Business Card Critique Please! Took your ideas into consideration

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Hi All. After all your suggestions in the other post, I have come up with a basic idea for my new card. The images on the back side can definitely change, and if you think they should, please let me know. I live in the Boston area, so please keep that target audience in mind. Thank you in advance for your input.</p>

<p>-Vail</p>

<p>P.S. if you want to see more of the back side designs you can see them here: <br>

http://FuccisPhotos.zenfolio.com/businesscarddesigns</p><div></div>

[kevin_swan1]

<p>I like the text font and content, but I have a couple comments about the overall design.</p>

<p>First of all, I wouldn't waste the money paying for the images on the back of the card. Dual-sided printing is going to be more expensive than single-sided anyway, and to do it in full colour instead of simple black-and-white is more expensive still. Business cards are tiny, and I don't think showing your photos on such a small medium will have any impact at all - particularly if you're cramming *3* of them on the back of a single business card!</p>

<p>Along the same lines, the image on the front of your card should be changed I think. Currently, it's just a close-up shot of a dress. The card is too small to really showcase the detail, and the subject is too abstract to have any real impact, or demonstrate your artistic talent or professional proficiency.</p>

<p>I'd pick a nice, formal or candid portrait for the image on the front of your card, and just leave the back blank.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents!</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I agree with most of Kevin's comments but I'd skip the email address and just go with the web URL...........</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Kevin and David, I appreciate your input, but I have used this company before, and their pricing isn't bad at all for full color on back and front. Also, as far as the medium being too small to show anything, I would also disagree. If I can have some chance to show at least a little bit of an image that might make them want to see more, then I will take that. The whole picture's worth a thousand words I really feel applies here.<br>

I agree I was concerned about the small size of the 3 images on the back, so I thought about doing just one on the back. The front I was just going for something simple. I've asked my previous brides to review the cards as well, and their reaction to the front image has been very positive. As for getting rid of the email address, I'm not sure on that David. I agree that visually it looks redundant, but I am one of those people that uses my card to say, here email me, and asking a person to go to my site and use the contact form over actually just having my email there would probably be annoying to them. Here's my new go at it taking into account some of what Kevin said...</p>

<p>Perhaps a vertical shot<br /> <img src="http://FuccisPhotos.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p747302459-3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Or a more classic horizontal one?</p><div></div>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I have a number of issues with the designs presented here:</p>

<p>First of all, I'm not a bit fan of the font used for your details. Times-type fonts (with serif) are somehow "busier" and less clean and they are usually associated with all things "classical", "typical", "established" (but not in the good sense) and overall boring. I would prefer a smaller type, on a much cleaner and simpler font, say a thin Arial-type font, maybe a couple of points smaller.</p>

<p>Second, while I understand the use of the flowing script for the title, keep in mind that 8 out of 10 wedding photographers use the same flowing script - thereby making yours non-descript. I'm not saying you should change it, but maybe do something to set it apart somehow. Personally, I'd use a more "hand-written" style...OR, maybe you could make the word "Photos" fainter, maybe in a light or dark grey, so that "Fucci's" remains more prominent...</p>

<p>Third, internet addresses do not differentiate between capitals and lowercase letters. They way you've written it (and I understand why) appears different (and not nicely different) in a world where ALL other addresses are written all in lowercase. This is ONE place where you WANT to be the same as everyone - you don't want people to have to shift-type to your address...</p>

<p>Finally, I don't like the idea of printing to the edge (I'm talking about the back side of the card) only in one direction! Either print edge to edge or in total frame. I agree with you that 3 images at the back is NOT too much and CAN be made to show, but I would advise against using colour images - I'd stick with B&W ones: they tend to appear more stylish and more professional (sad, I know, but true to the perception of people out there).</p>

<p>I've worked for years as a graphic designer (before being able to focus entirely on photography) and what I said here are what I would caution a client against...I hope they help...</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Really, the purpose of your card is to make contact....with the phone number they can call you directly, with the web URL they can see your site and samples of your work, your site should have a link on each page with your email contact. IMO, the email address is clutter and not necessary (less is more). I also prefer a blank back.....for me, it has nothing to do with cost, if you read some old posts you'll see WW's suggestion about using the blank back to your advantage.</p>

<p>BTW, the subliminal message of the vertical image is "turning it's back on you and your studio"....probably not what you're looking for. However, I'm sure you can find people who will tell you that they like it.</p>

[markonestudios]

My comments:

<br>1. The cursive fonts are pretty but can sometimes make things harder to read and thus less likely to be remembered.

<p>2. The image of the gown detail whispers "underexposed" to me. I would use a different, stronger image for the front of the card.

<p>3. I agree with Marios, 3 images in that format is pushing it, for a biz card size where you are aiming to create impact. Maybe one strong one, two at most?

<p>4. The dark blue background on the card makes the overall card look a bit dull. It helps make the fonts stand out but I'm not sure the overall effect makes me want to give you a call. Maybe something brighter?

<p>That's my tuppence :]

[ianivey]

<p>Because the contact information is knock-out text (i.e., white text knocked out of a dark mostly-solid-color background), using a serif font runs the risk of losing letter shape where the serifs are thin. For knock-out text, a sans-serif font (or a slab-serif font, which features serifs but without the thickness variations of most serif fonts) will make the text more reliably legible. Normal serif fonts may look fine on screen, but ink bleeds, even with digital presses.</p>

<p>I wouldn't ever, ever use Arial (or Times Roman, for that matter, though it doesn't look, to me, like you used Times for that text) because it just looks so common and amateurish. Even using the very similar Helvetica is an improvement over Arial.</p>

<p>You might consider Kozuka Gothic Pro (Medium weight). If it's not on your computer already, I believe you can <a href="http://fonts.zaraf.ro/font2638/download.htm">get it for free here</a>. It's a modern-but-elegant-looking sans-serif font that I think complements your logo script font. And it has the added benefit of being subtly more tall than wide, which will help you fit your text into that space.</p>

<p>I generally agree that single images per side are better than multiple images per side, but reasonable arguments can be made for either view. My thought is that a single image -- particularly an outstanding signature image (rather than a common portrait) can both captivate momentarily and also communicate your style. I think it's harder to captivate the viewer with multiple images, because images call for attention, and with multiple images, there are multiple voices saying "yoo hoo!"</p>

<p>I think the shot of <strong>the little girl looking down the hall at the bride is a really good one</strong> for a card: it tells a story all on its own, and has multiple interesting elements that reveal themselves individually. The shot of the groom in uniform is a good one for <em>that couple, </em>but probably does not qualify as one of your signature shots -- he's too close to a monkey-face-smooching expression, and I know that you work hard to get your clients to avoid making that face. :)</p>

<p>I think of the image side as the front of my card, and the contact-info side as the back. With the little girl image, I think that perspective works. Maybe include your logo small, in the lower left corner where there's some open space. Having the logo also on that side isn't that important for people to whom you're physically handing your card, but if you leave a stack of cards with a vendor who displays that side, the presence of a small logo can improve the card's effectiveness. And because it's the side potential clients will stare at longer, having the logo there can reinforce your brand. It does disrupt the image a bit, but only a bit if you make it fairly small but still within the resolving power of the printing equipment.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I agree with David. Have your best photo to the right and to the left, your name, telephone number and website. They can email you from your website.</p>

[andresa]

<p>The typography is too unsophisticated to carry any feeling of artistry. The photos would make me wonder why your best dress shot is underexposed and your best intimate moment is a grab shot in front of a vehicle.</p>

[kim_marie_coon]

<p>I am a graphic designer for print (as opposed to web, which has different rules). First and foremost, remove the border around the photo. Unless you have a significant border, it will cause problems for the printing and cutting of your cards. Thin borders tend to exaggerate any misalignment in cutting and will make your cards look really crooked if they get it wrong. Make your photo full bleed (the picture extends beyond the edge of the page), it is more stylistically current and will get past that problem. (Most printers want a bleed of 0.125 per side minimum.)</p>

