Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
Thread started 05 Feb 2013 (Tuesday) 22:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

photography logo advice?

 
Naraly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2012
Location: California
     
Feb 12, 2013 22:59 |  #16

Or maybe just NR?

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/2612lck.jpg
Image not from an actual shoot.


Cheers,
Nora

-->Facebook (external link)Instagram (external link)<--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
chokeslamcena
Member
108 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Feb 13, 2013 03:21 |  #17

Naraly wrote in post #15604262 (external link)
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 :o. Probably why I can't come up with anything better, because my "minimal" views are telling me to stay in the safety zone and not have too much or too bulky.


Is at least the "NR" part good enough?:lol:. I'm not completely sold on the "photography" part.


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. :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wamvar
Member
47 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 13, 2013 07:21 |  #18

it is not the best, it is not the worst, 'm not the same too ;) but for my eyes is good, just move it from the top to the bottom, if you want to change make a list of what you want to represent in your logo, after you set your thought in a list, start designing accordingly to your list ; it is just my 0.002




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moments ­ Media
Senior Member
367 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
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} (external link)
1DMKIV | 5DMKII | 6D | 7D | EOS3 | 14 F2.8 | 15 F2.8 FE | 17-40L | 24Lii | Σ50 F1.4 | Σ35 F1.4 | C50 1.4 | 24-70L | 24-105L |85Lii | 85 1.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-200 F2.8L ISii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naraly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2012
Location: California
     
Feb 13, 2013 23:38 |  #20

chokeslamcena wrote in post #15604741 (external link)
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. :lol:


I can understand all the positive comments, like I said, I do like it, I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way :). I just meant having shapes or something other than lines/words is outside my "safety zone", but who knows maybe as I grow into this field I can come up with something more of a design, or just get one done professionally.

I'll try adding a glow, or maybe a shadow behind it, make it "pop" out a little I guess.

This forum is really helpful, especially with members like you :D I would have never imagined my logo to go from hard lines to this, but this is so much better now that I see them both. I like getting critique, it pushes me to think harder and see things in a different point of view:cool:.



Cheers,
Nora

-->Facebook (external link)Instagram (external link)<--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naraly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2012
Location: California
     
Feb 13, 2013 23:39 |  #21

Moments Media wrote in post #15606344 (external link)
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.



Cheers,
Nora

-->Facebook (external link)Instagram (external link)<--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drixar
Senior Member
253 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Essex, England
     
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.

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.


Canon 400D(Rebel XTi) | 15-55mm kit lens | 50mm 1.8 MII |Raynox 250 macro conversion | Cheap Extension Tubes | 55-250 IS II.
Note; I am able to Design logo's upon request.
My Razzi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naraly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2012
Location: California
     
Feb 15, 2013 22:34 |  #23

Drixar wrote in post #15612670 (external link)
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?


IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8387/8477070509_6c265ae685_z.jpg


Cheers,
Nora

-->Facebook (external link)Instagram (external link)<--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naraly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2012
Location: California
     
Feb 15, 2013 23:06 |  #24

I made a few variations, some just for fun trying to see it in different ways.

A "glow" effect like chokeslamcena suggested

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8513/8478209706_489cf1d337_z.jpg
[/URL]


Not sure if "3D" or "beveled" effects are not good for this purpose? I kind of like it.
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8103/8478209978_1617cdd14e_z.jpg


A bit darker
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8243/8477119487_5531df3050_z.jpg



anyone like any of those versions?


Cheers,
Nora

-->Facebook (external link)Instagram (external link)<--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 239
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Feb 16, 2013 03:14 |  #25

I am definitely for 3D dark beveled.
Impressive.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drixar
Senior Member
253 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Essex, England
     
Feb 18, 2013 07:51 |  #26

Naraly wrote in post #15615107 (external link)
Not sure if I understood where to place the "photography" part, but how's this?


QUOTED IMAGE

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.

p.s. try taking away the drop shadow from ''photography'' might make it a little easier on the eye (sorry im real fussy :P )

p.s.s. the great thing about this logo is the NR is really smart, clean and works real nicely and the ''great'' part is you can easily adjust this logo over time while keeping the core NR so you will never be confused for a new/different photographer :)


Canon 400D(Rebel XTi) | 15-55mm kit lens | 50mm 1.8 MII |Raynox 250 macro conversion | