I’m trying to create a logo for what now seems an overused brand name. Trying to come up with something different led me down this road. I want it to look cleaner and polished but bashing my head against wall. Do I start over?
I’d say the concept isn’t bad, but graphically, you’re overreaching. You have gradient, transparency, and many small objects; all potential production pitfalls. Simplify.
Also, you’d get more than just a mechanical assessment if you post more detail about the brand/product/company and its market.
Digital Marketing for local businesses. Want it to standout and convey movement. The core of the company is to help others increase visibility, through web design, seo and digital signage.
25% of those flying bits are still too small to matter.
Maybe give them more forceful directionality too. They are just hanging dead in space at the moment, not seeming propelled by the shot that broke them out there.
Each iteration has gotten better, but there’s still an awful lot going on. I don’t think the glass shards are even needed. Also, I’d ditch the serifs. They make the lower case s look like a 5, and the “in” looks awkward.
The problem with the shards is that they are physically in the wrong place. A ball would break through something, and the “glass” would begin to shatter behind it. What you have now appears as though the ball is coming from the right, but the triangle is telling me it’s coming from the left.
Before you worry about that, though, work on the kerning of the font.
I’m liking the concept, and I’m actually liking the way it looks, but…
Have you ever watched slow-motion videos of bullets hitting things? I’m not saying you need to get the physics exactly correct, but as CRHain88 said, the shattered bits are not behaving as one would expect. The law of conservation of energy would prohibit all the shards from being propelled ahead of the object impacting them. The exploding shards in your first example are the most accurate in your examples. As I said, being physically accurate isn’t necessary, but it does need to look believable.
I also agree with CRHain88 about the typography having issues. The lettering is interesting, but the overly tight kerning and, especially, the unusual serifs draw attention to themselves at the expense of the explosion. Besides, they impair legibility.
Really appreciate the input. It may be messy but at this moment I prefer the shards as they portray movement and the dynamics will show up in gif and signage better I think.
I’m readdressing font but currently struggling to find a balance.
All feedback appreciated.
Shock wave sends shards ahead of bullet.
Agreed - space out the letters so they are more evenly spaced and not touching. Use the gap you have between the ‘g’ and the ‘s’ as a guide.
Its much better without the serifs.
I mostly used white shapes to hide the serifs. So I’ll need to spend a bit of time on cleaning and spacing but your absolutely right and thank you all for your input. I’ll upload when I’m done (thursday) but if any one wants to add anything else or dis it please do.
The one with just the ball isn’t really bad. It’s simple, has a modern feel, and makes the viewer think just a little bit about the traveling object through the letters. If you need some sort of impact graphic, maybe try something with just two or three larger fragments.
Something large enough to hold visual weight when the logo is printed. or made into something that requires contouring.
You’re right. A few of the shards are in front. By the time the bullet is on the other side of the glass, a majority of the shards are in the bullet’s wake.
The shattering target is the weak link. Making it both effective and simple enough is an artistic tightrope. I’m thinking I’d try some streaks behind the projectile, perhaps instead.
Where this ball is blowing through a series of letters, and for an explosive look, shards in front of the bullet are a physical possibility.
I’m not a fan of small bits of anything. As a sign guy, I hate objects that don’t cut on the plotter or make weeding impossible.
A graphic designers job is complete not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away.
Yes, but just to clarify, no one mentioned some of the shards being propelled ahead of the projectile as an impossibility, just that in the situation presented, all the shards being in front of the projectile, as shown in some of the examples, would be impossible (or at least so exceedingly unlikely to be impossible from a practical standpoint).
A good example of when it does happen is when a pool ball makes a direct (not glancing) collision with another pool ball, all the momentum and kinetic energy from the first ball is transferred to the ball being struck. The end result is the first pool ball comes to a stop and the impacted ball proceeds forward at the same velocity as the first ball, minus some energy dissipated in various ways, like sound waves, friction and things like that.
But the example doesn’t represent this kind of elastic collision. Instead, it’s supposed to be a projectile from a slingshot shattering something, like a glass ball perhaps, into shards. In your example of a goblet, the initial impact of the bullet creates a shockwave, as you mentioned, that spreads out at extremely high speeds away from the impact point. Because it’s a hollow, thin, circular object, the shockwave travels around the circumference of the goblet to the point opposite the point of impact where the crests of the waves converge. The convergence of this energy, explodes that section of the goblet forward at a higher velocity than that of the projectiles — at least for a few moments until friction with the air slows them down.
The dynamics of all this would change depending on the nature of the materials involved and the combined kinetic energy and momentum of the two objects involved in the collision. It would require a very unlikely situation for a projectile traveling at high velocity to impact an object in a way that transferred enough energy into the object to shatter it while simultaneously imparting enough linear momentum into the object to propel all the pieces in the chaotic structural collapse of the object forward at a higher velocity than the projectile itself.
Late to the party, but… I’m going to question using explosive shards as a concept. If you’re trying to convey movement, there are better, smoother, friendlier ways.
Explosions are messy and jarring. Is this really the look and feel that will serve the client’s market?
Unless the target market is gun manufacturers, then it’s probably right on.