Do you really need a logo?

[DDCSD]

I currently use a reasonably legible version of my signature (not my legal signature, it just has a similar feel) for a "logo". I've thought about getting a real logo designed, but to be honest, I can't even think of a starting point for one.

I have a friend that does graphic design and would do one pretty reasonably for me, but I don't even know what direction to point her in for it and I'm so indecisive on things like this that I hate to send her on a wild goose chase making up 10 different logos for one that I even like enough for a starting point.

The only things that come to mind for me are the totally cliche' aperture blades, lens, rangefinder type of stuff and I don't want to go that route.

So, my question is, do you think that a photographer actually needs a "real" logo when the name of the business is "My Name Photography"?

[_aravena]

I've pondered the same thing lately...

[snails]

So, my question is, do you really think that a photographer actually needs a "real" logo when the name of the business is "My Name Photography"?

No.

[Hikin Mike]

A logo can be just your signature or text...you don't have to have a 'graphic' to have a logo.

[Yeoer]

No. People think having a logo will make them appear more professional and established. Trouble is a lot of the logos you see actually do the opposite because they are either poorly drawn or badly thought out. Look at some of the great photographers around... do they feel the need to have logos? Nope.

[snails]

I know that not all of the business questions can be answered this way:

Did Ansel Adams have a logo? ;)

[MJPhotos24]

It depends, many get by on no logo or very simple one using there name (which I've been doing for years). However, I'm debating to get one with the main reason being to use as a watermark on my editorial archive and possibly business cards. Looking at 6 random "big name" photographers that popped in my mind 4/6 had logos present.

Looking at 5 random photo services (wires/agencies), all 5 had professional logos.

Yeoer nailed it on the head, many logos do a disservice because a lot of people design there own sub-par (i.e. crappy) logos that do not represent "professional" - they look amateurish and like it or not clients can and will judge off it.

[MJPhotos24]

I know that not all of the business questions can be answered this way:

Did Ansel Adams have a logo? ;)
Umm, yes he kinda did - it was his signature, it's still used for his gallery!

[hofajoab]

A good logo and a good name can go far and do wonders for easy recognition of your business, plus they always look a lot more professional when used for all your paperwork, invoices, web site, etc, etc..

You don't have to go down the cliché route of aperture blades, cameras, lenses, etc in your logo.. A friend of mine designed my logo and web design without me asking, it would have been rude not to accept it - I loved them anyway :lol: so!

[Yeoer]

A good logo and a good name can go far and do wonders for easy recognition of your business,


True if your Mc Donalds or Nike etc... but as a photographer (and there are millions of us out there) keeping it simple and having your name reconised is more benifical than some random squiggle (which allot are so bad they have to be explained..!).

If someone see your car and its got your name clear on it as a photographer they will be able to search the phone book or the net to find you, you can't search for a logo.

[elgillet]

A simple graphic is all that one really needs if they feel that a logo is important. But do make sure that your business name is clearly spelled out.

[DDCSD]

OK, I can quit worrying that I need a "real" logo. I like simple. :)

I guess if it was more than a one-man show it would be different. Thanks everyone for your input.

[Mike R]

If someone see your car and its got your name clear on it as a photographer they will be able to search the phone book or the net to find you, you can't search for a logo.

Or break into your car to steal your expensive camera equipment. A major newspaper in my state took their name off of their company cars just for this reason.

[Yeoer]

Or break into your car to steal your expensive camera equipment. A major newspaper in my state took their name off of their company cars just for this reason.


Nitemare... ok change it to a flyer then... lol

[Highlight_Photography]

I was deciding the same thing, After spending a whole day (12 hours) at work I finally decided to have my "Logo" as just text and everyone has liked it (So far...)

[Croasdail]

It depends, many get by on no logo or very simple one using there name (which I've been doing for years). However, I'm debating to get one with the main reason being to use as a watermark on my editorial archive and possibly business cards. Looking at 6 random "big name" photographers that popped in my mind 4/6 had logos present.

Looking at 5 random photo services (wires/agencies), all 5 had professional logos.

Yeoer nailed it on the head, many logos do a disservice because a lot of people design there own sub-par (i.e. crappy) logos that do not represent "professional" - they look amateurish and like it or not clients can and will judge off it.

I think there is a difference between a media outlet regardless of size, and a photographer. I can't think of a real photographer where their name was not enough and needed a logo to promote themselves. Whenever I see a photographer that has spent time on a logo, I normally think of someone thinks they are more then they really are. Ok, there are exceptions .... Gavin has his own logo. If you were part of a group, then I could see branding the groups services with a logo. But as an individual, or an artist, I think a logo usually makes one look less professional. If your name doesn't do it, no fancy logo is going to make you look better.

[DDCSD]

I think there is a difference between a media outlet regardless of size, and a photographer. I can't think of a real photographer where their name was not enough and needed a logo to promote themselves. Whenever I see a photographer that has spent time on a logo, I normally think of someone thinks they are more then they really are. Ok, there are exceptions .... Gavin has his own logo. If you were part of a group, then I could see branding the groups services with a logo. But as an individual, or an artist, I think a logo usually makes one look less professional. If your name doesn't do it, no fancy logo is going to make you look better.

See, thats pretty much exactly as I was thinking, but for some reason it just seemed like I needed a logo. Darn peer pressure. :lol: