Album artwork...

[PanToshi]

You have hijacked the OP's thread enough now... do your own research and read the link I provided.

[rdan173]

Your right, sorry op. I'll read up on copy right laws. I was thinking of a Tommy Hilfigure ad that mentioned Calvin Kline and other designers in a non derogratory way with no images. But anyway I will stop posting about it now.

[PrintDriver]

While I agree the typography is week on the first post, I don't think you can globally say, finding an image, paying for the image, slapping some text on it that works with the image to get the message across isn't how some graphic design is accomplished. As to what a studio does or doesn't do, it's all in what sells the clients' product.

If a good stock image with good typography does that, why go to the time and expense of making it more difficult just to fulfill someone's idea of a time expenditure.
Time does not equal Pro.
The Pro takes the most direct route to the solution of a client's particular message delivery challenge.

As Kool used to point out often, if you need clip art of a car tire, are you going to take the time to draw it (assuming you have the artistic skills to do so) or are you going to look for a ready-made that fits the bill?

As for obliterating the Ford logo on a Ford car...most car designs are identifiable as the model and even the year they were made. Removing the logo may not be enough. It depends on the context of the use of the photo.

Note, I'm ignoring the white on black thing the OP posted. That is a totally wrong direction.

[Sammie]

Originally Posted by PrintDriver

While I agree the typography is week on the first post, I don't think you can globally say, finding an image, paying for the image, slapping some text on it that works with the image to get the message across isn't how some graphic design is accomplished. As to what a studio does or doesn't do, it's all in what sells the clients' product.

If a good stock image with good typography does that, why go to the time and expense of making it more difficult just to fulfill someone's idea of a time expenditure.
Time does not equal Pro.
The Pro takes the most direct route to the solution of a client's particular message delivery challenge.

As Kool used to point out often, if you need clip art of a car tire, are you going to take the time to draw it (assuming you have the artistic skills to do so) or are you going to look for a ready-made that fits the bill?

As for obliterating the Ford logo on a Ford car...most car designs are identifiable as the model and even the year they were made. Removing the logo may not be enough. It depends on the context of the use of the photo.

Note, I'm ignoring the white on black thing the OP posted. That is a totally wrong direction.

You make some good points there PD and I understand where you're coming from. When you're facing a tight deadline, I can see the benefit in obtaining imagery that you didn't create and which suits the intended brief.

The OP didn't mention or imply a deadline, so I was looking at the situation that a bigger effort could have been made. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just respect work that has been completely created from scratch a bit more. When time is against you, we don't always have the luxury creating 100% of the work.

[seamas]

Originally Posted by rdan173

I agree commercial design and art are different. I know there is a benifit to society for artists to express themselves about any subject or identity and copy right shouldn't make them hesitate. Like Andy Warhol and campbel soup and the guy who signed a toliet and called it art. For me I've only used stock images but maybe Iwill research if there are some instances where commercial art can get away with some of what art can?

The "guy" was Marcel Duchamp.
One of the key figures and among the most influential artistic minds of the 20th century.

(The piece was titled Fountain, it was a urinal--he signed it R Mutt)

[sully1251]

There have been some strange comments flying around in this discussion. Some of the thoughts are only semi-related to the the original thread.

Usually there are no copyright problems with NASA images. I have used them time and again through the years. However, no NASA image should ever be used without clear permission to do so. The OP must simply check with NASA and have their OK. That is the law and it is just good business.

You are all welcome to your own thoughts. However, many of the opinions about the use of the image of Mars for the album cover are far less than professional. In the case of the album cover, the designer's job was to came up with a design that is interesting and appealing for that particular market. Using a picture of a portion of the surface of Mars as a design for an album of far out music is clever in its self. There is nothing lazy in that.

If you want to create all the items in your designs, you might consider becoming a fine artist. Baking cakes from scratch is not part of the professional code of graphic arts.

The typography has been racked over the coals. "It is hard to read." "I don't like type set in a vertical format."
There are only a couple of words here. This is supposed to look "different". And, the world will not end because we can't figure out how to nit-pick this thing about the kerning.

Also, to all of you fine folks who are somehow concerned about the copyright on Ford cars:
Utilitarian articles can not be protected by copyright. In other words, if you take a photo of a Ford and put it in your next flyer design, there is no need to lose sleep over it. And, no, you don't have to retouch out the logo. It would save a lot of distraction if we would all spend a little time reading copyright law.

Yes, PD— I am also not bothering to comment on the black and white version.

[Rachel B]

In the case of the album cover, the designer's job was to came up with a design that is interesting and appealing for that particular market. Using a picture of a portion of the surface of Mars as a design for an album of far out music is clever in its self. There is nothing lazy in that.

thank you Sully

[benrichards]

thanks for all the feedback.

we can now end the copyright discussion as it is a NASA image and as it states on their website, you can use their images, just not the logo. I will double triple check this if needs be by sending the appropriate emails etc.

constructive design feedback still much appreciated..
thanks

[Paj]

I think your original image is great. Like any good horror movie, where the viewer will imagine their own version of an unseen monster, here I can see all sort of shapes and images forming. Imagination is always more powerful than a direct representation of something, and I think your original cover fires that imaginative spark. It definitely makes me want to listen to what type of music is on the album.

I also think the typography works - the small, well formed and austere lettering contrasts nicely against the vibrant, swirling imagery. As far as album artwork typography goes, this is definitely some of the mosre easily readable examples I've come across.

The only thing would be the use of roman numerals which is perhaps a little confusing - at first I thought they formed part of the album name, and I was trying to read horizontally first, like stacked type.