The color scheme makes the old one work. The reds and browns in the new one make it look more like the desert than the ocean. The blue/green sells me on the old one.
Also, I prefer the legs and feet in the old one. The stripe up the sides of the pants of the new one make it look like bluejeans. Without being able to see the tops of the shoes, they start to look like cowboy boots. It doesn't help me think "ocean" in my first impression.
Thousand shouldn't be capitalized under the entry for "Kilometer"
You use 0.39 inch (singular) and .061 cubic inch (again, singular), and yet .62 miles (plural); personally, I'd rather you stick with the plural, but either way, it ought to be consistent.
You have 0.39 (with a leading 0), and yet .061 and .62 (without); again, personally, I'd rather you have the 0, but either way, consistency.
On a more design-related note, the white extract text is just the tiniest bit hard to read, and I'm not a huge fan of your mock (is it mock?) publishing house logo, but even those are very trivial criticisms to a marvellously well-executed book cover; I would want to buy the book for the cover alone.
Thousand shouldn't be capitalized under the entry for "Kilometer"
You use 0.39 inch (singular) and .061 cubic inch (again, singular), and yet .62 miles (plural); personally, I'd rather you stick with the plural, but either way, it ought to be consistent.
You have 0.39 (with a leading 0), and yet .061 and .62 (without); again, personally, I'd rather you have the 0, but either way, consistency.
On a more design-related note, the white extract text is just the tiniest bit hard to read, and I'm not a huge fan of your mock (is it mock?) publishing house logo, but even those are very trivial criticisms to a marvellously well-executed book cover; I would want to buy the book for the cover alone.
Thanks. I trust your knowledge of measurements, but I copied that block of text from the appendix of old edition of the book that I have. I'm not sure how reliable it is, nor do I think any publisher would actually put that type of thing on a back cover, but I just wanted some type to fill the space.
I agree with you on the readability of the back (which I've already changed in a revised file). And the logo, once again, is just a quick placeholder that was mostly a sloppy afterthought (rather than use a real publishers logo and cause confusion/copyright issues.
This thread is awesome, really. I might have a critique or so here and there for a few pieces way back, but it's not that necessary. You have nice stuff, very nice for still being in school. I'm assuming (hopefully correctly) that you are an illustration major if you're still in school. Which is also my major. You have really awesome stuff, illustration-wise. But you also have some really strong elements of graphic design. Wondering if you're just naturally talented with that, or if you're taking some classes?
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Hmmm I like, but I'm not digging the text. Something tells me the academy of natural sciences would be straight laced and not receptive to crazy variations in their fonts. "We, sir, have straight up fonts here, I humbly apologise, but that is just the way we like to kick it."
I agree with the antler comment a bit, as it lacks the detail that the other objects have.
However, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you both on the font choice (granted this is just my opinion). If he kept it to a nice neat font, it would completely break the mood of the rest of the piece. Besides every natural sciences teacher I had, even the "straight laced" teachers I had, I would consider this title to match them to a 't'. They are scientists (so the serif font is a great choice because it represents a kind of traditional elegance), but they're natural scientists so it conveys the kind of chaotic neatness that nature has. Blah blah blah, I'm rambling now. Just my 2 cents.
I think it'd help, if you used just a little of that yellow, and a touch of the black outside of the microscrope, and brought a hair of green into the microscope
Them being natural science, might make it sense that things are not as "man-made" and have irregularities.
So not to clog up jibjibs thread, but I feel like you're agreeing with me here, because what I was trying to say is that the jumbly words jibjib used DO represent something that is not as man made. If he streamlined it like you and mustang were saying it would lose that "natural" feel to it.
Either way, Jibjib, your linework and sense of layout are fabtastic. I never get enough of it.
Ya I was agreeing with you. You have wooed me with your finely crafted words. Natural was the word I was looking for but was on the tip of my tongue (finger?).
Also, there is too much white on the bottom right shell. It distracts.
EDIT: Jibjib is one of my favorite artists here. If I had the money, I would contract some art from him.
I normally just lurk on this forum, but I thought I might as well mention that I've been following this thread since you started it and I really love your work. Keep it up!
Posts
from the old one:
how about this? still a no?
Also, I prefer the legs and feet in the old one. The stripe up the sides of the pants of the new one make it look like bluejeans. Without being able to see the tops of the shoes, they start to look like cowboy boots. It doesn't help me think "ocean" in my first impression.
Thanks. I trust your knowledge of measurements, but I copied that block of text from the appendix of old edition of the book that I have. I'm not sure how reliable it is, nor do I think any publisher would actually put that type of thing on a back cover, but I just wanted some type to fill the space.
I agree with you on the readability of the back (which I've already changed in a revised file). And the logo, once again, is just a quick placeholder that was mostly a sloppy afterthought (rather than use a real publishers logo and cause confusion/copyright issues.
And I've already changed the sic typo, thanks
(edit with fixes:
Keep up the good work.
However, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you both on the font choice (granted this is just my opinion). If he kept it to a nice neat font, it would completely break the mood of the rest of the piece. Besides every natural sciences teacher I had, even the "straight laced" teachers I had, I would consider this title to match them to a 't'. They are scientists (so the serif font is a great choice because it represents a kind of traditional elegance), but they're natural scientists so it conveys the kind of chaotic neatness that nature has. Blah blah blah, I'm rambling now. Just my 2 cents.
My Portfolio Site
So not to clog up jibjibs thread, but I feel like you're agreeing with me here, because what I was trying to say is that the jumbly words jibjib used DO represent something that is not as man made. If he streamlined it like you and mustang were saying it would lose that "natural" feel to it.
Either way, Jibjib, your linework and sense of layout are fabtastic. I never get enough of it.
My Portfolio Site
Also, there is too much white on the bottom right shell. It distracts.
EDIT: Jibjib is one of my favorite artists here. If I had the money, I would contract some art from him.
for today,
I drew my giiiiirlfrend. She's an avid lepidopterist, so that's the theme.
Fun drawing.