Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photo Business Rebranding / Logo

MattSepeta

MattSepeta

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jul 9, 2009
1,255
0
375th St. Y
After inadvertently working myself in to the wedding niche, I decided I needed to re-structure my site a bit, as well as change my branding/image.

"www.mattsepeta.com" is my current domain.

I am going to change it to "www.sepetaphotography.com"

I have also changed my name from "Matt Sepeta Photography" to "Sepeta Photography." I figure that my last name "Sepeta" is memorable and classy enough sounding that the "Matt" part adds zilch. Just makes it longer.

I also redid my watermarking/logo.

logo.png


This is simply the logo on my site. The normal logo would not be wood filled, It only looks like that because it looks "cut out" when its in place in my header. I wanted to change it to a simple wordmark logo so it feels classier and more timeless, and feels better for prospective bride/grooms looking at my site. Any thoughts?

Sooooo.... What do you guys think?


-Sepeta Photography > Matt Sepeta Photography?

-Site feels good?

-How about my page heirarchies?

PLEASE, any and ALL suggestions! I don't want to change this two months later again!

Thanks

ps-Not looking for critique on site content, strictly the look and feel of it.
 
MattSepeta said:
Sooooo.... What do you guys think?
Click to expand...


Remove the full stop, the period, from the word 'photography. Not only is it grammatically incorrect, it looks out of place in a logotype with so few words. Keep it simple, add only the necessary. Besides, it'll mean you can take the strap line up a few points in size, useful when you try and scale the logo down to fit on a business card, for instance.
 
Blue Velvet said:
full stop
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the British ;)

I thought about that for a while before I added it. I have gotten mixed feedback on the period, and it seems that most of the laymen (for lack of a better term, the people not involved in arts of any sort) like it there. I will get rid of it and see how I like it.

Great point about the strapline with the business card though. totally slipped my mind.

Thanks again
 
My fresh eyes review, using "sepeta" as a proper noun means should be capitalized to "Sepeta"? I could be so wrong here......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun

The small letters visually looks fine as you have it (IMO), I'd lose the "." as well, kinda mucks up the simple look

Usually if small letters in name than everywhere small letters in all documents...good luck and I like your posts here.
 
mtbdudex said:
My fresh eyes review, using "sepeta" as a proper noun means should be capitalized to "Sepeta"? I could be so wrong here......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun

The small letters visually looks fine as you have it (IMO), I'd lose the "." as well, kinda mucks up the simple look

Usually if small letters in name than everywhere small letters in all documents...good luck and I like your posts here.
Click to expand...

Thanks a ton! I understand that my last name is a proper noun, but I was going for a laid back yet classy look, so I opted to try out all lowercase. The vast majority of the feedback has been positive.

Sounds like I am removing the "." when I get home from work then!

What did you mean by "Usually if small letters in name than everywhere small letters in all documents"?

And thanks, I like your posts as well! You seem to always be adding great photos to threads!
 
OK, I'll play. One of my professors in a typography class I took in design school used to speak of "bits" put together. Each time you change something...anything at all...you've introduced another "bit." You have two different typefaces, so that's two bits. One is larger than the other, so that's two more bits. One has wider tracking than the other: two more bits. One is a different color than other: yup, two more. So that adds up to eight bits in one logotype. That's far too many; it doesn't hold together well enough.

The two typefaces are not compatible. It's OK to mix a serif and a sans serif together, but they should be similar in their roots, ideally from the same font family (e.g. Stone with Stone Sans or Goudy with Goudy Sans) or at least from the same era or having a similar aesthetic. You've combined a very modern, kind of funky and chunky sans with a frilly, delicate serif face. (Look at the elegant curl at the descender of the 'g' versus the chiseled, angled edges of the sans serif letters. Or just compare the two 'p' characters: the sans is a bit condensed and irregular, while the serif face is more open and classical.) There are so many differences in the aesthetics of these two fonts, that you could actually say your bits add up to much more than eight on account of them.

Just taking the "sepeta" on its own, I'd say the tracking is too wide for that font. Wider tracking works best with capital letters, and with typefaces that are more extended (this one is condensed). So it's not holding together well.

And yeah, you should definitely lose the period/full stop. It's extraneous.
 
Phrasikleia said:
logo.png


OK, I'll play. One of my professors in a typography class I took in design school used to speak of "bits" put together. Each time you change something...anything at all...you've introduced another "bit." You have two different typefaces, so that's two bits. One is larger than the other, so that's two more bits. One has wider tracking than the other: two more bits. One is a different color than other: yup, two more. So that adds up to eight bits in one logotype. That's far too many; it doesn't hold together well enough.

The two typefaces are not compatible. It's OK to mix a serif and a sans serif together, but they should be similar in their roots, ideally from the same font family (e.g. Stone with Stone Sans or Goudy with Goudy Sans) or at least from the same era or having a similar aesthetic. You've combined a very modern, kind of funky and chunky sans with a frilly, delicate serif face. (Look at the elegant curl at the descender of the 'g' versus the chiseled, angled edges of the sans serif letters. Or just compare the two 'p' characters: the sans is a bit condensed and irregular, while the serif face is more open and classical.) There are so many differences in the aesthetics of these two fonts, that you could actually say your bits add up to much more than eight on account of them.

