This is a little vain, but we’re seeking a couple hundred second opinions. We’re redesigning Capulet’s site at the moment. We asked the very talented Kris to take our photos, and are very happy with the results.
Too happy, actually, because we can’t decide which one we like best. Do you mind checking them out and voting?
UPDATE: Voting’s over. Here are the results. Thanks everybody for voting. As you can see, you were no help at all. Just kidding, but there’s clearly some differences of opinion:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Here are the four photos, arranged in the same order as in the poll. You can click the names in the polls to see bigger versions, if you care.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
My favourite picture is the one with the umbrellas, but Darren’s facial expression is unlike anything I’ve ever seen him look like in real life. For the business, I like Julie looking at us (the client) while Darren appears to be keeping watch… like a pair of cautious birds feeding at a bird feeder.
As a business signature I prefer the photo of both looking the same way. It has a journalistic feel to it. It captures the two obviously engaged in ‘something’. It has a depth and dimension.
I think the two smiling side by side is a more traditional two-person portrait. It would work well on an About Us page as it is more personal and open.
Yes Darren, I care.
Do I really have to see ads for XXX videos after I’ve voted? I thought this was a family blog 🙂
Well its easy really, No 1. is the only one where you are both in focus.
I immediately discounted the umbrellas one due to bad Mary Poppins flashbacks.
In the other two, Darren looks like a passerby who got caught in the shot.
Is that the best you can do Darren?
I have to agree with Gregg. I like the ones where you are both looking in the same place together. It looks more unified.
I’d go for 1.
My two bits…the first one of the two of you standing side by side just feels odd. Sure the two of you are in focus but there’s this weird gap between you that causes a tension in the photo. It feels like one of those first date pictures where you’re not sure if you should snuggle up close for the pic or just laugh and have some awkward space.
The umbrellas is AWESOME! It totally stands out in a unique way. People will remember a pic of you guys with umbrellas in it cause it adds another dimension rather than just your (albeit lovely) faces. Plus it just screams, “we’re located in soggy Vancouver.”
Don’t love the looking the same way one. Whoever said “passerby” was sorta right.
Looking different directions however, is much better. It’s a tighter crop of you guys so you look like you’re suppose to be in the shot, darren. You guys are set-up great, compositionally, and the look on the girl’s face is perfect! I’d go with a bit of bravery on this and allow yourself to be slightly out of focus for art’s sake!
The side by side one is fun but it doesn’t say “professional” enough. It’s looks more like a candid shot you’d send to your family. The umbrella is catchy and I like that you are both in focus, but it might get old quick. I think the last two are more appropriate but it’s too bad that you are not both in focus. “Behind every great woman…”
My two cents. 🙂
Thanks for the feedback everybody–it’s nice to hear diverse opinions. We may, if possible, actually have the photo rotate per page load.
Declan: I think those photos are pretty fantastic–they make me look vaguely human. Maybe you could tell us what you don’t like about them?
Unless, of course, you’re referring to my inability to consistently smile. In which case, yes, that’s absolutely the best I can do. Even doing what you see there was a remarkable achievement for me.
Jarrod: Sorry about that, that’s Blogpoll serving those text ads, not me.
I have to go with RhondaFAST on this with everything she said. While you both are looking different directions, it seems that you should both be there. There is tension in the top two shots! I also think it is better to have the subjects front and center . . . unless you are selling umbrellas, I don’t see how that really fits. Julie has a reserved, yet still open smile about her. I like this one of Darren more too because his squint is not quite right for this. I like that both subjects seem together but they are different people, looking in different directions, maybe with different ideas.
I think the “Looking Different Ways” is most effective. It’s clear — and would be more clear from the context — that you are a team but looking in different directions demonstrates that you bring different skills and perspectives.
The “Looking the Same Way” shot is also good but there is a pillar or something growing out of your partner’s head that is a little distracting.
The side by side shot is good but quite static and, the high contrast and hot highlights notwithstanding, seems more traditional.
The umbrella shot is very cool but not for a corporate branding image. To me, the umbrellas connote sheltering from a storm, wet, not pleasant …
There’s my $0.02
The balance is great in the looking separate ways. I feel calm.
I agree with Gregg that the smilers would be great on an About Us page.
i like “looking the same way”, but the umbrellas are a close second because it’s playful and hell, we live in vancouver where the big news was whether we were going to break a rain record!
Darren. I’m going to make it easy for you by saying that I think the best one of you is the first one and the best one of Julie is the last one. So I’m firmly on the fence on this one!
I was going to suggest you rotate photographs but you beat me to the punch.
Also if I know Kris he was madly snapping away, are those 4 the best of the bunch or the only one’s he took?
Perhaps some nightime shots with neon and brake lights etc might be interesting as a contrast to the rainy daytime shots.
Separate and smiling, definitely — I love that one stray piece of hair in Julie’s face.
I saw KK’s other shots on Flickr, and actually liked one of them better, because your face wasn’t out of focus. Depends on what you’re trying to do with the pics, but a consultant who’s out of focus? That’s bad ‘optics’ (pun intended).