[QUOTE=Bread Dog;44334084]I decided to do a little logo design for my leather goods business before I get my website, leather stamps and rubber ink stamps for branding my products but I cant decide on which design looks better for my brand.
Simply the business name:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/s7YQpBH.png[/IMG]
or this:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LrytLzJ.png[/IMG]
What do you guys think? I have a terrible eye for design and I cant decide if its actually alright and useable or if I should just cut my losses and see if somebody else can do it for me. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
I really like the font - I don't think Quality Goods looks right where it is, not sure where it'd look better though
[QUOTE=Whomobile;44337408]I posted this in the Creative work thread, but it's probably better suited here:
What do you guys think? Anyone with printing experience here? this is for a project where I have to design and print a business card for myself using Offset Printing.[/QUOTE]
I think you should make the white lines wider, like in the previous one, so it doesn't merge together when in smaller resolution.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;44239966]Today me and my partner Chase (we've been working together for years now on design work professionally) got together, brainstormed, got lunch and came up with a re-branding for a local gun shop today. Couldn't do anything about their beyond generic name, but we wanted to make something recognizable and professional. After that we went ahead and threw the logo on some marketing materials to show them how it could be used. They want a total re-branding, and are rapidly growing and want to expand with new locations across the region.
[img_thumb]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/ajackss/glock_plates2_zps63bc2fb6.jpg[/img_thumb]
Engraved into a glock slide cover plate, and silk screened onto a magazine butt plate. Also have it on AR15 dust covers and a ton of other things.
Tomorrow we've got a meeting with the client. Should go well. We already met with him previously and they are wanting a total web redesign as well, with an eCommerce site and that's right down our ally and so I think after we present them the logos they will be sold.[/QUOTE]
Nhhwaaaggghhh I love this! Good job!
Today I had an appointment with a client that is starting a small company and I made some logo variants for him.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UQb25jg.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Whomobile;44337408]I posted this in the Creative work thread, but it's probably better suited here:
What do you guys think? Anyone with printing experience here? this is for a project where I have to design and print a business card for myself using Offset Printing.[/QUOTE]
tbh I like the fat white lines in the old logo and the lack of gradient, i think a subtler gradient and bolder lines would help your newer one
[QUOTE=Whomobile;44337408]What do you guys think? Anyone with printing experience here? this is for a project where I have to design and print a business card for myself using Offset Printing.[/QUOTE]
i prefer the first of the two, gradients are difficult to get right without it seeming like a gimmick to add a bit more finesse to a logo. it's still nice but imo it cheapens the design, stick with the bold first one.
also re: printing
pantones cannot be gradients unless they're in halftone, which you don't appear to have done yet and i can't see it ever working given the size of this piece (quite small i imagine, it being a logo and all).
offset printing also has to be in halftones, so i'd really recommend you stick with the solid colour here. oh and again because of printing non-digitally you'll definitely want to ensure the lines are nice and solid so they don't get lost.
there is nothing wrong with a nice bold logo, i think it's a good design and you should stick with it. good luck, and report back when you've printed it, i'd love to see it!
[QUOTE=Autumn;44340999]also re: printing
pantones cannot be gradients unless they're in halftone.[/QUOTE]
It's a gradient caused by several solid colours though so there is no problem with that.
But I agree that I prefer the single coloured variant with less big chunks and a better form.
My main problem with the new one is that the choice of pantone colours are just too light in comparision to the first.
there's like, 6 different swatches on there. that's not how you pantone
[QUOTE=Autumn;44343282]there's like, 6 different swatches on there. that's not how you pantone[/QUOTE]
You can pantone however you want as long as you can afford it.
using 6 pantone swatches for colours that could be very reasonably produced in CMYK is dumb, wasteful and no designer/printer/creative in their right mind would ever do it.
[QUOTE=Autumn;44343622]using 6 pantone swatches for colours that could be very reasonably produced in CMYK is dumb, wasteful and no designer/printer/creative in their right mind would ever do it.[/QUOTE]
That is the reasonable option. I'm just saying that as long as you can afford it there is nothing stopping you from using as many pantone colours as you want, except for your own sanity.
I think you took my post as more than a semantic joke.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44345081]can someone explain why CMYK colours can't exactly reproduce RGB ones?[/QUOTE]
RGB uses the light diodes in your monitor, they are based on a mixture of Red Green and Blue light. Since they are based on light rather than reflection of light on a material they can be much brighter, clearer and saturated.