Just taking the "sepeta" on its own, I'd say the tracking is too wide for that font. Wider tracking works best with capital letters, and with typefaces that are more extended (this one is condensed). So it's not holding together well.

And yeah, you should definitely lose the period/full stop. It's extraneous.
Click to expand...

Great advice. The sub text font you guys have seen was the 4th or 5th choice, I had been testing different combos with my GF and went with the one she liked best ;)

I am using PT Sans bold for the main font, maybe I will try a PT sans lite for the sub font...

Good point about the wide tracking with the wide font...

And the dot has got to go. :)

Thanks again! It helps soooo much to get a few fresh sets of eyes on stuff!
 
Here's a link on typography for you: Four Rules for Combining Typefaces.

I tend to see things with a different eye and usually distract myself with fine points others don't notice, so.. The brown color and the spelling of your last name throw me. I read "sepeta" as "sepia", a brown tone. In fact, I think it is "sepia".

Why do photographers always place the word "photography" in smaller type? Perhaps something like Sepeta Photography? Most of the wedding shooters who work the forums use a script font for the word photography. It appeals to the warm and cozy mindset of folks who are looking for a wedding photographer.

Dale

Edit: Sticking out from the crowd is always good, but so is being identified with the right crowd...
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-09-28 at 12.25.56 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-28 at 12.25.56 PM.png
    14.5 KB · Views: 340
MattSepeta said:
Ahhh, the British ;)

I thought about that for a while before I added it. I have gotten mixed feedback on the period, and it seems that most of the laymen (for lack of a better term, the people not involved in arts of any sort) like it there. I will get rid of it and see how I like it.

Great point about the strapline with the business card though. totally slipped my mind.

Thanks again
Click to expand...

I like the period/full stop.

It gives the logo a kind of double entendre; on one hand, it's the second word in "Sepeta Photography", while on the other, it can be read as "Sepeta. Photography"...that is, "I'm Matt. What I do is photography". As though "Sepeta" and "photography" were two separate words or ideas.

Not sure that this makes a lot of sense, but I actually really like the full stop.
 
^^^Edge100 has good ideas. I've grown used to having "Photography" under your name. It fits well. I think a colon would better seperate the words. Like so...

sepeta:
.......Photography
 
Hmmmmmmm

More interesting takes on it!

I will kick around a few minor variations.

Dale: My "old" wordmark was in a script font and I just felt it was too mushy gushy old-style, and did not represent my work very well.

Truth be told, I had never considered splitting the two fonts between a standard modern font and a script font. Maybe I'll kick around a few ideas with "photography" in script, thanks!

ALSO: How do you guys feel about the background? I wanted to make it something that was easily "tileable" for faster load times, and was inviting enough to say "weddings" yet was also dark enough to contrast the blight off-white content areas...

My other idea was a similar wood pattern, but make it white or light gray instead of brown. Any other ideas on the background?

-I am pretty dead set on having a realistic background. I just love the look of content floated over a natural looking background. Maybe a grassy texture would be more inviting? Ideas?

Thanks again! Keep it coming!
 
Changes

I went through a few new ideas and landed on the following:

logo.png


I used the same font family, just changed the weight a bit.

Kept the dot, but made it functional, tightened kerning on "sepeta"

What think?

EDIT: In action shot-
picture1gx.png
 
Totally non-professional view; I like "sepeta photography" change from "matt sepeta" definitely sounds more professional and stronger. I am not a graphics guy so I'll leave others to comment on font styles/sizes. All the same (lower case) letters is perfectly OK with me. I like the latest graphics rendition and like the ".". Believe it or not, but there are still a lot of people who are not really computer savvy yet still need a wedding photographer! Good luck with it. So that's my 2c FWIW.
 
Thanks!

fcortese said:
Totally non-professional view; I like "sepeta photography" change from "matt sepeta" definitely sounds more professional and stronger. I am not a graphics guy so I'll leave others to comment on font styles/sizes. All the same (lower case) letters is perfectly OK with me. I like the latest graphics rendition and like the ".". Believe it or not, but there are still a lot of people who are not really computer savvy yet still need a wedding photographer! Good luck with it. So that's my 2c FWIW.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I totally agree with the name change, it was overdue. New name = shorter, sounds better and more professional = win win win
 
It has definitely improved now, but "sepeta" is looking a bit vacant. Maybe you could play with the quality of the outline (i.e. make it thicker) to give it a bit more visual weight or try a subtle interior shadow or something like that. That font is much larger than the words "photography.com", but the very delicate outlines cause it to recede too much, thereby reversing the hierarchy from what you want (that is, the words "photography.com" take pride of place).
 
