I was just recently commissioned for a campaign and shot about 1000 images to capture final image for this well known sports company. In the end, it came down to the two images above. As is usually the case, the final image is tough to choose, with lots of factors under consideration, lots of stakeholders picking their favorite. There was much debate.
I’ve posted stuff like this before and was really excited by the resulting discussion, so I figured I’d throw it out there again… WHICH IS BETTER, A or B?
Vote in the comments. Love to know ‘why’ if you care to explain your thoughts. 600 px wide versions of each image after the jump…hit [‘continue reading’ below]. After you all weigh in, I’ll tell you which one was used and why.
This is PHOTO A, below.
THIS is PHOTO B, below.
I prefer A, there a slight flare in the picture thats functions alot more that the other in B. Look at the amount of detail that is lost because of the huge flare in B. I love the shadows on the ground cause by her running. Theres just alot more to see and connect with in A.
Im a sucker for flares, so I vote B. It would also be a great place to hold a logo or text if needed in the advertisement.
I think A
B, I would think. I think (insofar as the client’s needs are served) that it serves up a mood rather than the literal runner or literal depiction of the sporting goods sold. Once copy/logo/etc. are added, it won’t be necessary to show the literal. The idea is to aspire one to be a runner themselves, not to simply show product in action.
This question really depends on the brief and what the role of the photo is in the campaign or particular execution. I could make a case for either. I like looking at all the details in A and I think the details in the shot hold my attention, but if I had to set type or put a product shot over it (say a close cropped running shoe) that big area of flare would be pretty useful and the extra interest created by detail in the shot would not be appropriate.