Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Logo advice/critique Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Search Search Module
Collapse

Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Featured Images Featured Images Module
Collapse

Mediabistro Creative Sites Mediabistro Creative Sites Module
Collapse
Latest Topics Latest Topics Module
Collapse

  • bulgariacalling
    Reply to Photoshop CS6 - selection tool issue
    bulgariacalling

    That's what the 'tech' people asked me to do! Something to do with how the 'interactive' spot the difference will work?



    So far, only in Photoshop. I haven't got round...
    Today, 06:31 AM
  • Kayekaye
    Reply to Photoshop CS6 - selection tool issue
    Kayekaye
    Is this square showing up when it is online or when it is in photoshop? I've had this happen on a website but never in ps....
    Today, 03:54 AM
  • Buda
    Reply to in need of urgent help
    Buda
    You call it a prank, I call it sabotage.
    Today, 02:33 AM
  • Buda
    Reply to Help with a graphic technique
    Buda
    You can actually render clouds in Photoshop.

    Filter > Render > Clouds

    It's can be a good starting point to build your brushes over top of. Fiddle with the levels and the...
    Today, 02:24 AM
  • PrintDriver
    Comment on Setting up file for large banner
    PrintDriver
    4' x8' yeah sure, work at 150ppi. That's fine.
    But a 30' x 41' banner at 150ppi would be over 14.5 gigs flat! Your printer is gonna hate you! Actually he might laugh when you send in your hard drive...
    Today, 12:07 AM
Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Sponsors Sponsors Module
Collapse

X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    You've laid down only the freshest gradients and stock splotch decorations. But where are the drop shadows and lens flares? You can't have a great logo without those.

    But seriously, the bottom left one has potential. Tweak the font a little, get rid of the gradients and it will be pretty striking. Color it sage green for added effect.

    Comment


    • #17
      Here they are simplified and put into black and white.

      Comment


      • #18
        I still think the bottom right one is the best of the group. The edges of the A & G are hard to decipher, spacing them out might help.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by VDM View Post
          I still think the bottom right one is the best of the group. The edges of the A & G are hard to decipher, spacing them out might help.
          Agreed. I prefer the bottom right.
          ♪ Butterfly in the sky,
          I can go twice as high.
          Take a look,
          It's in a book,
          A Reading Rainbow ♫

          Reading Rainbow...

          Comment


          • #20
            I think the bottom right is the one that you should focus on and try to improve. The other seem a little bit too confusing. The readability on the others is not great. If I didn't know, beforehand, what the word said it would take me a couple seconds to figure it out.

            People shouldn't have to look at your logo and try to guess what the word is.

            Comment


            • #21
              There are really some nice things going on in the bottom right logo. That said, the typography isn't as legible as it could be. If this were strictly a word mark, a stylized typographic treatment would be more warranted. However, the brush and its roots provide the visual interest, so if it were me, I'd give the type a more straight-forward and conservative treatment.

              Just one other thing, now that I think about it. With a word like sage, I'd expect the imagery to be that of a sage, like a sage brush or the herb. The tree in the top logos definitely isn't a sage. And the brush in the bottom right logo isn't exactly a sage brush, but it could be with a few modifications.
              Last edited by <b>; 03-08-2012, 04:02 PM. Reason: Another thought

              Comment


              • #22
                The two at the bottom left are quite interesting, and have an almost ambigram like quality to them. The readability is hampered a bit by the spacings being very tight, and the strong verticals.

                The bottom right is the strongest conceptually, however it's very busy at the moment and could be simplified a lot without reducing the strength of the concept at all. Like <b> said, it would work great if the plant actually resembled a sage plant.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Appreciate the advice. Ill work on using a more legible font, and trying to incorporate a sage brush. I've had trouble finding a font where the back and front of the A and G are both straight lines. If they are not straight the concept seems to fall apart. Ill keep working on it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The bottom right one has some really small detail that will get lost at smaller sizes or in certain printing methods. I would simplify it.
                    "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
                    -Steve Jobs

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sketcher View Post
                      The bottom right one has some really small detail that will get lost at smaller sizes or in certain printing methods. I would simplify it.
                      This is partially why the bottom left version is stronger IMO, plus it kind of looks like knuckles. It's right between a word mark and an icon, it's still legible but you see the shape first then the letters.
                      Design is not decoration.

                      Comment

                      Mediabistro A division of Prometheus Global Media home | site map | advertising/sponsorships | careers | contact us | help courses | browse jobs | freelancers | content | member benefits | reprints & permissions terms of use | privacy policy Copyright © 2014 Mediabistro Inc. call (212) 389-2000 or email us
                      Working...
                      X