Shel,
Postcards and brochures are better suited for giving people examples of
your work.
I've never seen a photo on a business card that looked good, even when
photolab prints have been cut down to the size of business cards. The image
is just too small. And regular cardstock bleeds way too much for photos
(by my taste), coated stock does better, but then again the image is still
just too small.
However, if the uniqueness of the subject of your photography is the most
important thing to communicate (if you specialized in pet photography, for
example) the quality of the printed image probably wouldn't matter much.
Otherwise, a simple card done well will be better than a fancy card done
poorly.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I've been leaning more towards Bob's way of thinking, in that a
>business card-sized photo may not cut it, but after reading your
>post and Tom Helbekkno's comments, I may try something that does
>include a photo, or a portion of a photo.
>
>This type of card: http://www.bc-photo.com/images/bcphotocard.jpg
>doesn't really feel right to me, as I'd want something more graphic
>or hard-edged.
>--
>Shel Belinkoff
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"Grain is the brushstroke of photography." - Man Ray
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
