Logo Feedaback | Critique Please...

[nbs2]

I just reread my post while looking for other mockups, and I realized I never gave my uneducated-but-still-better-than-most-people-like-me-because-I-know-that-I-do-not-know opinion.

I like the way the the logos look. I especially like how the black will look on simple documents and such and the box that frames the logo. My only issue is that the second looks very soft when "inside the white box". The logo looks like it is weak - if they are co-sponsoring/in a joint venture they will be the overmatched weak logo. I know that it is the same color as the box in the third (at least I think it is), but for some reason the box is fine while the no-box isn't. But, I love the look - that was my first thought from when I opened the thread.

Going back to the idea of mockups, I don't know how backupdrummer sees the logo looking - I can't visualize it. But, I would imagine that the logo for a development company will primarily be on construction billboards and letterhead. The wide stance feels filling - vertical logos that I see occasionally (Baltimore is rebuilding a lot of downtown) look kind of squashed. Even on the vertical banners, I prefer the strength of the horizontal over the flimsy vertical logos.

 

[backupdrummer]

Going back to the idea of mockups, I don't know how backupdrummer sees the logo looking - I can't visualize it. But, I would imagine that the logo for a development company will primarily be on construction billboards and letterhead. The wide stance feels filling - vertical logos that I see occasionally (Baltimore is rebuilding a lot of downtown) look kind of squashed. Even on the vertical banners, I prefer the strength of the horizontal over the flimsy vertical logos.

The "development" spaced out and wide is a perfect style for relaying a solid and established feel I think that is dead on for a construction company. My comments about the horozontal feel was mainly directed at the imagery of the cliffs. They have a flattened quality and it seems inconsistent with the idea of cliffs. Typography is one of my weakest skills, but i look at the "Dover..." font and it looks a little a little weak and feminine when compared to the cliff image.

I think you are dead on about it looking weak. I agree that it just needs to be made a little more solid.

 

[Doctor Q]

Perhaps it is just me, but I've always found it rude when other people make changes to someone else's artwork, and then upload it without being asked to do so.

You are apparently referring to me and/or dogbone. If "a picture is worth 1,000 words" then I think a mock-up conveys a suggestion better than words do. digitalrebelxt said please in the thread title and thanks in a post, so he apparently didn't consider our suggestions, with mock-ups, to be rude.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I agree with the good Doctor. The OP asked for feedback | critique and alterations are well within what has to be expected once you've done that. If you think there's something that could make the logo better then it's much easier to make a quick mock-up then to try explaining the idea with words. The OP doesn't have to make the changes, of course, but s/he might get some new impulses that could make the final logo better. How is this rude?

 

[Demon Hunter]

Kick ass design! Top-notch!