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

Which logo is better?

Logo design feedback

Consultant said:
A, B both un-readable. C is ok. D is wtf?
Click to expand...

Hi,

I agree here you also need to give link where are you putting this logo some time you also need to consider your logo place where are you putting, what is theme of that page, how its looking you can say only after putting in actual page.

Here you can design logo with web 2.0 style your logo already big to fit in any web page why you dont use web 2.0 style in logo it will make different from others

Thanks
Mayur Shah
 
aaronhead14 said:
Honestly... I think that all of these lack the correct elements of design, and therefore do look pretty horrible (agreeing with others here). So I decided to take some liberties as well.

mopar2.png


I used the Futura font, which is one of my favorites. I also did some figures in the background with the Pen Tool in Photoshop.

-aaronhead14
Click to expand...

Where is it?
 
That "branded image" that would be expensive to replace is literally 2 minutes or less in photoshop. I don't have my computer with Photoshop (sent into Apple) but when it gets back I feel I have to make one now after all the lens flare, awkward spacing, and complete disregard for the text in the design.

A good point though, is that none of us know what we're trying to fit it into. If the website as a whole looks like the logos the OP did, it doesn't really matter how nice the logo looks.
 
adamfishercox said:
That "branded image" that would be expensive to replace is literally 2 minutes or less in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Comprehension in reading issue - I was not discussing the effort in making just the logo in PS. My comments were about true branding, which means corporate advertising, print media, business cards, fliers, audio/visual aids, PDF's and so on where that logo might be used. Hope this clears things up for you as to my comments, re: branding, which I brought into the discussion. Please quote next time.

A good point though, is that none of us know what we're trying to fit it into. If the website as a whole looks like the logos the OP did, it doesn't really matter how nice the logo looks.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, totally! ;)

-jim
 
What does the blue logo/shape even mean? What is it meant to be? What are selling/promoting? Unfortunately at the moment is conveys nothing; I have no idea what it is about. :eek:
 
Here's a mock-up...

I used Gil Sans for the type. I don't think the separate logos really work, plus there's copyright issues with using other companies identities within your own logo/promotion. Either way, the separate logos do not cohere very well IMO.

mopar1.jpg


mopar2.jpg


mopar3.jpg


mopar4.jpg


mopar5.jpg


mopar6.jpg
 
^^^^^ I like the the single colour logos (hate the bevel) but the OP has the Mopar logo incorrect (it should have Mopar written underneath the M) and there still the issues of logo copyright.

Mopar_Logo.jpg
 
Consultant said:
A, B both un-readable. C is ok. D is wtf?

Logo doesn't do anything.

Hire a real designer or take some classes? You are selling cars, not items at the dollar store.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I was thinking that as a non-designer they were all very bad.
SrWebDeveloper said:
Well I think the white background with the swooshes turns it from a cool design into a boring business card look and feel to it. Plus, the fonts are nothing special and the domain name does not stand out. Yes, of course a professional designer will take lots of liberties and work out something that compliments your branding, print media and web look/feel. For the record, the blue logo in the middle is typically a branded image, meaning changing it could mean alot of extra expense to the client to also change their print media, marketing and advertising. This is why most of us changed only the fonts and added some extra stuff and kept the black background and branding image intact. But compliments to all for originality and pointing out the differences - been a ton of fun seeing the prototypes as it's a great learning experience for those following this thread.

And the beers are on me! Cheers.

-jim
Click to expand...
Lens flare? Really?

Topher15 at least came close.
 
Option D belongs here >

Seriously every time a person uses Lens Flare or Comic Sans God kills a kitten, please think of the kitten...

Remember a logo is the first point of contact with your company for most potential customers, it should entice people to use your service not run in the opposite direction...

IMHO
1) Simplify (nice ideas Topher15)

2) Stay away from Photoshop effects until you decide on a logo. Bad ideas include Lens Flares, Rainbow Gradients and "Drop Shadow" Diarrhea.

3) Stay clear of the following fonts Arial, Typewriter fonts, Comic Sans, Papyrus and any "pirate styled font" unless you're branding for a buccaneer...

4) And don't use wetfloors or gem effects either... They are stupid

Try these links.
http://logopond.com/
http://logolounge.com/
 
I see what you all are saying about the lens flare, and I love kittens, but in this situation with the black background and lack of flair, I added flare, pardon the pun. Think Hubble images, tons of flaring in our natural Universe. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me. I don't use it all the time, but it modernized the logo a bit without de-branding it - even if it aged me in the process!

On a side note, a ferret dies every time a swoosh is added to a white background. Don't click on that link. I warned you.

JK

-jim

ps: All kidding aside - nice work, wait, I mean effort -- on the logos, all.
 
SrWebDeveloper said:
I see what you all are saying about the lens flare, and I love kittens, but in this situation with the black background and lack of flair, I added flare, pardon the pun. Think Hubble images, tons of flaring in our natural Universe. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me. I don't use it all the time, but it modernized the logo a bit without de-branding it - even if it aged me in the process!
Click to expand...
Modernizes? To the contrary, it takes you back to Windows 95 / Photoshop 4! :eek: ;)
 
Topher15 said:
Modernizes? To the contrary, it takes you back to Windows 95 / Photoshop 4! :eek: ;)
Click to expand...

More comprehension reading issues.... that's why I said at the end, "it ages me" jokingly and self deprecatingly! :)

Now, about the less is more posted by someone else, that's almost always a good thing. However, I want to get darned serious for second - some of the prototypes posted here have the original verbiage removed or altered, one even has all verbiage removed. In a true client situation that could potentially upset the client as you are editing out what might be highly critical verbiage that ties into other branding. Even though we're all having fun here making copious changes, remember that in a professional situation various prototypes which all meet basic requirements will be designed so the client may choose and then make further revisions until satisfied. The OP posted what I considered to be the minimum requirements, including the original verbiage, although others and myself tweaked and added. So all kidding aside about the comic sans, lens flare and other design do's and don't - remember that straying too far from requirements via the common "less is more" credo might land you into the realm of pain up to including unemployment in the real world out there -- unless asked to do so, beyond the original written requirements.

-jim
 
waloshin said:
3766116283_07f26d0eff.jpg
Click to expand...

This is a joke... right? You can't commandeer an existing logo and use it without some kind of licensing agreement. Especially if you make a derivative of it to suit your own purpose.

These "help me with my logo" threads crack me up. It reminds me of a joke.

"Do you know what a camel is? It's a horse designed by committee."
 
The Chrysler logo you ripped is protected by copyright and possibly trademark; as stated above, you won't want to use it (especially for other purposes) without a licensing agreement. ;)

The text on the right side of your logo, however, is significantly better and more readable than previous attempts. I'd recommend making your own logo image for the left, however--try some creative combination of an "m" and "p" if you have no other ideas and even moderate Photoshop/Gimp/mspaint skills.
 
So would this logo be under illegal trademark, copyright laws?

logo_bg_img.gif
 
Hire a real designer or take some classes? You are selling cars, not items at the dollar store.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

He could end up hiring a poor designer, and most of them classes are a waste of time. I took some classes and most of the students knew more than the teacher.
There's been some great input on this topic. Loving how the logo is developing :).
 
waloshin said:
So would this logo be under illegal trademark, copyright laws?

logo_bg_img.gif
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the exact, real, directly ripped off Dodge logo. If you look closely, there are some differences. I'm not saying that's still OK, but there are some differences.
 
Why are you changing the logo? What does that have to do with the MoPar name? Work around an M and a P. Ripping off car logos isn't the thing you want to be doing.
 
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