2D vs 3D

This is a long rant but I’ll keep it short for the most part.

I remember when at time when a lot people that used Myspace were focused on people and not so much politics, articles about food/cooking, or shopping for products as their main objective. Myspace ended up turning into a complicated network of spam and random product placement ads.  So then Facebook came along and made it more robust and dynamic, full of random insight about your friends, events, the world in a nutshell without of ton of ads and non-relative content.  Now Facebook is  trying hard not to become another social networking site where your friends or companies share (aka spam) long articles that force you to leave Facebook and forget what your friends are doing in the first place.  I feel Instagram is new Myspace where we go to look for quality photos instead of the long rants on Facebook, stories or…sometimes “useless information” that Facebook has become. (maybe this blog post is more spam!?).

At anyrate, this post was to show the impact of 2D vs 3D and I completely go off topic. But let’s see if social media and websites can go back to realm of 3d, actual images, and focus on the photography experience of things instead of 2d labels, ads, and click bait titles. It’s pretty easy to slap a digital logo or font on to any screen.

Obviously, if this “Come in” sign was for sale, you can tell the left 3D image looks a lot more attractive?

Why? that’s easy, we can imagine what it would look like in real life, something we can’t do that much with laptop/mobile screen.

The font looks more rustic but as far as the 3D, it makes things look more real. That’s the key for me, every site with lots of graphics isn’t really real to me.

Your website, or social networking site does a lot to cut corners and save time to market the best products, process of branding by using 2d graphics but I’m not looking for graphics and most people aren’t when they get the final product.  The graphic is to me always the prototype and never the end result unless it’s printed or seen in person.




Now here come’s the kicker, there’s a real sign of “No 49” and it’s a real photo and not cgi/photoshop and it looks good, I think. If you can, your company should always make a real version of the logo instead of a graphic only logo to show on your website or social media.

But wait, we got some fakes. Yup, it costs too much to make a 3D sign so there are tongs of graphic designers that can create the “prototype” for companies at a fraction of the cost. So how important is a real sign version a graphic? Good question.

Are we getting to a point where the 3D design is starting to look more realistic or do we cut corners? Customers will buy something on Amazon or shop online based on 3 things, the reviews are good, the price is good, and the photos better look good and real. That is the bottom line.



I can tell this image on the left with the six 3D logos are fake but some people don’t know the difference.  I’m a strong critic of cgi, most of cgi to me always looks a little fake and that’s where I draw the line.

If you focus more on 3D images or actual photos instead of heavily graphic websites, you’ll have a better website. Graphic designers use graphics to enhance your website, not become the website.

Finally, there are tons of sites out there that still follow the no “actual” photos and spam it with graphics, don’t do that.






Too much graphics, very few photos, not an effective website.


Great images, easy to understand, clean website.


Never choose style over substance when it comes to photography for websites, you are not giving the illusion of buying a design of a T-shirt with graphics, but instead the reality of buying an “actual” T-shirt with graphics on it.