I thought the layout should be like that? but you’re right it’s too small.
I don’t know what you mean or how it’s relevant. We could discuss how Franz Marc’s painting of blue horses works just fine, but like you said, this is a logo — not a painting.
My main point is your colors aren’t working — they’re confusing what you’re trying to clarify in the logo.
The snail works, because it looks like a snail, despite the playful and unusual colors. Your logo, on the other hand is an amalgamation of disparate elements of leaves waves and water that aren’t nearly as easily resolved into a meaningful object or objects.
There is no overall shape to clearly define what it is. You’ve essentially said so yourself in the statement about making the wave more obvious by making it black. Again, rather than helping to clarify what’s going on in the logo, your choice and application of colors are making more confusing a combination of shapes that are already a bit confusing.
what I meant was that a logo would probably not always be as realistic as what it can be visualized in painting.
So far, that’s the concept I stick onto. There are many ways to visualize plants, or waves. It can be subjective all the way for each audience. I can not always changing my concept each time someone gives comment 
.
I can only hope not much audience getting confuse with the pictorial mark.
Nevertheless, thank you for your constructive feedback 
Problem is - you didn’t do the modification as requested and you went your own path.
Imagine if you did that with the client, they could ditch you for things like that.
You had a nice balance of Plant Surf - and I wanted to see was the combination of the two fonts. So two instances.
It’s really important to follow instructions.
I’m giving up on this one early. Like I said, on something like this, the content is more important to me as a user. As the site owner? They might have a different opinion.
Bonne Chance!
1 Like
I’d like to add that your color choice is going to be influenced by the most common background color, if this is for a webgroup like a forum. For instance, you made the wave black to make it stand out and be more visibly wave-like, but on the white background you’re using that high contrast and…what’s the word, relative density?.. also makes it the focal element, not the plant leaves. It’s a very dark, solid object , and on a white background that’s where my eye goes first. I have to pull away and deliberately look at the rest of the logo. I think in general you should tweak and rebalance your icon - the colors should be helping with the communication, not trying to carry it.
Fontwise, since that was your initial request, on the latest iteration I like the last pair of fonts together, but I’d rearrange them. If this is going on a forum or website, maybe try arranging them horizontally so they form a nice, long header bar, not unlike where you started.
1 Like
Thank you for your comment!
The thing is, if I used lighter color for the wave, the whole pictorial mark might look like an apple
I could just simplify the pictorial mark, but I am not sure that it’ll be as unique as now, or i would be too literal in visualizing the business name.
It’s a plant that surfs ~ so I need the nautilus shape to be there, side by side in a unity with whatever that can symbolize plants.
Maybe I’d just change the leaves into cactus 
@Smurf2 actually this logo is part of my personal project, so I am the client lol.
I think this is totally true for grotesque san serif typefaces, however I don’t know whether the same can be said for geo san serif typefaces, they have more character.
Simple, generic, common, yeah, all the things you want in a logo?
@pluto what do you think with geo san serif typefaces? what impression that you can get from a logo design that uses that kind of typeface?
That’s the problem, the bug ain’t working either.
But well over a combined 100 years of experience in this thread can’t convince you otherwise. I stand by my second post.
@PrintDriver forgot to say thank you, so thank you!
Regardless of how the logo design would end to be, I really appreciate everybody’s feedback, everybody’s time and I respect your experience.
I’m a studious person, so I currently digest all of the information in this thread. I am learning and still. 
I’ll keep posting some more of my logo designs here, I have like a dozen more to design
Well said !! My first photography rule “Learn the rules and know how/when to break them”!
1 Like
That’s a good question, I think geo sans typefaces are very clean and progressive, they’re very hip. I think it would work well with millennials am not so sure about older people 
When undertaking an assignment like this, I would try to walk in your primary audiences shoes:
What products do they buy?
Where do they spend their time?
What design asthetic would appeal to them?
The reason I think you are struggling is because your target audience is still very broad, I think you need to narrow it down especially in terms of age range. Does your client have any metrics on the users of their site or information on their customers?
Understanding your audience better will make desicions like this much easier to make and more meaningful and logic driven.
Why does everyone insist on “narrowing down a target audience?”
Especially with a topic that has a very broad appeal like plant and botanical resources.
Today, a lot of blog/forum websites are out there to make money in some way or other, whether through ads or some other means (like dumb keywords, for example)
People looking for plant or botanical info could be as young as 12 or as old as 100+ with the median probably between 18 and 65. Wide range there.
Even if by “botanical” the OP means herbal/medicinal products (that’s a whole other can of worms, in itself.)
Wrong place
what do you mean “wrong place”?
Pluto mentioning narrowing the target audience by age.
Granted I believe this is an exercise rather than a for-real logo, but I see far to often lately, an inexplicable “trend” to narrow the target audience. Narrowing the focus to people who likes plants as opposed to all humans is fine. But narrowing the audience of people seeking general information by age within that group? Bad move. Maybe by types of gardening, like xeroscaping or hobby farming or etc, but not by age.
Sorry I posted in the wrong forum - replied to the wrong thread. I should have deleted the post.
Sorry Pluto, but I disagree with your diagnosis of the problem and, especially, with your remedy. Sorry.
Geometric sans type has been popular and modern-looking for decades. The psychological associations of clean, sans-serif type looking modern or progressive isn’t at all unique to millennials. That was as true in the 1960s as it is today. I really can’t think of any significant differences in how a geometric sans would be perceived between millennials and 90-year-olds. It’s a non-issue.
You’re making some fundamentally mistaken assumptions, which is prompting one of my long-winded, pedantic rants.
Defining market segments by age is problematic in that ages are, more often than not, much less relevant than some assume. Instead, the interests and priorities of the audience, as a whole, matter more.
Using age as a determinant for how best to approach the aesthetics of a design is a common tactical mistake. Once people reach adulthood, they’re more or less the same across age groups, even as the challenges and opportunities they face change enormously. Tastes related to — especially — popular culture differ markedly from one generation to the next, but for most things unrelated to that, age differences, by themselves, aren’t especially important to the aesthetics of design work.
For example, let’s say a store, like Ikea, does a marketing study and determines that the bulk of their audience is 20-somethings looking for stylish, but inexpensive furniture. Okay, this is useful information because it helps to, among other things, determine where to place advertising to reach that demographic group — perhaps in publications that appeal to a similar demographic.
However, just because the audience in this situation is composed primarily of 20-somethings should not be taken as an indicator that the design of the ads need to reflect imagined age-related aesthetic or psychological differences in perception. The ages of the buyers might be important for ad placement purposes, but it’s a far less important consideration when thinking through how the ad should be designed. Whether 25 or 65, the reasons for buying inexpensive, stylish furniture is more or less the same across age groups — people on a budget looking for good-looking furniture.
In other words, it’s far better for designers to focus more on the commonalities of the broader target audience than it is to focus too heavily on age-related differences. Age is only one factor of many that may or may not be important depending on the situation.
As @PrintDriver mentioned, a demographic survey of people interested in gardening might turn up that most are between the ages of 40 and 60. This might be situationally useful information, but whether 21 or 75, all gardeners will likely be interested in the same sorts of things and approach the subject with similar considerations that have more to do with the type of gardening they do rather than their largely irrelevant age differences.
Just to summarize, when determining a target audience, it can be useful to break that audience into age groups, but it’s way too easy to make broad, across-the-board generalizations regarding the importance of age when it’s often one of the least important considerations.
2 Likes