I have an old Makinon Macro lens for my 35mm Nikon. Useless. But Nikon was smart and made everything backwards compatible to a degree so you can use old lenses on new bodies (no this isn't another post about cameras) they are just totally manual.
Yesterday while I was attempting to get the Makinon sorted out (never happened) I took a photo with my current go-to lens. The image was so wonderful I played around with it most of the afternoon (no the trial was cancelled so I'm not on jury duty) and this morning I wondered if I could replace the old Fling cover.
I think it's worth a shot.
What are the rules I am potentially breaking? I would always advise against using a script font. So how do I figure it works for me and few others. Fling is a really short title. White letters on a dark background. Heck, with my bad eyes, I can read it. The font is so gorgeous with its long sweeping curves, it echoes the petals. The image is organic. The font is organic. It works for me.
My name is questionable. It's so long. It's always too much text. But this morning I don't care very much. I can always go back and change it anyway. Are readers going to see the cover and make a decision based on my name? Konrath yes. Morgenroth no. Your eye goes to the top of the image because of the large white lettering. They'll see Fling. They'll see the flower. They click or not. My name is insignificant to this design.
Why didn't I change the font to something simpler for my name? Because it's visually disruptive. We're into a curvilinear mode, anything block is discordant. That's the explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment