PDA

View Full Version : MC Photography Logo Critique




macgfxdesigner
Nov 20, 2006, 12:52 PM
http://static.flickr.com/105/302087945_06101a1d10_o.png

I am in need of a logo for my photography show and small biz doing on the side. I threw this together last week, just wanted some opinions on the overall feel of the design. Thank you for your help :)

MC

P.S. Link to my photography site slideshow HERE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digital_rebel_xt/show/)

Also you can critique some my work too if you would like :)



LeviG
Nov 20, 2006, 02:32 PM
I like the first one, just enough colour to bring it off the page and get interest.

The second one looks like someones Ive seen before but cant think where, and the third one is a bit bland being so "grey" (and black which is a shade of grey - or is it the other way round - you get the idea)

Mr_Brightside_@
Nov 20, 2006, 03:20 PM
I like the first one, just enough colour to bring it off the page and get interest.

The second one looks like someones Ive seen before but cant think where, and the third one is a bit bland being so "grey" (and black which is a shade of grey - or is it the other way round - you get the idea)
I prefer the third actually, I find the grey accents the picture.

Do you mind my asking, what city you are based in?

Rickay726
Nov 20, 2006, 03:36 PM
i really like the middle one just because you would be able to read it clearly when posted on any background.

LeviG
Nov 20, 2006, 04:33 PM
I prefer the third actually, I find the grey accents the picture.

Do you mind my asking, what city you are based in?

No, you mean me or the op, if its me I'm in a little village near king's lynn which half way between norwich and peterborough

LeviG
Nov 20, 2006, 04:35 PM
i really like the middle one just because you would be able to read it clearly when posted on any background.
actually thats a good point.

To the OP - what was the intended purpose for the logo(s) because as said by Rickay726 and on second thoughts the middle one would be good for a watermark logo

tech4all
Nov 20, 2006, 04:50 PM
First off, nice photography, macgfxdesigner.

Regarding the logo. Overall I think they're all quite nice.

Logo 1 (starting from the left):

+ I like the touch of color. It's something you can carry on to the rest of the site as a design element.

- For some reason the bottom right of the "M", "clark", and "Photography" draws attention away from the rest of the logo. I think this is caused by the overlapping of the "M" and "clark", and "photography" adds to it and you have to colors (black and orange) and the black seems to be over powered by the orange. At a smaller size it may make "clark" slightly hard to read. And you can't make the "M" black because that will blend with "clark" But that's me. :)

Logo 2:

+ This would work very well when shrunk down because the entire logo is black and doesn't have any overlaps.

- Can't think of anything I don't like about it right now.

Logo 3:

+ I do like the "M", nice and solid.
+ I do like how you made "mathewclark" one word but screened back "clark" to make separate them. Nice touch. (also with logo 1)

- Can't think of anything I don't like about it right now.


Anyways that's just a quick critique for you. If you have any revisions, post them! :)

wheezy
Nov 20, 2006, 06:48 PM
Right off the third was my favorite, I'm a fan of black/gray mixing though, it adds a nice seperation on your name. Now I'll go check out your pictures (forums are a great way to get hits ya know...)

wheezy
Nov 20, 2006, 06:53 PM
Definately impressive, very very impressive. The bokeh your lenses give is awesome, has a nice Canon L flavor to it methinks.... what are you shooting with?

iGary
Nov 20, 2006, 07:15 PM
#2

macgfxdesigner
Nov 21, 2006, 04:41 AM
I am going to be working on some revisions this week, (during the holiday break)

About where I am based out of, I live in north atlanta off 400.

Purpose for logo is to brand myself on a brochure I am making for the upcoming and show and for biz cards and for little logo sticker going to put on the outside of the plastic envelope some of the smaller pictures will be in for the show.

Equipment used:

Canon 30d
100mm Macro 2.8
16-35mm 2.8 L
28-200mm 3.6-5.6
Velbon Carbon Fiber Tripod
Bogen Manfrotto Monopod
4GB Extreme III CF x 2
Tamrac Pro 6 Bag

Mr_Brightside_@
Nov 21, 2006, 06:56 AM
About where I am based out of, I live in north atlanta off 400.


