PDA

View Full Version : Need some (budding artist) crtique




skoker
Mar 12, 2006, 07:37 PM
First of all, I want to say that this was made in ImageReady, not Photoshop, because PS refuses to open some some strange reason.

Anyways, I just created this logo (attached) and was wondering what you all thought of it. It's going to eventually become the logo for a website, aptly named 'mixlife'. The logo itself is on a transparent background, it's shown in the screenshot as on top of some CSS backgrounds.

This is also my first Adobe app creation, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

-skoker



Lau
Mar 12, 2006, 07:59 PM
What is "mixlife"? Is it something to do with music?

This is entirely my opinion, but I would simplify it down a bit. I'm guessing that you want a fairly 'fun' look, judging by the logo. However I personally would try to use as few colours as I could in a logo, and as few typefaces. Now I'm not saying you should only use one typeface and one colour, but just to think "Is this really necessary?" "Do I need this colour?" "What does a second typeface bring to the logo" and so on.

I don't want to say "Do it this way" at all, because that isn't the way to learn, but think of the best logos you can. Apple and Nike work as an iconic symbol. Adidas works as a flexible 3 stripe. Companies that use just text like IBM or CocaCola are simple and eyecatching. How many really good logos do you know that use a lot of colours and several typefaces at the same time?

I hope that doesn't seem as if I'm slagging off your logo. It's just any logo is worth paring it down and paring it down again. I think the exclamation mark makes it clear it's an 'exciting' website without a lot of colours and typefaces. Everything that is in it should be there for a reason - try it in black, with one typeface, and the exclamation mark, and see what you need to add from there. Black and red can be really dynamic. What if the exclamation mark was red, and the rest black? Do you need the second typeface then? And so on.

As I say, it's just my opinion though. It's definitely worth looking at your favourite logos and working out why they're great. It's also worth looking at similar sites' logos and working out why they look good or bad.

jared_kipe
Mar 12, 2006, 08:53 PM
I read it as "buddhist" instead of budding, so I was like "sweet, but wtf could he want.

As for your logo, I think it looks just a little too busy. But good. Maybe loose the bright green.

lil tiger
Mar 12, 2006, 08:57 PM
No offence, but I don't really care for all those colours together. Usually, when using a variety of colours, you pick a few that look good together. You could do different shades of blue, different shades of green.. etc. or you could do complementing colours like red and green, blue and orange or purple and yellow. (Purple and green also look nice, imo) Or you could use all neon, or all pastels... etc. Your selection of colours kind of seems random, without much thought put into it.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 12, 2006, 09:05 PM
I'm with the others when it comes to the colours... use as few as possible, or at least use matching colours (ColorBlender (http://colorblender.com/) or similar sites can help finding matching colours once you've picked one base one you like). If one (or more) colour(s) stand out that should have some significant meaning... That's as close to a rule I'm willing to go... ;)

Another thing, more subjective, is that I don't care too much for one of the 'i's being upside down. I don't think that works too well since the word contains two 'i's (especially since they don't "match" style/font-wise)...

e-clipse
Mar 12, 2006, 09:45 PM
less is more:) Here is a little idea starter I made.

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/8417/mixlife9ex.th.jpg (http://img470.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mixlife9ex.jpg)

GoCubsGo
Mar 12, 2006, 09:50 PM
I'm not keen on it. It's confusing and it doesn't tell me at all what the logo is for. Some well established brands don't need anything else, but whatever this logo is for does.

As for the second idea, it makes me dizzy.

Hell I couldn't do any better, but I still don't think I like it.

tobefirst
Mar 12, 2006, 10:25 PM
I like Lau pretty much said everything that needed to be said. Start in black on white, and only add color after you've created something you like. As for the exclamation point, I think that Mitthrawnuruodo made a good point, saying that it bothered him that the two "i"s were different fonts. Try starting with a single font, and just inverting the second i, instead of using the exclamation point. That may work. It may also not. But I think that it'd be a pretty good place to start.

dornoforpyros
Mar 12, 2006, 10:35 PM
yeah I think it's a bit much, looks like something you would have seen in an anti-drug ad from 1992.
I'd choose one colour for all the letters except for the ! then I'd do something funky with that to make it pop.

edit: Something like this, note the trendy reflection to give you some street cred :p

Peyton
Mar 12, 2006, 10:39 PM
I think it depends on what this is for. What business or person is this for? Is it for like a blog? then fine. It should probably look a little less 'little tikes' if it actually is for a business of some kind. I can see using different colors for the 'i' and the '!' but leave the rest alone (one color) with some shading/lighting filters if you want.

