1st - her left eye looks odd to me, not sure what it is hmm.. but for marketing i think it works, mostly. I was drawn to the eyes first then the necklace, maybe if the eyes werent as bright as the necklace?
2nd - i like it, maybe smooth the pores? I like it on the skin but it looks a bit too close
Ian, I'm only guessing here, but my guess is that you colored the eyes and the glass the same, on purpose, to market the idea that the glass will highlight that one facial feature ALL OF US look at, and to suggest (in a marketing way) that the glass will make the wearer's eyes that much more attractive. Yes? No?
It's certainly a strong psychological marketing tool, and I think it's appropriate for jewelry advertising. My suggestion would be to keep some of the color around the eyes and glass (rather then desaturating completely), and use a color that is complementary to the blue eyes and blue glass. Most blues are complemented by colors in the orange range (google "color wheel" for some ideas); such colors would set off the blue, avoid the "desaturation harpies," and probably make an even stronger image.
Andre Labonte wrote:
1st shot, don't color the eyes. The eyes and the jewel fight for attention.
2nd shot ... yep, that works. But, do it on a white background, not skin where you see the pores so close.
I have to disagree on the first one about completely desaturating the eyes. I will agree that perhaps I should saturate them Less than the Jewel. I am going to try doing that actually.
MadelineLC wrote:
1st - her left eye looks odd to me, not sure what it is hmm.. but for marketing i think it works, mostly. I was drawn to the eyes first then the necklace, maybe if the eyes werent as bright as the necklace?
2nd - i like it, maybe smooth the pores? I like it on the skin but it looks a bit too close
Yes Madeline. My hope was that her eyes would grab your attention and pull your focus down to the Jewelry and build an association in peoples minds. I think you are right about making her eyes less bright than the jewelry.
Any Suggestions on smoothing the skin? What you see here is a median filter and then the Blur tool gone over it. I cant seem to get it smooth enough =/
Mr.walczak1 wrote:
good idea for marketing in wondering why the eyes are coloured whats the point the ad is strickly for the jewelry so why draw attention to the eyes
Well, The point To me is to create an association between the eyes and the Jewelry. I personally felt like if I had just color selected the Jewelry it would have been a pretty decent shot of a girl with a necklace.
In color selecting the eyes too... it became more interesting to the viewer, and more interesting is always good
tonylovesmary wrote:
Ian, I'm only guessing here, but my guess is that you colored the eyes and the glass the same, on purpose, to market the idea that the glass will highlight that one facial feature ALL OF US look at, and to suggest (in a marketing way) that the glass will make the wearer's eyes that much more attractive. Yes? No?
It's certainly a strong psychological marketing tool, and I think it's appropriate for jewelry advertising. My suggestion would be to keep some of the color around the eyes and glass (rather then desaturating completely), and use a color that is complementary to the blue eyes and blue glass. Most blues are complemented by colors in the orange range (google "color wheel" for some ideas); such colors would set off the blue, avoid the "desaturation harpies," and probably make an even stronger image....Show more →
Yes Tony. Thats almost exactly what I had in mind And also if you held one of these things in your hand you would see that they are very much like beautiful eyes. Some of them have hundreds of colors in them and very three dimensional. I thought the association was appropriate.
As for color around the eyes and pendant. Did you mean that I should tint the B&W? Or let some of the saturation back into the photo?
to me her eyes definitely grab your attention but it stayed there, if it were not as bright or it was a complimentary color like Tony said, i think i might actually focus on the necklace.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of the face your model is making. It makes her look stern or disappointed. I'd recommend taking one with a smile. Also, lose the plaid. She looks like she could come straight from the grunge era.
Why ask for feedback and become defensive then say that everyone can have their opinion and you'll have yours? That's a rhetorical question, somewhat. Here's my take: the model's face dominates the photo and then the eyes fix my attention. But, honestly, it's a creepy look. Anyway, the model's face is the foreground of the photo and the pendant is in the background - although nicely focused. I put my hand over the model's face, starting right at the chin and it's a cool picture that touts the pendant. So not to belabor the point but banner is about the jewelry and, in this photo, the model and her eyes are stealing the thunder that the pendant is fighting for. Are you wanting to keep the model's identity intact because she is family? Just wondering. Maybe a fuller photo including her hair and more of her would work better?