Phrasikleia said:
It has definitely improved now, but "sepeta" is looking a bit vacant. Maybe you could play with the quality of the outline (i.e. make it thicker) to give it a bit more visual weight or try a subtle interior shadow or something like that. That font is much larger than the words "photography.com", but the very delicate outlines cause it to recede too much, thereby reversing the hierarchy from what you want (that is, the words "photography.com" take pride of place).
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too....

Right now, the "sepeta" has a very subtle inner + drop shadow, and I have the white cut out and saved as PNG so it blends with the light gradient on the "canvas" of my blog.

I wanted to keep it very subtle so that it counters the large size. Guess I over did it!!!

I will try giving it a bit more inner shadow, thanks for the input!!
 
I like the new rendering better, but dump the .com, It's a website and that is implied. What is the name of your business? What do your clients write on their checks? sepeta photography.com or sepeta photography? Your business name and billing name should match.

I realize it's a website, but if it will go on invoices or a business card keep the old designer's saw in mind: What does it look like on a business card?

Keep the PhotoShop effects to a minimum.

Edit: The site looks fine, but your Things I Shoot animated links move too fast for me. I felt like I was playing a shooter game...

Dale
 
Designer Dale said:
I like the new rendering better, but dump the .com, It's a website and that is implied. What is the name of your business? What do your clients write on their checks? sepeta photography.com or sepeta photography? Your business name and billing name should match.

I realize it's a website, but if it will go on invoices or a business card keep the old designer's saw in mind: What does it look like on a business card?

Keep the PhotoShop effects to a minimum.

Edit: The site looks fine, but your Things I Shoot animated links move too fast for me. I felt like I was playing a shooter game...

Dale
Click to expand...

Thanks for the good advice.

Good advice on the .com in the logo, I was actually making a watermark and just turned it into my logo, so that is a nice catch. Its gotta go.

I think I do like having a "." at the end though, it seems like all the feedback I have gotten from the "non-internet-real-people" have really liked it, and every person I have asked said they prefer it over no period.

Dale: Nice catch on the tag cloud. I could have sworn that I had it turned down, but I guess I never actually did that. Cut the speed by 2/3rds, think it looks a lot better now!

Now if I can only fix my damaged CSS.... Curse my DIY nature! I mangled my header settings and seriously screwed up some of the stuff.
And thanks for the mock up. I am trying to avoid a colored logo though! I really want to make it feel like it is "part" of the page, rather than just plain "could-be-html" text logo you see everywhere, hence the initial "cut-out" wood logo and the indented logo I have now.
 
MattSepeta said:
Thanks for the good advice. ***
Click to expand...

The tag cloud thingy is much better now, but I was getting used to running up my score. Is there a reason the links read "Browser Link"? Is that a design choice or does the link animation require it?

I really like the concept you have for the logo and site. Keep up the good work.

Dale
 
Dale: what do you mean " browser link"? I do not see that displayed anywhere, and I have looked on fire fox, safari on my iMac, my iPad, droid phone, and browser cross-compatibility checks via my desktop?

Anyways, I have landed on a final logo and watermark as I have started re-watermarking my portfolio galleries!

I ended up going with the "." and made the watermark a different logo which included the ".com."

I also switched all (as much as I could figure out) the headers to lowercase for continuities sake.

Thank you so much Dale, phraise, fcort, edge, etc!!! I love knowing that I can hop on MR for stuff like this. It really is a great community : )
 
MattSepeta said:
Dale: what do you mean " browser link"? I do not see that displayed anywhere, and I have looked on fire fox, safari on my iMac, my iPad, droid phone, and browser cross-compatibility checks via my desktop?

Anyways, I have landed on a final logo and watermark as I have started re-watermarking my portfolio galleries!

I ended up going with the "." and made the watermark a different logo which included the ".com."

I also switched all (as much as I could figure out) the headers to lowercase for continuities sake.

Thank you so much Dale, phraise, fcort, edge, etc!!! I love knowing that I can hop on MR for stuff like this. It really is a great community : )
Click to expand...

Sorry. It's "Browsing Tag:" I don't know if it's intentional or not.

You were wise to run this through Digital Photography rather that Design and Graphics. The dragons over there would have never let up on their campaign against the period, even though your consumers liked it.



Dale
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.28.49 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.28.49 PM.png
    144.5 KB · Views: 96
MattSepeta said:
Interesting...

Here is what I get from imac running Firefox

imgdj.png


What OS / Browser are you in? That is certainly not intentional, and I have never seen that....
Click to expand...

The previous screenshot is with the latest version of safari. Of the two of these, one is from Firefox 3.6.6 and the other is Camino. Camino is a browser optimized for systems running G4 chips. I was testing it for my GF.

Sometimes the admin of a site sees something different from outside users. Access your site from a friend's computer and see what you see. I looked at your Source Code and that Tagcloud is a Shockwave block of code. That may be something on my end. I'm not sure I have whatever plug-in I need to properly view it.

Dale

Note: I see Browsing Tag: after I click on the TagCloud link to it.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.56.09 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.56.09 PM.png
    158 KB · Views: 118
  • Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.57.25 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-30 at 12.57.25 PM.png
    156.1 KB · Views: 93
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back