Using gradients in logos
Ivan | Thu, 2009-04-23 12:35
For decades designers were told to avoid the use of more than 3 colors in a logo. This trend was broken in the mid eighties by Apple launching their famous rainbow apple logo. Then we were told to avoid gradients. 20 years later Apple was among the first to break the rule again by launching their shiny trendsetting aqua Apple logo.
The reasoning against gradients was strong, but it is not valid anymore. The printing costs for 4 color process was more expensive than just two direct colors. The widespread digital printing which is primarily based on cmyk printing eliminated this problem. High quality full color printing is not expensive anymore even at small quantities (like 50 pieces of business cards).
Online branding has become more important for companies than printed materials. Most company logos on websites are seen by many more people than all their printed material altogether. And full color logos with gradients look great on screen.
We can officially claim that a new era in logo design has arrived. Feel free to design logos with gradients. Naturally a good logo design should translate to a single color for special uses, ex. etching on a marble floor. But we should not limit our designs to logos that fail in black & white. The b&w test remains valid to evaluate the concept of the logo, but should not be a deciding factor.
For inspiration let's see 30 great logos with gradients from large and small companies. Finally, let's make some projections about coming trends in logo design.
So what's the next in logo design? I can foresee see two avenues: 3D and animated logos. These are inconceivable today but will be commonplace in 20 years or less with the emergence of new reproduction technologies.
- Ivan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
While most of the standard rules of logo design still apply, times have changed (for the better, I might add), and we are offered a bit more flexibility in our designs.
Let's be honest, most companies are printing in full color anyway due to the price being so affordable now. The times when only one color is used is pretty much limited to very small companies, specialty items (hats, shirts, etc) and a few other niche applications.
That being said, we still have to be careful to observe the tried & true rules of the past. SIMPLE is ALWAYS better when it comes to a logo. Take that last logo screenshot in the article. It's horrible. The text is nearly unreadable. Yet the one above it also uses a gradient and is perfectly legible.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
Amazing how ugly more than half of those 30 logos are.. Packard Bell, Cecif, xerox etc are simply hideous.
You missed out hp! That looks awful too.
i don't think it's wrong to have a logo that can work with a gradient in full color. i only think it's wrong if the logo won't work w/o the gradient. or that won't work at smaller sizes.
You said it.
amen to that!
i still think gradients can add unwated difficulty to the process of optimizing logos for the web. to make a gradient look decent in a web graphic, you either need to save it as a jpeg (which can make the lines and edges of the logo look muddy) or you can save it as a gif with a large number of colors (which of course makes the file size bigger). saving it as let's say a gif 32 will give you the nice sharp edges on lines or type, but will create a banding effect on the gradient!
while i agree that gradients can enhance certain logo designs, i also believe that far too many designers turn to gradients to hide their lack of logo design ability.
PNG is your friend
Xerox! That logo is hideous.
I'd highly recommend any young designers still work in a b/w (or grayscale) and 2 or 3 color mode, then enhance it with gradients or more colors. Don't use the gradients to the point that they're a crutch for the effectiveness of the design. Granted, yes, 4/C is cheaper nowadays. But on the flipside, there is something really special about pairing the right paper with the right spot colors for stationery, etc. I'd opt for picking a great paper stock and running two or three colors over 4/C digital any day of the week. Though most clients may not, it's something to keep in mind and is still relevant today. It's also a great way to make a budget-conscious client stand out from the crowd. But, if they're going to run to Staples or Kinkos anyways, then you might as well spice it up a bit - just be careful. And if you work in packaging, you know that 4/C is rarely the be-all solution. More experienced designers already know that it's easier to start simple and add to the complexity of the piece when it's relevant. Bevels, drop shadows, gradients and twinkling highlights are not always the best course of action, but they have their place.
How many of the logos shown degrade gracefully? I'd venture to guess that most of these started out simple. Perhaps a simplified use isn't necessary for a particular company, but, even a favicon needs to be readable and relevant - so there should at least be an option for a simplified version. A quick visit to the Apple page shows an embellished logo on the top left, but the favicon and, for the most part, the logo usage on all packaging, products and collateral is a simple one color logo. And check out HP.com - that horrid 3D rendition is nowhere to be found thankfully. When you can add to the look and make it work, it will add something, when it doesn't, it's disastrous. So whether it's gradients or multiple colors, it's still important to keep the scope of application in mind.
One of my design instructors once told our class that every time we add something new to our design we should take that element away and examine the impact on the overall look. It should either add enough to say "Yes! I belong here, I'm an improvement, I add value!" or "I don't do anything, I muddy things up and should go away." His basic quote was "If it doesn't help it, it hurts it." Words to live by.
Agreed. A logo, regardless of color, nuance, or metaphor, should work properly in black and white.
Craig Michael Patrick
http://cmpatrick.com
Not a single "great" logo on list of "30 great logos". Practically every logo on this list is bad.
