E-mail etiquette
July 24, 2008 by Maria G. Nozza |
| Print
Filed under Blog
Thursday’s Management Tip for Graphic Designers
E-mail has just exploded in the last decade. Everyone does it, but not everyone does it well.
It’s always been interesting to me that the subject of e-mail manners or courtesy is another of those things that is frequently overlooked and never really dealt with.
You would think that since everyone’s doing it, that everyone would be sharing how to do “correctly”. Or at least, share some simple “rules” of conduct when emailing people.
Here’s my list (which can also be considered my pet peeves)
This list to me should be given to everyone once they get an e-mail address. I’ve got a much longer list, but I thought I’d give you the basics for now:
- Never write an e-mail if you are drunk or pissed off. You’ll write something you’ll regret and it always shows!
- Never write things that you’ll later regret or shared with others. Words come and go, but emails are forever and in writing. AND, they can be instantly sent off to a whole bunch of people.
- Don’t put the e-mail address into the To: field until you are finished. You may accidentally press send (or it somehow magically happens) before it’s ready for primetime. This way, it won’t get sent until the e-mail address is in the To: field.
- When e-mailing a group of people, their e-mail address should be in the BCC field. It’s an issue of privacy and some may not want their email spread around (or worse, become spammed by being placed on others lists inadvertently).
- The e-mail subject line should make sense and reflect the content in the e-mail! Nothing generic like “hi”. I get so much email, I’d like to see at a glance what the subject of it really is (the title “subject” in this case should not be considered a misnomer! It should really be the subject of the email!)
- Keep your e-mails short and to the point. No likes to read a loooooonnnnnnng email. If it can be said in 2 sentences, don’t take 10 to do it.
- Don’t clog inboxes with large attachments: Never clog up e-mails with huge attachments and use up the person’s allotted memory. Instead use services like YouSendIt and then send the link to the file.
- Multiple attachments: If you are sending way more than 1 attachment, Zip it!
- Don’t send “Read Notification Receipts”: It’s annoying and what’s the point? You’ll go back and tell the person, “but I know you read it!” It means they opened it, not necessarily read it.
- SPELL CHECK! It always looks bad and you never know who’s going to read it.
- Remove personal information (like phone numbers or cells) if you know that many people may get the e-mail.
- Always reply to e-mails! Believe me, the person sending them is expecting to hear back from you!!!
T A K E A W A Y S :
It’s about good manners. And with all the emails we get, these things should be no brainers!
This list (to me, at least) is about courtesy and being conscious of the fact that we get so many emails, these guidelines should be a necessity!
Dove’s “Real Beauty” isn’t so real afterall!
May 9, 2008 by Maria G. Nozza |
| Print
Filed under Blog, Swipe File
Friday’s Creative Review for Graphic Designers
This just makes me sad. By now, you’ve probably figured out that I generally don’t believe in much of anything these days that’s in print.
I know, as a graphic designer, that E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G is retouched. However this blew me out of the water. I didn’t even think to question if the new Dove ads that are dubbed “Real Beauty” were in fact “real”.
As usual, it all starts off with a comment (or perhaps a gloat?)
Annie Leibovitz who shot the ads hired Pascal Dangin, a photographers/photo retoucher, is claiming that they were retouched. Pascal who works for Box Studios in New York, told The New Yorker (click here to see article) he worked his magic on the ad photos.
“Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Unilever didn’t comment on the statement, but a spokeswoman for the agency who created the ads did:
“We are unsure right now what he did,” the Ogilvy spokeswoman said. “He works with Annie Leibovitz, the photographer. And we don’t have any record of him actually working on any of the Dove campaign.”
“There was no retouching of the women,” she said. “If there was a hair that was up in the air, that might have been the kind of retouching that was done. But until I know what he actually worked on, I can’t comment on it.”
Statement from Dove about The New Yorker Article
9 May 2008, 4:45pm — Dove’s mission is to make more women feel beautiful every day by widening the definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves. Dove strives to portray women by accurately depicting their shape, size, skin color and age.
The “real women” ad referenced in recent media coverage was created and produced entirely by Ogilvy, the Dove brand’s advertising agency, from start to finish and the women’s bodies were not digitally altered.
Pascal Dangin worked with photographer Annie Leibovitz (Ogilvy has never employed Mr. Dangin on the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty), who did the photography for the launch of the Dove ProAge campaign, a new campaign within the Campaign for Real Beauty. There was an understanding between Dove and Ms. Leibovitz that the photos would not be retouched – the only actions taken were the removal of dust from the film and minor color correction.
“Let’s be perfectly clear – Pascal does all kinds of work – but he is primarily a printer – and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching and there was not,” confirmed Annie Leibovitz, commenting on the ProAgecampaign.
Mr. Dangin responded, “The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove “real women” ad. I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction – both the integrity of the photographs and the women’s natural beauty were maintained.”
