Warning to Jewelery Advertisement entries.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/26/2005 10:37:45 PM · #2

I didnt do text, I didnt want to mess it up! LOL

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

04/26/2005 10:01:19 PM · #3

I think the "poor text" plagued many of us. I need to remember to "brighten" most of my submissions because my laptop screen is brighter than the average monitor.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/26/2005 09:40:07 PM · #4

Neophyte: thanks for the critique of my shot.
Sadly your 100% correct as were others. My text was poor.
Thanks again for the professional review.

04/26/2005 09:06:00 PM · #5

No problem.

vivien

Sony DSC-F717

04/26/2005 06:18:49 PM · #6

Hey Dexter, I also want to say thank you for commenting on my photo!!
:-)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/26/2005 06:10:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by Beetle:

I'm still waiting for Dexter to get to my photo - unless he's one of my three paperbags ???

I'd never Paperbag. I've made to about of a third of them so far. I'm going for the "ads first" If I have time I'll comment on some of the jewelry photos that seem to me to more of a stock photo challenge.

To the bear, you're correct that all jewelry ads aren't in magazines. Most are in the stores' brochures. However, most photographers work for the ad agencies or sell stock photos. I rarely meet with the photographers themselves. I see ad agency people often and its they who use their cell phones to order a reshoot.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/26/2005 05:42:05 PM · #8

I'm still waiting for Dexter to get to my photo - unless he's one of my three paperbags ???

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/26/2005 05:38:33 PM · #9

It's worth mentioning in passing that not all jewelry "ads" are in magazines. In fact, most aren't; magazines are expensive places to advertise. A "flyer" or a postcard promoting a product qualifies as an "ad" as well. This is the area in which most commercial artists work, anyway; local, market-specific advertising.

Robt.

ralph

Nikon Z9

04/26/2005 05:37:53 PM · #10

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by ralphnev:
i think the DOF in mine adds to the image
And would make good copy

it's just difficult for some to make a connection
(resting quietly at 5.5)

I'm really sorry if I offended anyone. Advertising is about making the connection with as many people as you can. The problem I see in my work is that artist are very sensitive about comments. Of course you think it would make good copy or you wouldn't have entered it. My opinion as a photographer is that when you express yourself, you have to be prepared for critisism. My position as a marketing director is that we're not here to fund the arts, but to sell product and build an image. I stand by my opinion that A deeper crisper depth of field that engulfs the entire piece of jewelry (Thanks KaDi) is important. As always there are exceptions...
Oh yeah, I agree 100% with Gladtobeadad. (and I'll be 1 soon too)

no offence taken .. (at least not yet ;)
my hide is thickening as i type

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/26/2005 05:33:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by ralphnev:

i think the DOF in mine adds to the image
And would make good copy

it's just difficult for some to make a connection
(resting quietly at 5.5)

I'm really sorry if I offended anyone. Advertising is about making the connection with as many people as you can. The problem I see in my work is that artist are very sensitive about comments. Of course you think it would make good copy or you wouldn't have entered it. My opinion as a photographer is that when you express yourself, you have to be prepared for critisism. My position as a marketing director is that we're not here to fund the arts, but to sell product and build an image. I stand by my opinion that A deeper crisper depth of field that engulfs the entire piece of jewelry (Thanks KaDi) is important. As always there are exceptions...
Oh yeah, I agree 100% with Glad2beadad. (and I'll be 1 soon too)

Message edited by author 2005-04-26 17:36:25.

george crawford

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/26/2005 03:36:18 PM · #12

Thanks alot for commenting on my image. It's always nice to know what someone in the industry thinks. I'll have taken your comments onboard and hopefully will improve for next time :)

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

04/26/2005 03:28:37 PM · #13

...but there is also a generous number of really good entries in this challenge. I'm amazed at the talent and how some DPC'ers can put together a quality ad (the text part IS challenging - not that it's required). You have to be more than a photographer to really do this right...and some have.

