My own worst critic

[JaCkinbOx]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/JaCkinbOx/logosheet04.png

I'm trying to push the envelope on my logo, once again. Fiddling around with it over the past few months, I identified some inflexibilities that I wished to remedy. So over the past couple of nights, I prepared the third logo in the set of four, above. The two above that are the two drafts before it in chronological order. And the fourth in line is something crazy I did for the hell of it to release stress (I know I don't want it for my "official" logo, but something like that could come into play someday, eh?).

Anyway, the third logo, while I feel some of the letters have a weight problem at the moment, is supposed to alleviate the problem presented by the previous drafts of taking too much room above (but especially below) the center of the logo -- so essentially the S and P descenders; they've been shortened.

To compensate for these changes, I felt it was very important to alter the weight of the letters... I didn't think some of them translated to well to becoming thicker, so I altered each letter a fair bit. As you can see, the "a" is now completely different.

This said, I now seek your counsel.

If you would like to review the evolution of the logo prior to what I have here, go back and check out http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10525&page=1&pp=10 and http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12017&page=1&pp=10

[rockem]

On the top three to me it seems like there is almost a different font for each letter some are similar but they all dont flow very well together, the kerning needs alot of work on the top three, or one there basically the same thing. I like the concept just think it needs tweaking

[mikefanch]

I like this a lot. My only problem is with the revised "a" on the rework. It looks to be falling or leaning to the left a bit. On the previous logos it seems to stand up straighter and look a bit stronger in relation to it's neighbors. Also the "r" looks a tad bit to bold.

Other than that it's excellent.

[rockem]

look at each individual letter on the last one, and compare the letters that are shown twice in the word, therealot of cleaning up to be done on the linework

[Logo-Mechanix]

I kind of like the third one, I would change the r so it doesn't look bent and get rid of the line going through the center of the p. Maybe you could add a little weight to that one and open it up slightly but I like the look it definitely says dreamy to me.

[rockem]

It would be nice to see the word all uniform in a hand made font istead of all the different letters

[rockem]

why is that italics what did I hit? ^^

[JaCkinbOx]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/JaCkinbOx/logosheet05.png
A new direction I'm entertaining (top), and as it stands presently (bottom). New direction inspired by what I did to the S and the C in the top version. ^

I decided I needed to loosen it up a bit and give it a bit more character. There are elements in the new logo I mean to tweak, but I created it only over the last 30 minutes or so (mostly from scratch).

Okay, people, feeding frenzy. Tear it apart.

[Drorain]

the top is begining to feel more organic, more like a graphitti tag and less like a simple font on the lower one, the bottom has a very defined x-height and the top breaks out of that clearly.

I for one like this organic feel, it is more dreamy, more Salvador Dali, more unique. The color your presenting it one makes me feel down and dingy though, somewhat depressed. So I hope thats a good critique to start.

(please note the above critique is given in focus group fashion, I am not coming outright and saying i like it or hate it, but rather my psychological reaction to the logo mark, I leave it to you to decide if this is what your looking for in your logo)

[flutterby nut]

of this these two new ones...i like the top one...it seems to express more dynamic personality and character...it seems like a more appropriate 'fit' with your pic...that is, except for the 'D'...please don't be mad, but that letter just strikes me as being too girlie...lots of swooshing going on...i'd like to see a similar treatment with that letter as you have with the 'm'...i think it would go better with the rest overall...just thoughts.

[JaCkinbOx]

You know, this new direction is growing on me. I wanted something more dynamic, and I think this is a step in the right direction.

Thanks for the thoughts, guys. I'll be following up with an update shortly.

[JaCkinbOx]

In descending order, this is the adjustments I've made so far.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/JaCkinbOx/logosheet06.png

[JaCkinbOx]

My dad thought I should give the M eyes, so that's for him. lol.

[Birdie1483]

I"m putting in another vote for the top design. However, "scape" seems a bit off. If you're wishing for it to be flowy or curve, then it needs to be done a little more. Or maybe just make a little bit more difference between the letters. It just needs a little tweek. As for the girlyness, I think it's ok. Maybe just get rid of the curly cue on D a bit (but leave the stroke). I think its great other than that.

[dingodoodles]

as of your message yesterday at 7:58, the top solution seems to be working the best for the following reasons:
The dynamics of the letters getting larger in the middle of the word is a good thing.
The dot on the M was a bit over the top. So the top M works best.
The top solution has a up to date feel.
The bottom solution definitely feels 70's. If that is part of your concept, great. If not you may want to look at that. It reminds me of the "YES" album covers which were great in their time (thanks to Roger Dean, I think). But if that isn't your type of work, I don't see how it fits.

My only suggestion is to watch the thicks and thins on your type, also kerning needs some work.

Thanks for sharing your work.