Logo Critique

[subcons]

Been a while since I've done a logo. My friend is making a small production company (theatrical) with some fellow thespians called Far Too *****ious. Asked me to see what I could come up with. This is the one I like:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v715/subcons/logo.jpg

I'm trying to emphasize the "*****ious" part of it. Thought this was a beautiful (and quite ornate) typeface to do so. Too western? Dated looking? Haven't showed it to my friend yet, but I'm liking it.

[Zenobian Grey]

Have you tried "enclosing" the design within an oval? As it stands right now, you it has no line reference. I think enclosing it may help that to some degree. Worth a shot.

As far as being dated, that's all subjective to the person you're doing the logo for. Does that dated style say anything about the person, their production, their personality, etc.

I think if you were just looking for a thespian type looking typeface to represent the stage community, it may not say much about your friend if said friend really doesn't identify with this type of style.

The typeface is elegant indeed and I can see it working for any 1800's, early 1900's theme, including the stage. But again, if your friend doesn't like that style, then they're most likely not going to like the typeface.

"productions" is way too small. It's good to think artistically, but logo design work also takes a great amount of logic. If it's generally too small or too hard to read within a split second, you're logo loses a lot of initial potency. Most people are unforgiving, if it doesn't hit them within that short time interval, they won't give it a second chance.

I'm really happy to see you designed it in black only. (white isn't counted as a color in print work because it's the paper) This will save you a lot of work and headache down the road.

[Kool]

I wonder why the forum censored a m b i t?

[morea]

it does that a lot. not sure why. :confused:

[JPnyc]

Because someone spammed us with it. Anytime someone does that, their domain is added to the censored words list.

[Navian]

Na. It is a swear word, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it in public! :p

[max_nhk]

Is the actual name 'Far too Am-bitious' or 'Far too Am-bitious productions'?

[Logo-Mechanix]

I like the look of it also, but agree productions is way to small. Think when the production manager gets business cards, that line will be illegible. I personally like the font for ambitious but Zeno is right if your friend is not trying to go for that old west type of fell this font may not do it for him, but I think it might be worth showing it to the person. Nice looking overall though.

[obesebee]

I really like this and agree with increasing the size of 'productions'. Also the 'Far Too' part seems a little stuck on and could perhaps be integrated more, perhaps using some more flourishes which would, in turn, help to enclose it more as suggested in the first comment.

The space between the 'A' and the 'M' stands out quite a bit but I don't think tightening it would work due to the curved baseline and the slope of the 'A', so you may need to loosen the spacing on the rest of the letters or forget the curve and make it straight to get it looking sound.

I don't think that looking old fashioned is a problem, if you are concerned you could make it modern and edgy with colour.

[TheWalt]

agreeing on the size issues, i think the ornaments are too strong, also because the mentioned type is too small.

but i dig that old-fashioned type for the amb-word, do you mind telling what it's called?

[subcons]

Have you tried "enclosing" the design within an oval? As it stands right now, you it has no line reference. I think enclosing it may help that to some degree. Worth a shot.

I'll keep this in mind.

Is the actual name 'Far too Am-bitious' or 'Far too Am-bitious productions'?

I actually added the 'productions' part myself. I agree with everyone that it's too small. I realized this after posting it here and seeing the image. I was so used to looking at it zoomed in Illustrator while I worked on it. Ornamentation could definitely be a problem as well.

I really like this and agree with increasing the size of 'productions'. Also the 'Far Too' part seems a little stuck on and could perhaps be integrated more, perhaps using some more flourishes which would, in turn, help to enclose it more as suggested in the first comment.

Awesome idea. I actually did tack that on towards the end of the process. When I first had the idea pop into my head I had the 'Far' and 'Too' on either side of 'AMBITIOUS'. I tried that out and didn't much like it. Plus it could have caused even further communication problems.

The space between the 'A' and the 'M' stands out quite a bit but I don't think tightening it would work due to the curved baseline and the slope of the 'A', so you may need to loosen the spacing on the rest of the letters or forget the curve and make it straight to get it looking sound.

I see that now. Thanks for bringing that too my attention. Stands out like a sore thumb and I didn't even notice it. Will definitely try some different configurations.

I don't think that looking old fashioned is a problem, if you are concerned you could make it modern and edgy with colour.

I screwed around with color after posting it. I kept having images of a type specimen book cover I remember seeing with wood-type on it and used bold color to have the same effect. I just start in B&W so I'll definitely be trying some things out with color.

but i dig that old-fashioned type for the amb-word, do you mind telling what it's called?

Sure. It's called Madame™ (http://www.linotype.com/1201/madame-family.html) from Linotype.

Maybe I'll look for another font. I really love this one, but again, ornamentation does seem to be a problem at small scale.

All great and constructive comments. Just what I was looking for. Thanks :)

[max_nhk]

Actually I wasn't worried about its' size. But the possibility that most ppl will mis-read the name to include 'production' (I did). Increasing the size will only make things worst.

Either differentiate those two or take it out totally would be my suggestion. :)