Tweak it, post it, and we'll comment again

e-clipse
Mar 13, 2006, 12:32 AM
Here is another..:)

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/8087/mixlife3ps.th.png (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mixlife3ps.png)

amacgenius
Mar 13, 2006, 05:18 AM
I quit.

(skoker, every title of threads you make makes me think you're a newbie, it's scary.)

skoker
Mar 13, 2006, 07:01 AM
I guess it helps to mention the context of the logo: It's for a mac-ish community website, hence the combination of Apple Garamond and Apple Myriad Pro (Semibold) fonts. The colors of the letters were intended to be the the original iPod mini colors.

skoker
Mar 13, 2006, 07:02 AM
(skoker, every title of threads you make makes me think you're a newbie, it's scary.)

It's descriptive, instead of the 'Need Help Please!!' that everybody else uses. :p

SmurfBoxMasta
Mar 13, 2006, 07:31 AM
In general, I think it's a cool logo. But in some ways, I agree w/ the others about the mix of too many colors & fonts, both of which make it seem a bit to "busy".

But I also agree that the addition of either reflections or dropshadows would add a lot of impact to it.

My only other suggestion is to try it with the m & l capital letters, for a little stronger first impression :)

Good luck with it!

skoker
Mar 13, 2006, 06:49 PM
Would any of you who submitted logos above be interested in doing a bit of light graphics work for me? There'd be a fair amount of pay involved.

mac.FINN
Mar 14, 2006, 08:49 AM
My question is why is everyone obsessed with reflections and shadows? They rarely make sense for a logo. Just because apple does it...

Anyway, about the original logo; your concept is admirable (mixlife = mix of different elements) makes sense. However, it's too disjointed and the elements (typefaces, colours) don't complement each other at all. So either try to use elements that are different yet complimentary, or (my opinion) go another route. Find another way to convey a mixture and leave the type treatment simple, or focus more on what mixlife is rather than the name.

:D

dornoforpyros
Mar 14, 2006, 09:12 AM
My question is why is everyone obsessed with reflections and shadows? They rarely make sense for a logo. Just because apple does it...

Anyway, about the original logo; your concept is admirable (mixlife = mix of different elements) makes sense. However, it's too disjointed and the elements (typefaces, colours) don't complement each other at all. So either try to use elements that are different yet complimentary, or (my opinion) go another route. Find another way to convey a mixture and leave the type treatment simple, or focus more on what mixlife is rather than the name.

:D


because reflections are COOL! Just like iWeb!!!

_bnkr612
Mar 14, 2006, 10:35 AM
Sketch, sketch sketch! Then start in black and white. Look around you, ideas are everywhere from a small collection of crumbs on a table to the way grains curve on a wood door.

I would not use more than three colors, or more than three fonts.

If you are not succeeding, get away from it for a bit. Your direction is going somewhere, you just can't be satisfied after 10 miles of driving in that direction. Cause that's what it's looking like.

Oh, to agree with some on here. Logos should never have drop shadows, glowing bits, reflections or low res clipart!

point665
Mar 15, 2006, 05:05 AM
Cant believe no one brought this up... But a good idea to is usually creat logos as vectors, this way you can use them for everything else in the future. You can either experiment with different styles in Illustrator or then bring the logo into Photoshop to add some.

M-theory
Mar 16, 2006, 11:00 AM
yeah I think it's a bit much, looks like something you would have seen in an anti-drug ad from 1992.
I'd choose one colour for all the letters except for the ! then I'd do something funky with that to make it pop.

edit: Something like this, note the trendy reflection to give you some street cred :p

my vote for the best design, catching but simple.

i.Feature
Mar 16, 2006, 11:18 AM
Then start in black and white.