Cool sorry, I only asked because I know another Matt Clark who too takes pictures. Coincidence. Cheers and good job mate.

stevep
Nov 21, 2006, 01:51 PM
All three have their merits. I think that if a logo works in greyscale then it can't be far off the mark. I prefer the layout of the type in no 2, but I'm not so keen on the 'white-on-black'. Also the typeface lacks the precise alignment that I personally would want.
People have very strong views on typefaces and one designers 'top ten' will rarely be anothers (except that Comic Sans will not appear in the top ten list of any sane person....). I offer the attached merely as food for thought - it's not meant in any way to be better, just a bit different.

vectormasked
Nov 21, 2006, 11:29 PM
Definitely #2 or #3, but #2 kicks #3's ass.

And damn! please fix the "M". the edges look really bad. those vector are just really bad.

tech4all
Nov 22, 2006, 12:03 AM
And damn! please fix the "M". the edges look really bad. those vector are just really bad.

Are you talking about that "wavingness" in the "M"? I could see that, but that could be the look macgfxdesigner intended. It gives that painterly look.

vectormasked
Nov 22, 2006, 01:45 AM
Are you talking about that "wavingness" in the "M"? I could see that, but that could be the look macgfxdesigner intended. It gives that painterly look.

yes that is what I am talking about.

And no, it does not gives it a painterly look. It looks as if someone had just done that M with the pen tool after one day of learning illustrator. Honestly. But I don't mean to insult or anything. It just simply looks really bad and unintentional, not to mention amateurish and unprofessional.

Again, I hope this is not too rude. I am just trying to help and telling you my honest opinion.

dogbone
Nov 22, 2006, 02:39 AM
I think version 3 has the right look. The font is fine as is. I'd also stretch the word 'photography' out like the second version and perhaps move the M a tad to the left.

shecky
Nov 22, 2006, 01:30 PM
yes that is what I am talking about.

And no, it does not gives it a painterly look. It looks as if someone had just done that M with the pen tool after one day of learning illustrator. Honestly. But I don't mean to insult or anything. It just simply looks really bad and unintentional, not to mention amateurish and unprofessional.

Again, I hope this is not too rude. I am just trying to help and telling you my honest opinion.

i agree. the M is very badly drawn.

also the M in the box looks almost identical to another logo that i cannot for the life of me remember right now. i can see it in my head but i cannot place the name.

tech4all
Nov 23, 2006, 01:29 AM
yes that is what I am talking about.

And no, it does not gives it a painterly look. It looks as if someone had just done that M with the pen tool after one day of learning illustrator. Honestly. But I don't mean to insult or anything. It just simply looks really bad and unintentional, not to mention amateurish and unprofessional.

Again, I hope this is not too rude. I am just trying to help and telling you my honest opinion.

I have to disagree. It does give it a painterly look. I can see how some may see it as that. When I first saw the logo I didn't think nothing of it. Just depends on how one sees it. I'm curious as to what the OP intended. If they wanted a painterly look, I think it looks fine. I mean yea I think it could look a little better in certain areas of the "M". If they wanted a very rigid edge, then it yea I agree it needs work, but if they wanted an organic look to it, I think they did a decent job.

vectormasked
Nov 23, 2006, 01:42 AM
I have to disagree. It does give it a painterly look. I can see how some may see it as that. When I first saw the logo I didn't think nothing of it. Just depends on how one sees it. I'm curious as to what the OP intended. If they wanted a painterly look, I think it looks fine. I mean yea I think it could look a little better in certain areas of the "M". If they wanted a very rigid edge, then it yea I agree it needs work, but if they wanted an organic look to it, I think they did a decent job.

I disagree completely. It does not give it a painterly look nor it has an organic feel. It looks so amateurish and unintentional.

It need tons of work, but as to the first phase which in this case is to come up with a decent simple idea....he's done good. The execution with the M is a huge problem imo.