On Bevels and Drop Shadows
I received a comment on my last post about How to Make the Worst Website Ever that’s got me thinking. Under the Bad Design category of that article, I made a point about these Photoshop effects that I really don’t care for. I said:
Use bevels and drop shadows on your logos and graphics. Make a nice display of pointless Photoshop text effects. (Bonus tip: use them on Comic Sans)
This commenter, apparently called “Nobody”, replied:
…also there’s nothing objectively wrong with photoshop effects on type, if they’re done right. have you seen this collection yet, for example?
Sexy, Bold, and Experimental Typography - Smashing Magazine
bevel and shadow to your heart’s content, but do it beautifully. of course you might check some ‘philosophy’ on the relativity of beauty too, before condemning others’ tastes…
That link is to one of Smashing Magazine’s brilliant showcases, which I have seen several times. I skimmed through it again and found a few pieces that used shadows (which actually worked quite well), but none of them used that Photoshop-default, one-click, amateur text effect that I’ve been referring to. None of them used bevels, either.
Note: The “bevel” I’m referring to is the embossing text-effect in Photoshop, not the production of a 3d model, per se. The “Drop Shadow” I’m referring to is the text-effect in Photoshop, not the production of shading in general. Maybe this is the source of our misunderstanding. [examples]
So I’ve yet to see a design where plain drop shadows and bevels are used effectively. Of course, as nobody mentioned, beauty is subjective, but I think most designers will have a similar idea of what look good and what does not.
I don’t have much experience in graphic design, but I know I have a good eye. To me, these effects scream unprofessional and seem to be used a lot by beginners. So readers, I ask you for some further discussion in the comments…
Can plain old bevels and drop shadows be used effectively in professional design?
Nobody, I’d like some more clarification on this. You can remain anonymous if you like, but the more opinions, the merrier.
Absolutely they can. The reason they usually look so bad is because they’re the defaults, and so are then reached for by novices and bad designers who either don’t know how or don’t care to use them as effective tools.
They have their place, they just have to be used correctly the same way any other tool or element should.
I agree with Bryan. Just because a function is over used/abused doesn’t by default make it a bad function.
Well, there are a lot of clichés in design. They come in the form of fonts, color schemes, word choice, and yes—as you point out—stock visual effects. But one can’t get too much of a reflex in rejecting something just because it is common…even Comic Sans has a place. :)
Yet I think the biggest problem with drop shadowing/beveling/glowing isn’t the cliché aspect. It’s that these effects are often used to mitigate cases where an object is hard-to-see against a background. Sticking a drop shadow or glow on is rarely a substitute for rethinking the composition’s structure or color scheme so the effects aren’t required.