tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930474236639439381.post5388740404025576959..comments2024-03-03T07:30:42.721-05:00Comments on Section 36: Card of the WeekSection 36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18194098940017348361noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930474236639439381.post-66856300477763447492012-11-09T15:55:55.164-05:002012-11-09T15:55:55.164-05:00I could let them claim the design works with the r...I could let them claim the design works with the repeated picture, if the picture weren't so awful. If it were a simpler shot, I would listen to a claim that "design-wist the double picture draws your eye across the frame, blah blah blah..." and respect a difference of opinion. But, with this shot it's just lousy.Section 36https://www.blogger.com/profile/18194098940017348361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930474236639439381.post-21292587355625428322012-11-09T14:23:36.712-05:002012-11-09T14:23:36.712-05:00One of my design pet peeves: Using part of a bigge...One of my design pet peeves: Using part of a bigger shot somewhere else, instead of having two different shots. 1996 Topps did this too. You also see it in cheap pamphlets where they obviously could only afford one pic and then they just used zooms and crops of the same shot, but stretched it or put it in a different color. Hate.<br /><br />It's at its worst on this card. Know what would be a better use of the space that they filled with the same thing that's right next to it? Anything.Jerehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13448619048422750447noreply@blogger.com