I found this picture to be really gaudy and boring, and it barely skims the line of criteria we discussed in class. It meets the bars of aesthetics, but it does not really capture the essence of the significance of this introduction and union of the United States and England. It also meets the “Rule of Thirds,” but, as mentioned, it is quite bland and posed. Although this photo is a feature photo, and not all feature photos are necessarily required to be all that interesting, but I just think that a story of this magnitude would yield a better image, either that captures more emotion, more of the activity, or just something that could give this photo a little kick.
This photo was featured on The Chicago Sun-Times and The New York Post this morning. The layouts of these pages are very similar, with exclamatory headlines pasted across the bottom of the photo. Both make humorous “British” references to slang and other various royal jokes, and both organizations chose to use the photo as (basically) their entire front page. Again, I think that the design elements that these organizations used for their front pages could have been improved.
I know that many editors and publishers are pressed for time and sometimes have to work with what they have, but I still think that the photo selection and general layouts of these pages could have been drastically improved.
love the image, and I wish you could've had one of Michelle HUGGING the queen. As far as editing goes, shouldn't this one follow the rule of thirds? everything is centered, which Perry said was the wrong answer for effective photography.
ReplyDelete