Opinions on which render looks best?

File: Render 4a.jpg (623KB, 2043x2209px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

623KB, 2043x2209px

#2 of 3

File: top_label_updated_1871.jpg (664KB, 2245x2440px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

664KB, 2245x2440px

#3 of 3

Thanks again for any real/constructive feedback

Cheers

PS the focus of this question if not clear is the actual 3D render of the bottle and any related effects, not the label on the bottle.

Thanks

2nd one looks most appealing others are shit

File: tumblr_n3whi666ak1txama8o1_1280.png (447KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

447KB, 1000x1000px

>>242579
i like this one

>>242578
To be quite honest, I feel that #2 is more approachable, has a friendly render/design, and appoints the bottle a more trustworthy look. Colour contrast is much more better compared to others (especially #1).

I got some more to comment on designs if you're still here and interested.

>From a purely marketing perspective
If that's your angle, do some A/B testing and do your research. Design is not marketing. Marketing is not design. One may inform the other, but the two are completely different beasts. Ask /biz/ about this kind of shit.

>>242579
This one

>>242579
This one is the most visually appealing, and will work on most backgrounds.
>>242580
This one is alright but only on a dark background.

>>242581
Oh in that case, I like #3 the best.

>>242578
>>242579
>>242580

1/3 - looks like a more "agressive" sporting supplement
2/3 - looks professional, easy on the eye, straight forward. would buy
3/3 - meh, looks like a cheap bottle of vegan pills you will find at your local supermarket and hasnt been sold for 20 years.

>>243300
oops
>>242581
1/3 - still like a sporting supplement
2/3 - for those small long pills
3/3 - circular pills.

render wise I would go for 2 because of the soft diffuse

#1 has terrible visual tangents due to the unfortunately-placed reflections. Also, those black cans look like industrial-strength bulking supplements or something.