color schemes used by other books would actually make this cover stand out. Besides, I have no doubt every bookstore will display this edition prominently at the entrance of their shops with signs hanging from the ceiling, directing your eyes to it if you haven't noticed it already.
I've always liked this shot of Dany/Emily Clarke. The photograph has got a great composition. It's got a very graphic quality to it, like a Lautrec designed poster or something.
I can't say the same about the cropping job for the book, though. The ears of the horse draw too much attention to the corners of the frame while its nose causes a tangent on the bottom of the frame. Clarke's face is dead center and that face that her features have a much darker contrast, especially being surrounded by lighter tones, making it stand out a bit too prominently. I don't like the way her shoulder blade has been cut off, either. The entire cropping job is much too cramped and by simply pulling out from the photograph, you can enhance the composition so much more.
I also have gripes against the typeface-- boring, and bland. Why do people always choose the most overused typefaces? There are so many other elegant typefaces that suit the design so much better. And the ugly seal that looks like a bird pooped on it. Why can't they ever put those things in the back of the book? Or maybe as a sticker instead being of printed right on there (so you can rip it off later)?
Sometimes I wonder who hires these cover designers. I've seen student work much better than many "professionally" designed book covers. Publishing companies should take a look at some students who do good work and need the money and exposure.
I'm just picky.
[Image: 1984-cover.jpg]
It's just an iris surrounded by white! But it's been designed with good sense and much thought.
I found this one posted on wikipedia and I want to post it just because I like it so much:
[Image: 403px-1984first.jpg]
Even though this doesn't feature a bright white scheme, this is a very simple but effective design. I can imagine the colors inverted so that the text features various shades of green, or any other color, against a white background, and it would still be effective. But I like it better as it is.
Perhaps being surrounded by colorful, dark color schemes used by other books would actually make this cover stand out. Besides, I have no doubt every bookstore will display this edition prominently at the entrance of their shops with signs hanging from the ceiling, directing your eyes to it if you haven't noticed it already.
I've always liked this shot of Dany/Emily Clarke. The photograph has got a great composition. It's got a very graphic quality to it, like a Lautrec designed poster or something.
I can't say the same about the cropping job for the book, though. The ears of the horse draw too much attention to the corners of the frame while its nose causes a tangent on the bottom of the frame. Clarke's face is dead center and that face that her features have a much darker contrast, especially being surrounded by lighter tones, making it stand out a bit too prominently. I don't like the way her shoulder blade has been cut off, either. The entire cropping job is much too cramped and by simply pulling out from the photograph, you can enhance the composition so much more.
I also have gripes against the typeface-- boring, and bland. Why do people always choose the most overused typefaces? There are so many other elegant typefaces that suit the design so much better. And the ugly seal that looks like a bird pooped on it. Why can't they ever put those things in the back of the book? Or maybe as a sticker instead being of printed right on there (so you can rip it off later)?
Sometimes I wonder who hires these cover designers. I've seen student work much better than many "professionally" designed book covers. Publishing companies should take a look at some students who do good work and need the money and exposure.
I'm just picky.