For me this is key. I never add any colour to a logo until it is almost(or even totally) complete. A realy good logo doesn't need colour as an identifier. And simple is usually better. Of course there are alwasys exceptions but they are few andfar between.

dornoforpyros
Mar 16, 2006, 12:01 PM
my vote for the best design, catching but simple.

booourns! all I did was copy apples style and worked in the ! point in blue. This was a 5 min job and is not worthy of compliments.

M-theory
Mar 16, 2006, 03:21 PM
booourns! all I did was copy apples style and worked in the ! point in blue. This was a 5 min job and is not worthy of compliments.

well, the amount of time it took to complete imo doesn't take away from the final product. if you spend 5 days on something and it stinks...well, it stinks.

simplicity is usually king with design.

dornoforpyros
Mar 16, 2006, 03:34 PM
well, the amount of time it took to complete imo doesn't take away from the final product. if you spend 5 days on something and it stinks...well, it stinks.

simplicity is usually king with design.

toche', maybe I should have replaced the 5 minute statement with "no real thought or effort went into this"

cgratti
Mar 16, 2006, 08:40 PM
My contribution

virus1
Mar 16, 2006, 08:41 PM
i like e-clipse's first one best.

simple, apple like, and visually stunning.

treysmay
Mar 16, 2006, 10:03 PM
to much contrast of colour.
either relate them through one similarity ie. thick black bordering on letters
or lessen the amount of variations, in either shapes or colours

e-clipse
Mar 16, 2006, 11:11 PM
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/279/mixlifeaquabarlogo1uj.th.png (http://img96.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mixlifeaquabarlogo1uj.png)

one3
Mar 16, 2006, 11:11 PM
How about this one ... simple:

http://one3.ca/mixlife.gif

** you guys (gals) have to remember a logo that is good must be easily usable in many formats and applications ... shadows, reflections and all the 'effects' are quite restrictive and not recomended. Just look at the logos of any major company and you'll see that 99% of the time it's clean and simple.

ChrisWB
Mar 16, 2006, 11:37 PM
How about this one ... simple:I quite like that. Do you normally do design work?

one3
Mar 16, 2006, 11:44 PM
I quite like that. Do you normally do design work?

Thanks. Yes - I'm a designer by profession.

e-clipse
Mar 17, 2006, 12:28 AM
Thanks. Yes - I'm a designer by profession.

I really like that design as well.:)

ChrisWB
Mar 17, 2006, 12:46 AM
Thanks. Yes - I'm a designer by profession.
Neat. Do you do freelance work?

Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 17, 2006, 12:52 AM
one3's logo is very nice, but I also think cgratti is on the right track: Simple logos that will work in a range of uses. I like. :)

one3
Mar 17, 2006, 01:09 AM
Neat. Do you do freelance work?

Yes, I do freelance work. I do a bit of print design, some branding/identity design and quite a fair share of website design. (mostly dictated by client needs rather than choice - although I must say I do enjoy website design quite a bit).

one3
Mar 17, 2006, 01:15 AM
one3's logo is very nice, but I also think cgratti is on the right track: Simple logos that will work in a range of uses. I like. :)

I agree - cgratti's logos for sure have great potential. I like them.

onthat
Mar 17, 2006, 02:05 AM
If you integrate the exclamation point into the logo, it should replace the "i" in "mix"...not in "life" The word "mix" is generally related to spontaneity!

I think your idea is pretty creative, please don't use an apple in your logo though. I think variations of the original apple logo are completely lame...yes that includes the one for this forum.

...however, if you incorporate the elypsis in some way, that'd be quite fine.

the-hen
Mar 17, 2006, 03:59 AM
How about something like this...

http://www.cinnamoncreative.co.za/samples/mixlife1.jpg

Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 17, 2006, 05:04 AM
How about something like this...

http://www.cinnamoncreative.co.za/samples/mixlife1.jpgProblem is that using a graded shadow (which doesn't just relate to your suggestion) makes it very difficult to use as a transparent gif/png on a website...

Remember: KISS... ;)

mac.FINN
Mar 17, 2006, 08:29 AM
no, no no no.

Okay no more submissions. one3 got it right. It's simple, uses contemporary colours (only 2 yay!), nice typface, and (most important) is appropriate! The intertwining stems of the x says mix! And thank god there's no drop shadow/ reflection/castshadow/outerglow/anyothercrapthatisuselessanddefeatsthe
pursposeofalogo!