T A K E A W A Y :
How much Photoshopping is too much? Removing a pimple here or there, smoothing out skin tones, and removing wrinkles that’s acceptable? But more is not? And then how many pimples, wrinkles, and bags under the eyes removal is acceptable?
Do we really need to retouch so much???
What’s “real” and what isn’t anymore? Can we trust anyone, anymore?
As Cindy Crawford said, “Even I don’t look like Cindy Crawford in the morning.”
Pictures should always be scaled properly
April 23, 2008 by Maria G. Nozza |
| Print
Filed under Blog
Wednesday’s Production Tip for Graphic Designers
One of the first things I notice right away is if a picture is scaled properly.
I don’t know why, but a lot of designers out there, think that the picture should be proportioned by the space available and allocated to the picture.
So, if they draw a square (or rectangle) then the picture should fill the entire area.
2 Rules for including pictures in your document:
- NEVER disproportionately scale your pictures (or, never scale the picture with different values for the vertical or horizontal) Always keep the dimensions the same.
- NEVER flip the pictures on the horizontal.
C O N C L U S I O N :
I hate pictures that are stretched or distorted. I always say to myself, you’d never see that in a magazine!
And that second rule may sound a little weird, but trust me, in this day and age where everyone has tattoos, it can get a little confusing if suddenly the tattoo which is in reality on his right arm is suddenly for the purpose of this layout on his left.
FURTHER READING:
- Read here how pictures should always tell a story
- Read some more of my pet peeves of design here
When too much is really too much in design
February 26, 2008 by Maria G. Nozza |
| Print
Filed under Blog, Swipe File
Tuesday’s Design Tip for Graphic Designers
Sometimes as designers we forget that famous expression “Less is more”
After all, we have the tools. So why not use them? Well, because design should not be about the tools.
Design needs to work in harmony with the content. Design has to support the text; not outshine it. It should never overpower and take center stage from your copy.
Now, I know what you are probably thinking. You are either thinking I’m full of baloney or that design then somehow becomes less important than the text. That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I mean is that they are partners.
Content may be King but design is the Queen behind the throne
So, how can you guarantee that your design is appropriate for the content? That it won’t overshadow it?
The key is appropriateness. Is your design appropriate for who you are designing for?
Here are some considerations:
- Never use too many filters or special effects: Will it enhance your message or distract from it?
- Maintain realism: Have you Photoshopped a picture beyond recognition? You know you’ve gone too far if the person looks like someone else or if they look like a painting.
- Keep the same perspective: I was looking at a photograph once of a singer. His tattoo which is on his right arm was now on his left. The designer flipped him around so that his face was pointing toward the text. Too bad, they didn’t take into consideration that he had tattoos!
- Don’t stretch or distort proportions on your images: I’ve seen too many times to count pictures whose dimensions have been altered. If you plan on scaling a picture, please keep the dimensions the same!
- Unreadable type: Don’t make it hard on your readers. Choose a typeface that can be easily read.
- Illegible type: If type is too light to be read, will it still be read? Probably not.
- Color confusion: Too many colors and worse, inappropriate colors are never a good thing.
- Don’t promote chaos: Don’t have too many things going on in your layout. Stick to the basics, you’ll never go wrong.
C O N C L U S I O N :
Too often, the design becomes more about the designer than the design. It may be unfortunate for some, but the design is not about ego and showing off your software knowledge.
All these problems may be avoided by doing one thing: READ THE TEXT. Then think: how can I compliment it?
And remember: it’s not about you!
When photoshop is not a good thing
February 22, 2008 by Maria G. Nozza |
| Print
Filed under Blog, Swipe File
Friday’s Creative Review for Graphic Designers
In today’s Wall Street Journal, there is a fascinating article: China Eats Crow Over Faked Photo Of Rare Antelope.
It turns out that a state-run ad agency had to apologize for doctoring a photograph.
As it turns out, this is a composite. Most probably the train was added to a previous picture.
Where did they go wrong?
Click on the link to see the full-size image and you will see call outs to various parts that were tell-tale signs that this photo was played with.
A few highlights of design mistakes:
- You can clearly see some splicing near the last pillar on the right of the photograph.
- Too many points that are in focus: the photograph has 2: the train moving at high speeds and the antelopes which are slower. How can both be in focus?
- Not keeping it in harmony with nature.
C O N C L U S I O N :
Is nothing sacred anymore?
I love Photoshop but sometimes, I wonder if we really need such a powerful program. It’s gotten so bad that right now, every time I look at a picture I wonder how much of it is Photoshopped.
Most telltale signs I see are that the creative is trying to make the picture “perfect”. Sometimes, this is a dead giveaway when you turn the picture into something that is impossible to have occurred naturally.
The other major problem I always notice is that the lighting is off or it ends up looking like something else entirely.
I once heard Cindy Crawford say “Even I don’t wake up looking like Cindy Crawford.”
What do you think? Too much with the Photoshop already?