CMYK uses ink, it's restricted to what you can physically create with ink and uses a mixture of Cyan Magenta Yellow and Key (Black). Since they are based on reflection of light on whatever material they are printed on the colours will be less bright and saturated because you can't just increase the light to adjust the colour.
CMYK is more restricted and bound to the real world, RGB is purely digital.
Incoming redesigns!
[IMG]http://puu.sh/7IHck.png[/IMG]
Top left is how I make my logo, I draw a dodecagon (12 sides) and connect the right sides with lines, I then convert those lines into shapes and use them to cut out the shape I want.
Top right is old design, bottom left is same thing but with 20pt thickness, and bottom right is 25pt thickness.
Which one do you think is better? Should I keep the gradient from the first one?
[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]
I just noticed some of those corners didn't cut very well, I'll fix them later :v:.
i prefer the thicker one still, but you should maybe start looking at line thickness alternatives depending on the final size of your logo i.e. if it's going to be 25x25mm on a business card, but also if it's going to be 70x70mm on something else. just because the lines look thick enough at this size doesn't mean it'll scale well, and a bit of experimenting never did anyone any harm.
also are you actually printing this using offset or was that just a part of the brief set? if you're printing digitally (despite the brief) then keep the gradients in if you like (though like i said before, personally i think it cheapens the design), but if you're printing offset you should save yourself a lot of hassle by just printing a nice solid colour instead of faffing around with halftones and whatnot. learning about halftones in print is a great exercise but i think you'd gain a lot more by using them with a full colour image, not just tints of something that appears to be one of the primary colours in print (cyan)
I have to use offset, there's only one place in my area that uses digital printing anyway.
Also I got confused about the pantone thing, I fought that I was only allowed to use Pantone colours and spot colours if I wanted and the way they worded the brief it made it sound like spot colours and pantone were different things.
And yeah I'm ditching the gradient, might see if I can save some money by only printing in two colours.
I prefer the lower left version, the right is just too thick IMO.
[QUOTE=Whomobile;44348367]I have to use offset, there's only one place in my area that uses digital printing anyway.
Also I got confused about the pantone thing, I fought that I was only allowed to use Pantone colours and spot colours if I wanted and the way they worded the brief it made it sound like spot colours and pantone were different things.
And yeah I'm ditching the gradient, might see if I can save some money by only printing in two colours.[/QUOTE]
Spot and pantone is the same thing.
yeah thats what I was confused about, bah so many printing terms are the same thing.
[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]
Also a lot of them sound like murder terms, stuff like "bleed" and "slug".
I love this line of work.
[QUOTE=dgg;44345576]RGB uses the light diodes in your monitor, they are based on a mixture of Red Green and Blue light. Since they are based on light rather than reflection of light on a material they can be much brighter, clearer and saturated.
CMYK uses ink, it's restricted to what you can physically create with ink and uses a mixture of Cyan Magenta Yellow and Key (Black). Since they are based on reflection of light on whatever material they are printed on the colours will be less bright and saturated because you can't just increase the light to adjust the colour.
CMYK is more restricted and bound to the real world, RGB is purely digital.[/QUOTE]
so it can't reproduce the high saturation you can get from digital, because inks aren't reflective enough
[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=dgg;44348479]I prefer the lower left version, the right is just too thick IMO.
Spot and pantone is the same thing.[/QUOTE]
i thought pantone was just one (the most dominant, though) method to have spot colours all up in your shit
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44350812]so it can't reproduce the high saturation you can get from digital, because inks aren't reflective enough
i thought pantone was just one (the most dominant, though) method to have spot colours all up in your shit[/QUOTE]
Yes. CMYK is restricted to the colour spectrum we can physically re-create with ink.
You thought right. Like I said, Pantone and spot is the same thing. Pantone is just a brand of spot colours.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44350812]i thought pantone was just one (the most dominant, though) method to have spot colours all up in your shit[/QUOTE]
it is. Pantone is spot, spot is not Pantone. there are several different colour systems that exist, Pantone is just by far the most prevelant in europe and the US. a spot colour is just a non-standard ink that requires an additional roller/film, and whilst these are most commonly Pantone colours (which fill the gaps where CMYK cannot reproduce accurately) you can also use metallics, fluorescents and things like varnish... which Pantone do all supply inks for but you don't *have* to use them.