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Originally posted by bcoble:
I really feel bad. I have been looking at these entries as if they were a advertisement. Many of them look bad. Is it me? Most of these I can not amagine seeing them in a magazine. I look at the layout first than I look at the quality of the photo.

It is not you bcoble, most of the entries really are bad! I also looked at these as if perusing ads for jewelry and most would not make the cut, certainly not mine.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

04/26/2005 03:27:09 PM · #14

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by KaDi:
By the way, since you're fixing spelling errors, it's jewelry (not jewelery).

I think that you'll find that it is jewellery... ; )

My thanks to Neophyte for his comment on my pic - very useful.

Depends on where your from. UK and the beagle is correct, in the states KaDi.

I didn't mean to start something!
It's just a pet peeve of mine from years of making and selling jewelry. (And, ironically, I'm not in the current challenge.)
But worse than the spelling (and, yes, I know I just started a sentence with a conjunction) is how some folks pronounce the word. It just grates on my ear to hear someone say "jew - weller - ee"! My thinking is that if they would only pronounce it the way we North East US'rs do, they'd be so much better spellers.
No offence meant to those who employ the "alternative" pronounciation....I'm a nice person, really, not at all anal...

ralph

Nikon Z9

04/26/2005 03:04:17 PM · #15

i think the DOF in mine adds to the image
And would make good copy

it's just difficult for some to make a connection
(resting quietly at 5.5)

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/26/2005 03:00:08 PM · #16

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by KaDi:
By the way, since you're fixing spelling errors, it's jewelry (not jewelery).

I think that you'll find that it is jewellery... ; )

My thanks to Neophyte for his comment on my pic - very useful.

NO, No,no. It is jeullarree!

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

04/26/2005 02:58:29 PM · #17

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Depends on where your from. UK and the beagle is correct, in the states KaDi.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/26/2005 02:56:12 PM · #18

Originally posted by bcoble:

I really feel bad. I have been looking at these entries as if they were a advertisement. Many of them look bad. Is it me? Most of these I can not amagine seeing them in a magazine. I look at the layout first than I look at the quality of the photo.

It is not you bcoble, most of the entries really are bad! I also looked at these as if perusing ads for jewelry and most would not make the cut, certainly not mine.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/26/2005 02:55:47 PM · #19

Originally posted by dewed:

Am I the only one finding an awful lot of images with very poor DOF, out of focus, or with the focus in the wrong place?

I believe that many were trying to be really creative and different with their choice of Dof or focus. I also think many had problems taking such a close up shots of small subject matter. The problem here is that you don't want to be subtle. It just doesn't work in ads where the goal is attract attention to your message.

Message edited by author 2005-04-26 14:57:03.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/26/2005 02:45:25 PM · #20

Originally posted by KaDi:

By the way, since you're fixing spelling errors, it's jewelry (not jewelery).

I think that you'll find that it is jewellery... ; )

My thanks to Neophyte for his comment on my pic - very useful.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

04/26/2005 02:32:43 PM · #21

By the way Dexter, your comment on mine was right on and exactly as I would have expected.
Shame on me for editing mine on my home PC/Monitor.
:)

dewed

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/26/2005 02:32:39 PM · #22

Am I the only one finding an awful lot of images with very poor DOF, out of focus, or with the focus in the wrong place?

04/26/2005 02:11:38 PM · #23

Thanks KaDi, I'm terrible with some words. However in response to bcoble, Some aren't ad quality and this is part of the process, I never take only one or two ad designs as finalists unless something just knocks my socks off. Every entry I've commented on has at least one good component that would work for an ad (many have more than one!). The trick is to put it together. There are many times when I'll ask the designer to put components from different ads together to make something I feel will sell the product or generate interest. By the way, 5.2 is my best score to date and I'd be pleased to get another!

Sunniee

Canon EOS-40D