I'm working on an EP and after weeks of struggling to make

>>315445
By the thumbnail I got a 3rd wave of post-rock kind of vibe and thought it looked cool and that I would totally listen to it. But I'm a simple man, give me a clean cover with a landscape and I'm in.

But at full res I notices it wasn't an adulterated nice picture.
I don't like the jagged edges, glitchy-vibe nor the scratchy doodles.

I get that you are trying to create new things into this landscape (like rocks) but I think it's much more effective if you just leave it as it is.
A simple photograph makes it look huge, this shop makes it look pretentious and underachieving.

File: UntitledAlbumSimple.jpg (152KB, 1465x1465px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1465x1465px

>>315462
Thanks, I made an unedited version (except for the colour treatment) but do you think it still looks weird? The original photo i'm working with is a screenshot from a game, thought it looked cool and I certainly don't have any land like this near me to photograph. But that means some of the odd jagged edges, particularly on the shadows, are unavoidable. Is this fine or should I keep the template and just find/take photo of something else?

File: 1500986340301.jpg (317KB, 1465x1462px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1465x1462px

>>315478
I see, so it's literally an anti-alising problem.
The problem is that it looks like a bad shop.
Maybe softening the focus a little by bluring?

>>315481
Yeah that works well on the sand and the cliffs in the background. With some of the stuff in the foreground like the rock it doesn't really hide the jagged edges and makes it look out of focus. Thinking i'll have to go and just paint in new edges for those parts, shouldn't be hard due to the high contrast and greyscale. But thanks this should work great.

>>315481
looks better

File: image.jpg (96KB, 700x515px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 700x515px

>>315445
I like it OP, at first glance I was convinced it was all a coherent landscape. Appealing distribution of contrast but it connotes more darkness than cinematic excitement. What it needs is scale - a tiny distinct human figure somewhere in there, like a body in the most illuminated section of the water or a man on top of one of the peaks.

>>315911
I completely agree it needs something for scale but i wanted to not include any living things like people or wildlife. I can't think of much else that'll have the same effect so I might just have to cut my losses and just add a person or two.

File: seawolf_digital.jpg (1MB, 1425x1425px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1425x1425px

>>315445
I don't know why, but I don't like the typeface at all. Personal taste, I guess.

File: album_title.png (1MB, 1465x1465px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1465x1465px

>>315481
>>315913
blurring it is a bad idea
no need to blur
fixing anti aliasing is not that hard, see attached

added some noise texture too, image lacked high frequency detail

anon is right about composition issues
composition in unedited shot works better, has clear focal point (black thing in center of frame)
well enough to use as is (i lightened other elements slightly to emphasize it more, would recommend)

to entirely fix composition, suggest to modify current focal point
to give it meaning and also set scale
for example, put silhouette of man sitting down so it blends with black thing, or a plant, robot, guitar, whatever

then composition has scale and clear, meaningful focal point

have not done this since not sure what to put that fits with your music, but adding black silhouette is an easy edit if you got this far

gl anon

Hmm, the font and image selection are pretty good

Looks like a super generic album I would find on bandcamp honestly, would not listen.

Well thanks for all the help, at least now I know what to pay attention to in any future ideas but I think i'm just gonna scrap this and try something different. Even if I follow everyone's advice and polish it up I feel as though it'll still just look uninteresting and generic.