<p>You're in Boston, which is on the cutting edge of trend and design, so you really need to get rid of whatever makes you look like you downloaded a template from Vistaprint. The font and the navy blue need to go. The dress is cliche, but it does spell out visually exactly what you're trying to convey -- wedding. The thing I really like about the dress on the front is that it's cropped for visual impact and runs off the page. The navy is just plain dark and drab and as others have mentioned, the reverse color for the font tends be hard to read and that font is over used.</p>

<p>I would say, your favorite photo with your logo on one side; logo, contact information in a sans serif font on the back without a background image. Think long and hard about a vertical versus a horizontal format. Vertical is more interesting visually, but your card will always be sideways in their biz card book and people, being lazy by nature, may overlook it for the next one down that they don't have to turn the book or their head to read. DON'T mix the two, it's annoying to have to flip then turn the card to read the back. You need the potential client to be intrigued enough in your card to keep it.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>I don't agree that the blue is "drab." Drab <em>can </em>be used as a synonym for "dark," but it most often means "lacking in color," which navy blue (by definition) is not. Furthermore, the navy blue here is not a discrete design element, but is the actual background setting for that dress. To change that color, Vail has to change the photo (which I realize some here are arguing is also desirable, but for different reasons). If people are criticizing the choice of the matching navy blue for the long-side border of the obverse side, okay, but I think the better criticism is Kim's comment that the border itself is a problem and that the photo should be a full-bleed.</p>

<p>In other words, I don't think the choice of navy blue, per se, is hurting you here. But the use of border elements does hurt, and I can go either way on the merits of the dress image photographically speaking.</p>

<p>This dress shot is a good stock-photo-style image because it leaves half the image open for text against a near-solid background. However, this is not a signature shot that conveys style and meaning. And, with the contact information there, the dress image becomes context, rather than feature. Still further, if you use a strong signature image on the other side, what was context becomes a throw-away image that just takes up design space and forces you into a horizontal structure.</p>

<p>As nice as it is to have a dress shot with a solid "white space" area for text, consider Kim's suggestion that you use a photo on one side with a logo small enough not to detract from the power of that image, and only text + logo on the other side.</p>

<p>On my cards (Vail, you may still have one of mine), I use one photo fully covering the obverse, and only text and logo on the reverse, with no photo. I understand the desire for two photos, but I think the single, signature photo is stronger on its own. Still, if you want a second image, a shot like the one you're using here at least does not compete strongly with a powerful signature image like the little-girl image. I'd just try to come up with one that would allow a vertical orientation to match that of the little-girl shot.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Ian and Kim, thank you for your helpful comments. <br>

I ended up perking up the exposure on the dress a bit and the vibrance of the blue background and went with 3 images on the back. The problem I have at this point is I feel I have plenty of good images, and a fair amount of great ones, but I have yet to have a signature shot that is really stunning, except maybe a few of the ones from the beautiful indian wedding, but here in Boston, I just don't think that should be my only featured image. Once I get that signature shot, I will surely re-do my cards again and use that. <br>

With the company that I went with before, 48hourprint.com I had a black border on the top and bottom, and not one of the 500 came out cut at an angle, etc. so I'm fairly confident in the edge border. When I asked a bunch of my "fans" on facebook to look through the images, they choose borders over no borders. I ended up using that blue for a bleed, just so on the edge of the card the little spill over of colors you can sometimes see from the other side would match. <br>

I know the card is far from perfect, and I know some expressed concern about the level of detail you can see on a back that is with 3 photos "crammed in" but on the old card I had them do, you still could see the details in even smaller photos. If I keep fretting about it rather than just printing something up, I am just having to distribute the old one with the old phone number blacked out, which to me is MUCH worse, than handing out these new versions.<br>

Thanks for all the help everyone!<br>

-Vail</p>

<div></div>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>If I had to choose one, I would go with the e-mail address over the website url. People are more likely to guess/assume that the e-mail . com is also the website. I made the mistake of doing it the other way around and now always have to write my e-mail address on the back. </p>