Remember when I did the original chasejarvisLIVE photo shoot way back in winter? If you recall, I was shooting the album cover image for alt/punk country band Brent Amaker and the Rodeo. We also did post production and editing on the images LIVE as well a few weeks after the shoot. Well now it’s time to print these suckers on a limited edition run of vinyl and there is somewhat of a debate on which image is better.
Simply put, and with no further explanation, I thought I’d ask for your thoughts. So which is better, A or B?
Vote in the comments. Also love to know ‘why’ if you care to explain. 500 px wide images after the jump…
[ also, reminder that if you like music and you like chasejarvisLIVE, I’m hosting rising hip hip star RA Scion (of Common Market and Victor Shade) TODAY in 90 minutes at 10:30 pacific/1:30 eastern (GMT – 8). Interview with RA and Village Voice/Time Out/Stranger cultural critic Charles Mudede, plus RA performs LIVE at the end of the show. Hope to see you http://www.chasejarvis.com/live today….]A. With the foreground lady laying down…
OR.
B. With the foreground lady standing up…
Love to hear your thoughts.
I prefer B. Guys against the back wall flow better. The whole feel of the shot makes the viewer more comfortable and closer to the group. A is too spaced out and distant. I also like everyone seated. The only problem that really screams with B is all the wasted space above the group. Something needs to be added back there on that blank wall. I love the spacing and the way the light falls on the foreground girl in A. Both shots have some great parts. I almost wish there was a C but then the headaches would really likely kick in.
my one and only choice without a doubt is picture A
At very first glance, B caught my attention because the girl in the foreground is standing up and stands out more from the rest of the group, which is also to say, “I’m the lead singer.”
But, after looking at them longer, I find myself staring at A more. It’s more interesting. There’s more drama to it — somewhat of a story behind it, possibly — more like an album cover from earlier decades when they actually put thought into their covers, not just a pretty, glamorous photo of themselves.
I didn’t even notice the third girl in B until like the 10th look at it. B is a little more casual looking than A. I agree, for the purpose of putting the name of their band on the cover, A would be better since there’s open space at the top left, but I like album covers that don’t have the name on them just as much. Just depends on what they want to do.
I do actually like the positing of the men better in B, instead of having them so evenly spread out as in A. If the two men next to each other in B were like that in A, then A would be perfect. Photoshop? 🙂
BBBBBBBB
It just screams “LOOK AT ME”!
The composition ads tension to the image and the model splitting the frame vertically works so much better than A.
I would have liked to have seen the same vignetting of light as A though. I feel it would have added more dimensionality and would have helped guide the viewer to the recessed layer of the band members and would have darkened down the distracting antlers (they are a nice touch but they stand out too much and compete for the viewer’s eye).
Composition A feels predictable, formuleic (is that a word?) and stiff.
One more thing I would have done in the shoot is had the models carry out a story line. Something that would have bound them together in a hidden layer. You know what I’m talking about. Like Terry Gilliam’s films, layers of information that reveal themselves with further study.
Both are sweet but B is the cane sugar man!
A- is much more visually arresting and draws the eyes into the center of the scene from front to back and throughout. B- seems to be more about the foreground and almost blocks the rest of the story. B just simply feels sloppy and more experimental where A feels precise and clear in it’s vision and story!
Cheers
Todd