Logo redesign
emilia (6 pencils) | Mon, 2012-08-13 15:39I'm reworking a friend's logo. I'm *not* a logo designer, so I'd like some feedback to see if you think this is any good at all.
The top logo is the current one. He's concerned that the colors are rather cold and wanted something warmer. He'd also like to incorporate a camera lens diaphragm.
The first version is a simple re-do of the current logo in different color and with the diaphragm, I also made the "photography" text match the logo font.
The second version is more of an icon, I guess. Personally, I like this one better. I think a slightly different version would work well as a silhouette and the text can be rearranged to work in a letterhead, front signage, etc.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Commenting on this Image will be automatically closed on October 8, 2012.
the original one is better. just make it orange and save your time.
Would you care to elaborate on *why* it's better?
1. doesn't have that weird arbitrary gradient at the top of the cli
2. the way you've done the "photography" looks as it its highlighting "liffadd"
3. the aperture blades are too detailed and wont hold up well when reduced
4. you've tightened already tight kerning
as far as the icon version. the type is WAY too small to read on one and is small AND lacks adequate contrast on the other
the existing logo was kinda lame. and your changes really just made as lame, but for different reasons
Since you're "not a logo designer" you don't realizing you're breaking a few basic rules of logo design. One problem with all three of these versions is they will not reproduce accurately in black only. That is the first rule of logo design. The gradient line behind the top two logos will cause problems. The gradients will also not reproduce in black only. You can address those problems by sketching or only working in black on the computer initially and then adding the gradients or other elements once you've decided on a design that works.
The aperture - while obviously appropriate for a photographer - is beyond cliche. Virtually every photographer has one in their logo. The "advantage" (if there is one) - is everyone will know your friend's profession. The disadvantage being he will not stand out from the pack of other photogs who also have apertures. If you DO decide to go that route - lose the gradients on the blades and respect note #3 in the post above. You should also knock out the line running behind the aperture in the second version (since the viewer would be looking into a camera and not see what's behind it). But I think you would be better served by losing the aperture and finding a unique angle to denote his profession.
The bottom logo won't work with text that small (as evident by the one on the left).
Imho, I wouldn't mind seeing some variation on the top original using the horizon line/lens flare thing as a solid line cutting the letters horizontally as you cut the bottom "a" logo vertically. Just a thought.
Disagree with wg on the kerning - I like the way you tightened it up - not bad at all for a non-designer. "Cliff" might even be a little loose in comparison to "Addy".
Also like the fact you went with all lower case on the "photography" tag and your placement is better than the original too - but it still needs some tweaking.
As always... jmho.
wgzn:
Hmmm, I don't see the text as integral to the icon version. It would be trivial to change the size, move it to the side, change the color. It's just an example.
As for the blades, when you resize it, you simply make the blades solid color and adjust the inter-leaf spacing if needed.
Why is the gradient weird and wrong? And the adjusted kerning, which balances the text on
diaphragm, is wrong for what reason?
I guess I'm looking for actual design principles that I'm violating.
"I don't see the text as integral to the icon version."
then leave it off
"As for the blades, when you resize it, you simply make the blades solid color and adjust the inter-leaf spacing if needed."
you shouldn't have to rework a logo for reduction. THAT is one design principle that you're violating.
one of the long standing core rules of a good mark is that it has to work in one color at the size of a dime. that means no gradients or screens, and fine details are generally frowned upon. this is generally because most logos eventually will wind up being printed on uncoated stock, cut in solid vinyl for window lettering, etched on glass for a door or on a reward or embroidered on a golf shirt or hat. some younger or less experienced designers will argue with this logic for a couple of reasons:
- because they havent been in the business long enough or done enough logos for REAL companies and they havent seen their work live long or broad enough to see those needs arise
- because a lot of things these days are printed digitally (glorified color copiers) or intended only for use online
"And the adjusted kerning, which balances the text on
diaphragm, is wrong for what reason?"
i'm not exactly sure what you mean. i dont see the kerning adjustment having anything to to with the "diaphragm"...?
look. you said you werent a logo designer. people who are, are telling you why it's not good. why are you arguing?
"Also like the fact you went with all lower case on the "photography" tag and your placement is better than the original too"
i dont mind the lowercase. i actually like the air it creates. what i dont like is that its confined on the sides by the l and d. if "photography" wasnt so vertically close to cliffaddy, i might feel differently...
i also cant tell if the name is cliffaddy or cliff addy. might create a more noticeable break between the two if it's supposed to be separate...
I was asking you "why". Your original post was little more that a rant with nothing to back it up. The criticisms seemed little more than trivial things you didn't like. Compare it to Art D. Rector's well-thought-out criticism.
no. thats not accurate.
you asked for feedback as to whether "this is any good at all." and you got that.
you asked me to elaborate, and i did.
you argued.
"The criticisms seemed little more than trivial things you didn't like"
i guess if you dont know the established principles of logo design, some of them may SEEM trivial. but nothing that i listed was without some justification based on known practices or simply experience.
i guess im having a problem with your initial statement that you werent a logo designer. then following up with argument once you got feedback from logo designers.
In the defense of wgzn and everyone else who's reply may not be "spectacular", you're asking professionals who make logos for a living. We're passionate about what we do and try and point those who ask for feedback in the right direction as economically and as honestly as possible.
I echo everyone elses suggestions, both on concept and production points.
Emelia, I'm afraid wgzn and Art D. Rector are correct. You have some very serious basic problems going on here.
The original logo isn't yours, of course, so there's no reason for you to defend it, but simply changing the color of the text and giving it a gradient effect solves only one of your client's problems: it changes the design from a cold to a warm color. It leaves in place the issue of limited usefulness.
Your own design has something to recommend it. I like the shape of the giant A, and the idea of halving it, though I might question what that means -- is it a stylized CA?. As wgzn and Art D. have pointed out, though, the text is far too small. In the version on the left, it's just impossible to read. In the one on the right, it's also hard to read, but in reality, it would fill in with the surrounding ink when printed. It would be a pain to render in embroidery or vinyl, which would make those very expensive propositions. Try fixing that. And do remove the gradient in the aperture, if your client insists on going with such a boring and overused design element.
As you continue with this, work in solid black and keep readability foremost in mind. Color comes last. Gradients can be a fine embellishment in some uses of a logo, but that should only be one option, not something upon which a logo depends to get its message across.
Logo design is a difficult and complicated specialty, not something you can just jump into without a lot of experience in a variety of media and without a firm grasp of the rules. The rules are there for very good practical, not arbitrary, reasons. Don't be offended when these rules are explained to you.
And don't expect to hit the ball out of the part your first time at bat! Let's see some more ideas :)
Mara
throw away all that colors and effects and make it b&w.
yes I'm brazilian xD