Or maybe just NR?
Feb 12, 2013 22:59 | #16 ![]() Or maybe just NR?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
chokeslamcena Member 108 posts Joined Jan 2011 More info | Feb 13, 2013 03:21 | #17 Naraly wrote in post #15604262 ![]() Very interesting points! That's a good idea about in the future when my work gets better, having a different logo also make a kind of "fresh" start with the image. I believe my work to be average (hopefully, well since I've seen worse). I get compliments, so that's a good thing, but I know these people saying my photography is good, have never even hired a professional photographer before, so they really don't have much to compare it to besides what they might see on the internet. I'm hard on myself, so I make sure to never give a client any photos that I don't think are my absolutely best so far and reflect what I can do at this point. I still have a lot more things to learn. About the design, I was thinking just having the "NR" as my design, and use it without "photography" when appropriate. Is that still not a very good design? I'm a very simple person, I like simple/minimal things. I went through a thread in this forum about member's logos before creating mine to get an idea, and I noticed most were just "words" so I thought it was ok to do that. I like you're logo. I think it was very creative how your name was incorporated to the camera design. But I wouldn't see myself being comfortable with using something like that ![]() Is at least the "NR" part good enough? ![]()
LOG IN TO REPLY |
wamvar Member 47 posts Likes: 5 Joined Dec 2011 More info | Feb 13, 2013 07:21 | #18 it is not the best, it is not the worst, 'm not the same too
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Moments Media Senior Member 367 posts Joined Jan 2011 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Feb 13, 2013 14:01 | #19 Your new logo is much better. Glad you took advice & changed it into something positive. Definitely reduce the size of "Photography" to tiny or non-existent. Moments {Photo + Cinema}
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 13, 2013 23:38 | #20 ![]() chokeslamcena wrote in post #15604741 ![]() Well I've gotten lots of compliments on my logo. I've been told it's modern, sleek, crisp looking, etc. (to which I'd agree, otherwise I wouldn't be using it. Personally I really, really like it. If I didn't, I'd have gotten it re-done until I ended up with something I did like). However, the 'SMP' thing goes over a lot of people's heads and they don't see it, and instead just think it's a random few shapes thrown together. I was told by a gentleman recently that it's too complex and complicated looking and he didn't see the camera in it at all. So it's really different strokes for different folks (as the saying goes). What I may love, you may hate, and vice versa. I do very much like your new logo. What I think would improve it is adding a 'glow' effect, though. (this sounds cheesy, but I find it works well). The logo on all the photos on my website has a white glow around it; this is to stop it from getting lost in darker photos (on a lot of darker photos my photo was literally invisible - I only realised it after I had everything on the site though so I had to spend time taking everything down and re-doing it all again). The reason I say this to you is because you've managed to go from a logo in your OP where it's the first thing you see, and very distracting, whereas your sample photo above, the NR fades into the photo too much and could be completely overlooked altogether (in my opinion). By the way, as an aside; if you think your photos are just average, you're doing a good job. I'm my own worst critic too (or so I've been repeatedly told) but it helps you learn more and push yourself a little more as you go on. The photographers who churn out average work, but think it's the best thing ever, rarely improve significantly over time (in my personal experience). As I say, though, a logo is a logo. Most people don't pass any remarks, so it's really only yourself you're looking to please. No one will ever say "wow, that's an awesome wedding portfolio, I really love it! However, we can't book you - we simply don't like your logo" so I don't think it'll have a drastic impact on your future at all. ![]()
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 13, 2013 23:39 | #21 ![]() Moments Media wrote in post #15606344 ![]() Your new logo is much better. Glad you took advice & changed it into something positive. Definitely reduce the size of "Photography" to tiny or non-existent. Thanks! I might just leave out the "photography" for on the photos, and just add it if I ever create a website or business cards.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Drixar Senior Member 253 posts Joined Jul 2011 Location: Essex, England More info | Feb 15, 2013 08:54 | #22 he only downside i can see is that it has no 'design', in that, if you were printing a portfolio or showing off your work in a place where people already know you're the photographer, I think it can look better just having the design (and no text). Just text is not a bad thing however it does completely depend on how it is executed, for example IBM, Mcdonalds ''M'' are ever so slightly altered existing fonts, the M was literally made a bit archy and IBM literally is give or take Arial with lines through it to ''break'' it up these small things make both those logo's iconic, IBM more so but the M will be more well known as its extremely commercial. Canon 400D(Rebel XTi) | 15-55mm kit lens | 50mm 1.8 MII |Raynox 250 macro conversion | Cheap Extension Tubes | 55-250 IS II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 15, 2013 22:34 | #23 ![]() Drixar wrote in post #15612670 ![]() Just text is not a bad thing however it does completely depend on how it is executed, for example IBM, Mcdonalds ''M'' are ever so slightly altered existing fonts, the M was literally made a bit archy and IBM literally is give or take Arial with lines through it to ''break'' it up these small things make both those logo's iconic, IBM more so but the M will be more well known as its extremely commercial. that being said the initial logo, i have to say was terrible too hard / jagged no thought behind it and literally looked to me (being a designer) as if some-one had just shoved a few ''funky'' fonts together and called it a logo, harsh i know but i don't hold back. The revised (2nd) version is alot better and to be honest i like the NR like that however it still looks a bit un-balanced to me. the part i do not like is photography being so prominent and basic, basic in itself is better than complicated but in this circumstance it counter balances the logo so this to me lets it down. Try making the font smaller so it starts just inside the N's swirl and ends at the full stop, also depending on how this looks increase the boldness of the font. after that if it does not work put it to one side and start a fresh - even doodling helps. and if you would like my help just PM i'd be happy too. Not sure if I understood where to place the "photography" part, but how's this?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 15, 2013 23:06 | #24 ![]() I made a few variations, some just for fun trying to see it in different ways. Not sure if "3D" or "beveled" effects are not good for this purpose? I kind of like it. A bit darker anyone like any of those versions?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
samsen Cream of the Crop ![]() 7,468 posts Likes: 239 Joined Apr 2006 Location: LA More info | Feb 16, 2013 03:14 | #25 I am definitely for 3D dark beveled. Weak retaliates,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Drixar Senior Member 253 posts Joined Jul 2011 Location: Essex, England More info | Feb 18, 2013 07:51 | #26 Naraly wrote in post #15615107 ![]() Not sure if I understood where to place the "photography" part, but how's this? ![]() thats exactly what i meant, looks much better now, much more balanced and tidy and yes the 3d bevel actually looks real nice to me ''the bit darker'' one. Canon 400D(Rebel XTi) | 15-55mm kit lens | 50mm 1.8 MII |Raynox 250 macro conversion | Cheap Extension Tubes | 55-250 IS II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
omnom Senior Member 364 posts Joined Jan 2009 More info | Feb 19, 2013 10:57 | #27 ...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Drixar Senior Member 253 posts Joined Jul 2011 Location: Essex, England More info | Feb 20, 2013 07:56 | #28 personally i think drop shadows are ugly and a big eye sore, each to there own though :P Canon 400D(Rebel XTi) | 15-55mm kit lens | 50mm 1.8 MII |Raynox 250 macro conversion | Cheap Extension Tubes | 55-250 IS II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
omnom Senior Member 364 posts Joined Jan 2009 More info | ...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is umeiri 846 guests, 191 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |