Thursday, May 2, 2013

Head Scratchers: Why these cards suck!

So I'm going to get a little technical and break down these cards from the amateur photography // design experience that I have, which I assure you does not qualify me to critique anything that is printed professionally.
Woah! What a great action shot. I don't know how they did it, but they managed to catch Peyton Manning in the most routine of stances. He's centered on the card, which is a flaw (that is found on almost all cards in this set), but my main problem is the lack of action. How hard is it really to get one of him at least dropping back, throwing the ball, or calling an audible. I mean Peyton is always full of action.
This receiver looks like he's running a route in front of Reggie Bush. I'm all turned around in this card and I hate how the out-of-focus receiver overlaps onto Reggie, plus it's really busy with the referee in focus as well. Not a terrible job, but certainly could be better.
Now I know why we didn't use an action shot for Peyton. This is awful. It's an action shot, but it's still a really boring one, second it's too wide: this card could be of Ziggy Hood (the DL). Then most obvious they cut off half of the football. Seems like they really forced this one into a landscape card.
Exciting! Action Packed! Game Changer! Probably all words that could have been used to describe this play when it happened in real life, but this photo is horrendous. First of all, you can barely see the football. Second, the action is around the football and the pylon, because the viewer wants to see that it's a touchdown, not what kind of shoes Austin is wearing. Since most cards in the set feature a wide shot it would be really easy to shrink this photo down and fit all of the action in the shot. Maybe, just maybe the photographer didn't capture the whole shot. In which case I say use another freaking picture! This is akin to showing a baseball player sliding without showing the base, or making a diving catch, but cutting off his glove. What's the point?

And that is what has me scratching my head.


  1. I think for the Austin card they were trying to show that he hadn't touched the ground yet. Had they shown the ball too, I think that would be a great shot.

  2. I agree, but as it stands it just looks funky, what could be a great shot turns into an awkward card all on cropping and sizing that would take anyone with photoshop 30 seconds to fix. That's my beef with it I guess.


Share It