'My' posters - please critique!

If you're referring to the highlighted edge at the top, I simply added a softened white line to the edge of the shield and faded it out the farther away I went from the light source. I added a very fine texture and grain to everything to soften that extra clean look, and everything has a slight ambient glow. That was done just by adding a second layer of the original image, blurred, brightened, and then knocked the opacity of the layer down until it was just a subtle haze. Then particular areas were selected and brightened and sharpened to offset it from looking like, well, like an image with a few layers of filters washed over it (which is what it is, lol). Light and shadow play the biggest part in giving anything depth and texture. I'm glad you like it. Basically my suggestion to you is to keep playing with it. It's an excellent start, it just needs to be brought to ilfe a bit more, let it breathe. Think of it as a character, and flesh the character out. That goes for any graphic design. Or really any art form period, I think.
 
Allen Green said:
Well most of what comes out of the Hollywood is pure 100% cheese. It's prob been at least 10 to 15 years (or longer) since they (the studios) have made something original. Excellent work Paulus keep it up. Hey filmman on your next project hire Paulus to do your poster and DVD cover art.
Indie Films are the lifes blood of this industry right now.
Click to expand...

*rolls eyes* Yeah because the indies are really turning out great work that everyone enjoys watching like The Dark Knight and Iron Man.

And when you say 10 to 15 years, well, there went the Lord of the Rings films. Sure, they aren't "original" in that they were adapted from books, but they are original as movies.

Most indie films suck pretty hardcore, to be honest. I really pull for the indie market, but there's a reason the average person wouldn't bother seeing indie films. It's because you can't really compete with the likes of The Dark Knight.
 
- The samurai wolverine doesn't quite work, but I honestly can't say exactly why, the head just doesn't seem to go with the body.
Click to expand...
You got that too? It looks Photoshopped. Head seems more detailed/higher res than the body. A blending/feathering issue?

But I applaud your work, nonetheless, Paulus. If I can ever get some time to dedicate to my own project, I might look for you when I shoot my film. (yeah like I am ever going to get the time to do some shooting for myself.)

Doc
 
I don't use PM. Maybe that's why we lost touch. Anyway, I don't remember which project I was asking you to help me with. I made a poster for Butterflies in the Wind.

http://www.releasing.net/butterflies_in_the_wind_poster.html

I'd appreciate your comments on it.

I don't have a poster for Felliniesque Players. If I can't get somebody to do me a freebie, I will make a poster myself and post it here for criticism and/or help.

Perhaps you can make helpful suggestions.

Regarding your art work, like everyone I'm very impressed; but there are people here who know more about posters. I'd appreciate any and all help. I'm an indie filmmaker, working by myself at this stage in my career. I make no budget movies, one man crew from beginning to finish. Doing posters and DVD boxes as well :-) Hooray for indie filmmakers all over the world!
 
filmman said:
I don't use PM. Maybe that's why we lost touch. Anyway, I don't remember which project I was asking you to help me with. I made a poster for Butterflies in the Wind.

http://www.releasing.net/butterflies_in_the_wind_poster.html

I'd appreciate your comments on it.

Perhaps you can make helpful suggestions.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did.

filmnv2.jpg


You had asked me to email you about what I was 'willing to do'. Email adress was ....@releasing.net

Regarding the poster. The most important thing is when you put it online, make sure it's compressed properly. It looks pixelated now and people WILL be put off by that. Second, make sure you use well lit photographs. You can do a ton in Photoshop but the photo is the basis. You can use stock images but some are not free. Color correction is key to make everything look nice and tight. There are many more steps but that should get you started. The same goes for your footage, edits and overall presentation.

filmman said:
Regarding your art work, like everyone I'm very impressed; but there are people here who know more about posters. I'd appreciate any and all help.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ask those people for a freebie. Thanks for the compliment.
 
I forgot I'd PM'ed you :-) I used to use it, but lately I'm trying to limit the methods by which I communicate with people over the Internet. The Internet is great for communications; it has opened up the world to us. However, time is much more precious now, because it's so easy to spread oneself thin. I try to limit myself to a few threads, for example. I read many threads, but I respond to a few. This way I don't forget a thread where I've asked a question.

Your work is outstanding. You could easily make a living doing posters, but I have a feeling you're also a filmmaker, judging by your advice on my doing better color correction. Thanks for that, I didn't realize that one of the weaknesses of my presentation on the web was low quality trailers.

I suspect this is a major drawback to using Youtube and similar movie hosting websites. I'm planning to do my own encoding and hosting of my trailers from my own websites. It's so easy to get involved in so much technology that one neglects the filmmaking itself, which is what I really want to do.

So I don't want to do my own posters, but I have to now. I guess I have to put up smaller images of my posters on the web in the future. For example, I'm thinking that a 280x400 poster should be saved at 10 resolution. I've been in the habit of saving my posters at 2 resolution.
 
filmman said:
Your work is outstanding. You could easily make a living doing posters, but I have a feeling you're also a filmmaker, judging by your advice on my doing better color correction. Thanks for that, I didn't realize that one of the weaknesses of my presentation on the web was low quality trailers.
Click to expand...

What I meant was you need to light your scenes better. Didn't really mean compression. With better lit scenes you have more options in color correcting. But this is just my opinion. If you're content with your movies that's fine ofcourse. But I'm talking in a consumers point of view, like we all are. You need to make sure your overall presentation (website, poster, trailer, film etc.) is top notch, even if it's no-budget.

Unfortunately I'm not a filmmaker but I do re-edit trailers of existing films.

So I don't want to do my own posters, but I have to now. I guess I have to put up smaller images of my posters on the web in the future. For example, I'm thinking that a 280x400 poster should be saved at 10 resolution. I've been in the habit of saving my posters at 2 resolution.
Click to expand...
There's the culprit. Web-resolution is 72. Printable media is 300 (I've seen people even use 700!) I usually make my posters at;

50cm width
75cm height
300dpi resolution

I don't want to sound like an ass but could you start your own thread? I'd be happy to post there. This thread was created for my artwork and critiques.
 
Aesthetically, I prefer the second Dark Knight design. I think that one would be far more likely to jump out at me on a crowded shelf than the more traditional first design. The second design has a uniqueness and a pleasing minimalist quality that the first lacks.

My biggest complaint about the second one is your watermark cutting right through Heath Ledger's face. It's distracting and detracts from the impact of your work. But then, I think the entire practice of watermarking images (other than perhaps a small tag similar to your other images) is counterproductive, since you're basically defacing your own work and disrupting its visual impact. I know why you do it, I just disagree that it's necessary or ultimately beneficial (not to mention, in your case, it's also slightly ironic ;) ).
 
Thanks Jeff. The reason for the watermark is because anyone with the slightest knowledge of Photoshop can edit out the smaller tag and re-use it. It has happened to me before.
 
Paulus said:
Thanks Jeff. The reason for the watermark is because anyone with the slightest knowledge of Photoshop can edit out the smaller tag and re-use it. It has happened to me before.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I know why you're using it. I just don't think it's worth it. To me, it's kind of like the fastest runner in the world shooting themselves in the foot before a big race. Why put so much work into an image just to mutilate it before you show it to anyone? (That's intended as a rhetorical question, sorry; I'm sure you have your reasons, as I have mine for justifying never using watermarks).

Great stuff, though.
 
my favorite is the last wolverine poster.
AWESOME! the look on his face, and the intensity of his eyes with only the claws showing.... SO COOL!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top