Paul Rand is rolling in his grave. ALL of these logos will change in the next 5 years. None of the above logos have any lifespan, they are all just following a trend. As I say to all of my clients who say "make it cool". Cool only lasts 15 minutes... after that you're forgotten. Apple created the web 2.0 look over 10 years ago, it's time to change.
Everything is new to you people!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
I am not Steve Ballmer pretending not to be me!
If you don't learn something new every day you stagnate.
"Art -- the one achievement of Man which has made the long trip up from all fours seem well advised." - James Thurber
I have a hot wife and don't need to!
I said stagnate not masturbate.
"Art -- the one achievement of Man which has made the long trip up from all fours seem well advised." - James Thurber
Very interesting thoughts. I agree with keeping logos simple. IMHO you need to have the strength in one colour - in just the form of the line and the correct typography, before you can think about adding colour let alone gradients.
It all comes down to the stamp...what people will remember in its simplest form.
These logos are 'trendy' versions of some pretty long lasting companies. Companies that can afford to change their logo more often.
And it's also funny to see the new Woolworths logo there. I work in food packaging and we print flexography which I *know* won't recreate the WW new logo as good as it looks printed litho or on the web. We haven't seen this logo on any new packaging so I wonder if they will carry it through.
I suspect time will prove that design approaches to word marks and logos are largely cyclical. Personally, I'm a true believer in both nuance and context with logo design.
First, it has to work in black in white for any ancillary/collateral print media constrained by technology (e.g. flexography, of which I worked in for close to 10 years).
Second, a logo should contain both nuance and context to the company at hand (e.g. the FedEx logo - a truly inspiring logo design).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of logos Ivan shows here tell us 'who they are' but not 'what they do.' To me, showing this nuance is the difference between a true designer (re: visual communicator) and someone whose acumen at Photoshop and Illustrator is evident, but self-serving.
Just my take on it. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned...
Craig Michael Patrick
http://cmpatrick.com
Gradient full-color logos are just a screams of marketing managers and corporate "creative" directors as a respond to "neighbour's" gradient full-color logo. "WHAAAT?! They're using 4 colors?! And... and... we are still at 2? Sandy, call the agency now! No, it's not a lunch time! Call the f***ers NOW!!"
It's just a trend, it will pass away.
Creating a logo just for screen usage is like giving a name to a baby just for kindergarden. Few years later: "OMG, he is 16, we can't call him a Fluffy any more. Hmm, what about Trevor? Sounds good for HR guy!".
If you want to print something, give me a Miles Davis in full-color. He's work is all about all colors. Give me Pit Mondrian, give me Basquiat graffiti, give me a reason to believe that you are someone or something that will not make my life short and dispensable as your product is.
Logo is just a signature. Make it to be a real mark of quality. Make it stand the time. Brand is just like a man. No one likes changelings.
IMHO, I don't see any evolution of visual communication with all these bling-blings. Companies becoming more and more friendly looking lollipops, and world of today growing up in a hostile time-ticking dirt-bomb. "Hey, everything is OK. Look how shiny and sparkling we are. You can be too."
We need engaging solid visuals beside logos. We want stories and ideas that worth something. We need products and services that can last. We want THINK DIFFERENT for 20-30 years. Who wants "I'm Mac, I'm PC" crap. It's not a communication, it's arguing - a woodcutter's arm-flexing!
"You know... I think J-Lo is not so flashy anymore. We should try with Metallica." "Mister, kids loves skaters" "Yeah, you right... we are selling thumb drives, that means we need a... a.... help me Dave..." "Sex Pistols, mister." " Yeah, Sex Pistols... call the Se... Did you say "Sex" Dave?"
It's degrading for business, for a taste and for our profession too.
As a Production Manager, I have found that digitally printing gradients, in logos and elsewhere, can be a real headache. The process doesn't always hold the subtle changes that the designer expects to see. The color and gradient levels may have to be adjusted to the output device being used. In one case, we were forced to reprint, 4C. Not great for budgets and time management!
CREO QUE LAS REGLAS ESTÁN PARA ROMPERLAS Y EN ESTA EPOCA
SE APLICA PERFECTO ESTE DICHO.
LOS LOGOS OMARCAS AL EXPONERSE MUCHO MAS A LA COMUNICACION "ONLINE"
DEBERÍAN VERSE TAN BIEN O MEJOR QUE LA OFFLINE O IMPRESA.
LO QUE NO DEBEMOS HACER ES SOLO PENSAR NUESTROS LOGOS EN UNA SOLA SUPERFICIE...DEBEMOS HACER SE SE MUEVAN EN VARIAS DIMENSIONES.
These gradient logo's are a pain in the arse if they don't also include a block colour version. We have a client that has just had their logo redesigned with a drop shadow and gradients of 4 colours - and you try and get someone to screen print that? or embroider it... can't be done. PAIN.
Also - I think working within the restrictions of block areas requires more design understanding and smarter designs. Capische? Jimbo
liked the article.