Great job one3 good to see there's actually some real designers helping out here.

:D

ATD
Mar 17, 2006, 09:27 AM
anyothercrapthatisuselessanddefeatsthepursposeofalogo!


Like that word :)

one3
Mar 17, 2006, 10:41 AM
Just a few thoughts on logo design from my experience:

1. keep it simple - old but true - if you are going to play with the individual letters of the logo - just do it with one! don't try and make every second letter unique. you should have one focal point and leave it at that.

2. colors - before deciding on colors think about the logo's use. If it will be printed remember the more colors you have the more expensive it is to print. pick a couple of colors - make sure they complement each other. and don't forget - print colors (CMYK or Pantone) and different than web colors (RGB, HEX). Lastly don't forget the 'meaning' of colors -- make sure they match the 'brand' you are trying to achieve.

3. don't forget the logo's use - make sure it works well for web, print, ____ - take all that into consideration. make sure it work well on a light and a dark background. this is where shaddows and other effects can get you into trouble. make the logo as flexible as possible and in some cases create alternate layouts / versions of the logo for specific applications.

4. vector - my suggestion is to always create the logo in vector format (ex: Illustrator). a vector logo is completely scalable and easier to alter. It's also what you'll need in most cases if you use it in print. you can always take vector logos into raster (Photoshop for example) easily, but not vice versa.

5. did I mention 'keep it simple' ? :)

and just overall ... think of what the logo represents, what it says, make sure it represents the product / website / etc well - and don't get caught up with Photoshop filters, effects etc... You'll find that most professional designers don't use Photoshop effects at all (and if they need a certain effect they often create it by hand) ... it's the design that's key not the cool effects. :)

Hope this helps (... and please feel free to add your own suggestions)

ATD
Mar 17, 2006, 11:06 AM
I do a lot of artwork that's based on logos but I would like to make a few points about that.

1. When you add embellishments to a logo it ceases to be a true logo. It's more like an artwork based on a logo.

2. In all cases without a single exception the artwork I do from logos is based on a graphic black and white logo done in Illustrator. If the logo does not stand up in it's pure graphic form and communicate, all the embellishments will not help it. I have been asked at times to embellish a existing weak logo, in those cases I always ask if I can redesign the logo first. Even if they say no I will take upon myself to redesign it as an alternate.

3. My own logo is unembellished and I did that on purpose. It was graphically reduced to the simplest form I could make it. The idea I'm trying to communicate is that my work is rooted in graphic design, not effects. Sure, some of you may disagree. :)

4. Mixlife is a nice title, I have a sense that there are a lot of ideas (without effects) that have not been touched yet. I do like one3s x, that's an idea. Try writing the ideas as words first. Yes, that is a way of designing, believe it or not.


My 2¢.:)

njmac
Mar 17, 2006, 12:08 PM
I like one3's logo the best also. The other artwork looks great too. I can see why some are too complicated for logos, but they are definitely pleasing to the eye.


I like color logos like the dreamworks one, but I think that logo is specifically used for the beginning of films.

mac.FINN
Mar 17, 2006, 02:43 PM
just wanted to add one thing about one3's logo... the x looks like a double helix (DNA) thus meaning mix...and life.... oooOOooo deep.

it's the design that's key not the cool effects. :)

I should organize my thoughts all at once... :o

anyway, I couldn't agree more. Cool effects are for amateurs and designers who really truly understand how to use them as part of a design - not AS the design. Even at that, not in logos. Logos should be able to be reduced to a simple image (or word) that conveys complex meaning.

okay - no more posts from me for a while :D

onthat
Mar 17, 2006, 04:12 PM
...just wondering here, but did Skoker ask for opinions...or for someone else to do his work for him? Just thought I'd ask/remind some of you guys.

From a sheerly graphic perspective, I don't like the woven x design.
However, it does stand for "shuffle" and therefore fits with "mix."
My contribution is that you stay with the original idea, the word "mix" is self-explanatory and the exclamation point provides excitement and spontaneity. If you use the exclamation point, replace the "i" in "mix".

more importantly, when will the site be up?