Ebook Covers – First Attempt
After writing this morning’s post on the subject of ebook covers I couldn’t resist the temptation to try something.
I began about 9:00 AM, it’s now 5:00 in the afternoon, and although the air around my writing desk is still blue with the less-than-polite language I used while insulting Adobe Photoshop Element 8’s parentage, I managed to get a “first draft” cover image done without throwing my computer through the front window.
The manuscript is in 13th draft (with countless unnumbered revisions along the way), so I fully expect there to be many more attempts at a cover before I finally give up and hire a professional.
In the meantime, I intend to keep trying, if for no other reason than I still don’t understand half the stuff I did. And if anyone tries to tell me that using Photoshop, even the amateur version I have, is intuitive, I may have comments about their parentage as well.
Without further adieu, here is version one of the ebook cover for Pilot Error:
Not bad for a start but it’s got a long way to go. Too sketchy looking. I can’t get anything at a glance and not much more when I stare at it. I don’t know why I’m seeing trees on top of the controls, unless it’s a reflection in a glass, and then I don’t understand the perspective. The font size for the author and title are too similar and illogically placed. Until you are famous, the title should be the first thing we notice, not the author. Keep at it!
Wonderful concept. A different photo — without reflection — would solve the major problems in distinguishing the image. You might have to layer several images — I can show you how — then place the type to its best advantage. You’re fearless — I like that!
Maggie, my very astute wife, thinks that a book cover which includes a person is much more intriguing than one without. People want to read novels about people, not things. Deanna’s cover works because the absent baby in the empty crib is made painfully present by its very absence, if you follow my convoluted logic.
If I didn’t know what it was a cockpit, I’d have no idea what it was. Your choice of using 3 different size fonts for Tosh, McIntosh and Pilot Error looks strange. If anything, I’d have Tosh and McIntosh the same size and Pilot Error bigger. Good college try though.
This actually looks better than what I was visualizing at Happy Hour, but I don’t think it quite accomplishes what you want. The reflection you have here would be more effective if it was the reflection off the pilot’s goggles rather than through the dash. Going with Dave’s idea maybe, you could show the pilot’s fear or the detective’s view. I think it’s more…romantic maybe….than scary.
Thanks to all for taking the time to comment. The result of today’s effort has problems that I intuitively knew would need to be addressed even without knowing the specifics of how to do that.
As noted in this and the previous post, I’m exploring an initial concept for the cover while trying to learn a little about how it’s done. And I understand that gaining proficiency with the design applications means nothing without the artistic sense to back it up.
From a practical perspective, I sized two images as specified in the KDP formatting guide. The cloud/mountain/forest became the background, and I Photoshopped the cockpit photo from this morning’s post to remove everything above the instrument panel and the glareshield. My intention was for this area to be transparent, but I never figured out how to do that, even if it can be done with my amateur version of the program.
Once this image was layered on top of the background, I adjusted the transparency, which affected the entire image. Initially, I found the soft overlay of the panel with the trees and rocks behind it intriguing. It’s like there they are, a kind of ghostly hazard, and the pilot is about to die. In retrospect, the aviator in me is probably the key to my appreciation of the image, and it takes a non-flyer’s perspective to point out how confusing it is.
If I can restrict the transparency to the area above the glareshield so that the instrument panel is opaque and the terrain only shows above it, viewers might not be puzzled about what they are looking at.
You’ve got a deal, Cindy. And thanks to Deanna for pointing out in an email that although it might be fun to play with cover images, to post anything but the final version on the blog has a serious downside. From a pure marketing perspective in the age of the Internet, I don’t want readers to find multiple cover images for the same novel. I wish I’d thought of that.
But I didn’t, which probably means I might as well be sitting in that airplane staring at the rocks. 🙂
Thanks again, folks.
It works for me. I would pull this book off the shelf and read the first couple of pages; then read a page about mid-way through to verify the quality and consistency of the writing. And at that point, if the writing was good, I’d buy it. The point is: the cover would grab my attention. As I mentioned in an earlier email this afternoon, the old saw, “never judge a book by its cover,” is true, but also true: a good cover can sell a novel.
Thanks for the comment, Darrell. As you may know, on the “advice of counsel” I’m not posting any more versions of the cover online, but I’ve been getting comments from members of a smaller group as I tinker with the image. Last Tuesday we met and I pulled up various versions on the screen side-by-side to discuss each one.
I really like the way Barry Eisler describes the purpose of packaging (cover image and title), which is to generate in the viewer (potential buyer) a combination of automatic and acquired resonance that results in an initial reaction to reach for the book and check it out.
If I managed to achieve that with you on my first attempt, I look forward to your thoughts about the latest version, which I sent it to you a few moments ago. Hopefully it does an even better job.
Thanks again, amigo.