Pantone exists (as dgg explained) because not all colours we design with on screen can be replicated with just the standard 4 colour process, since screen = light and pigment = reflection by light. it also exists as a standard to ensure that printers and designers are expecting the same outcome with print, since screen calibrations can differ *hugely*, but mostly it's there to fill the gap that CMYK can't fill.
and although it is usually an added expense (setup costs of an additional roller etc.) depending on the kind of work done it can actually be used to save money, for example if you're a company that has a prominent single colour, like my bank uses a nice pale blue not that dissimilar to Whomobile's, you can save printing costs by *only* using that single spot colour across all your printed goods. although it's nearly always in addition to black that's still using only 2 colours as opposed to 5 (CMYK + spot) so that's more efficient, just make sure you don't want any photos printing. but then that also depends on the size of the run and intended market as screenprinting is pretty highly valued these days and in some circumstances could well work out cheaper than a single/double roller but heyy, that's for another time.
[QUOTE=Doqqy;44338818]Nhhwaaaggghhh I love this! Good job!
Today I had an appointment with a client that is starting a small company and I made some logo variants for him.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UQb25jg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]That little bit of green/blue in the bottom right corner of each of the squares is really bugging me. And the gray is too light, assuming it's ever going to be shown on white.
[QUOTE=4444;44356342]That little bit of green/blue in the bottom right corner of each of the squares is really bugging me. And the gray is too light, assuming it's ever going to be shown on white.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, you might be right about the little bit of green, but I personally am not bothered by it that much. Anyways, this is the final version we've decided on.
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/GSM5Kdg.png[/IMG_thumb]
The tiny dot of color at the very end of the stem of the leaf looks like a mistake imo.
i agree, and leaving such a small thing that could easily be changed is lazy. if you want to be serious about design you need to be a bit more of a perfectionist
i make posters. sorry it's in danish.
any cc welcome for future reference as I make one at least every 2 months.
they're for a bar at school which I also help manage.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2ztnu39.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/h1cYEXb.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/gCZpQCU.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/xZkN463.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/cBskXqN.png[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/bnW60Sa.png[/t]
also i'm not a graphics designer or anything, I do this for fun. i'm an engineering student.
[QUOTE=thejjokerr;44300840]Game mode thing[/QUOTE]
Sounds cool! Added you on Steam.
Yo guys what is up
So I've been doing some designs for a sweatshirt for my faculty. I'm finishing up my MsC in Comp. Engineering and wanted a sweatshirt that popped to distribute along my fellow course mates.
However a lot of people have issues with the design, so I'd appreciate a few comments.
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/LWufUhm.png[/img_thumb]
("Informática" is moonspeak for "Informatics", which technically is the course name even though it sounds wrong in English. welp)
So people are telling me to replace the leaves crown with either usb cables or ethernet cables but I can't seem to make it work properly. It always looks bad as vector isn't my core skill by far.
So yeah comments (or improvements!) are appreciated
although the crest could possibly be improved, if it's not something you're skilled at i think it looks fine as it is. but the fonts really need some work. the Informática is quite nice, but it doesn't seem at all suitable for this purpose; crests often use very traditional serifs or serif styled handwriting, but not a very commercial looking script like that. and the other font/s is overwhelmingly default, there's no personality in it at all and that takes a lot away when the design (on the back) is only text based.
personally i'm a big fan of [url=http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/list/find_fonts?filter%5Bclassifications%5D%5B%5D=slab+serif&filter%5Bfamily_size%5D=1&filter%5Bdownload%5D=all&sort=a2z]slab serifs[/url] so i would possibly suggest trying some of them, but it might not be to everyones taste. either way, just have a look around and try some new fonts, 'cause what you have at the moment really holds back your design.
Thank our faculty for their apparent worship of trebuchet MS, which I am forced to use in the back - which oddly enough is being praised as "nice, don't touch it" by everyone who commented on it. Go figure.
The crest is something I'm willing to improve however, even though my skills are limited (imo it just means I have to spend more hours facebashing the keyboard to make a viable design), a few pointers in which direction I should head would be pretty great.
While I don't like the font on the back, if you can't touch it I would say that it may be covered by the hood if it is left at that height
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