The second version looks better with the shirt's color left in. But she should be smiling. She looks rather glum, IMHO. She should be happy that someone gave her such a nice pendant.
Also, regarding the copy on the right: Script text is fancy, but very difficult to read at a glance. Also, you mention resistance to shattering. Now you've just put it into the customer's mind that their jewelry could break on them! Oops.
Maybe you should say something like long lasting, heirloom quality. Something like that.
No one probably cares that it take 45 minutes to an hour to create. (Really.) Tell me something about it that will make me appreciate it now that it has been created.
Also missing is your company's name/logo/trademark. This will go a long way in establishing your identity.
squareeyez wrote:
Why ask for feedback and become defensive then say that everyone can have their opinion and you'll have yours? That's a rhetorical question, somewhat. Here's my take: the model's face dominates the photo and then the eyes fix my attention. But, honestly, it's a creepy look. Anyway, the model's face is the foreground of the photo and the pendant is in the background - although nicely focused. I put my hand over the model's face, starting right at the chin and it's a cool picture that touts the pendant. So not to belabor the point but banner is about the jewelry and, in this photo, the model and her eyes are stealing the thunder that the pendant is fighting for. Are you wanting to keep the model's identity intact because she is family? Just wondering. Maybe a fuller photo including her hair and more of her would work better?...Show more →
Hmm. I guess why I want to keep her intact is because I want to show how it looks on someone. I have a few up close shots of the pendant itself that show the detail of it...
I guess what I am trying to do is sort of counter intuitive, and maybe it doesn't work but the idea is this....
If I work to minimize the viewer focus on the pendant, they will notice it more.
I guess I want people to say to themselves first.. "Hey - thats a nice photo" and then says "Oh, look, what a beautiful pendant she is wearing"
I dont know if I am explaining it right. But I dont want it to be the first thing that they consider in this particular photo.
I realise in the first post I didn't accomplish that very well. In the second post I feel like I am getting closer. (thanks to all of your advice and critique.)
And yes, I ask for advice and then defend myself on certain points that I like For the same reason you offer advice and then get Defensive when I dont agree!
FSJ_Guy wrote:
The second version looks better with the shirt's color left in. But she should be smiling. She looks rather glum, IMHO. She should be happy that someone gave her such a nice pendant.
Also, regarding the copy on the right: Script text is fancy, but very difficult to read at a glance. Also, you mention resistance to shattering. Now you've just put it into the customer's mind that their jewelry could break on them! Oops.
Maybe you should say something like long lasting, heirloom quality. Something like that.
No one probably cares that it take 45 minutes to an hour to create. (Really.) Tell me something about it that will make me appreciate it now that it has been created.
Also missing is your company's name/logo/trademark. This will go a long way in establishing your identity.
All great advice. Thank you. The wording isn't set in stone just yet, honestly I was just putting some stuff in there to show my parents the value of marketing themselves (they dont even hang a sign with the business name on it at present)
But those are all good points about the wording.
I noticed a lot of people saying that she should be smiling. I agree, and I will try and get her to smile.
My Model (wife) is very very stiff, in part because she is disabled, and in part because she just doesn't understand how to act natural. She looks terrible when she "tries" to smile, and when I get her to smile naturally the shot doesn't work (because I am working with two photo's - one where the focus is her eyes and one where the focus is the pendant)
So in short. I will give it a shot, or maybe ask my sister in law to try and do it.
but you are right about her expression. Thank you.
I like your association between the eyes and pendant - I like selective "color" if done right - there I said it. It is a design thing - not a photographic thing.
I'm not sure the model is right for the ad (smile, clothes, etc,) but that is not my strong suit.
From the first two...on number one. Give your title a bump or two to the right, or center it.
Also, number two, text "drop shadow"...it doesn't follow the light on the photo so it doesn't look "real" (drop shadow going right, pendant shadow left)...it seems a little too far away as well. The thin script gets a little hard to read, but I get the elegant look you are after...maybe try another color text.
) 
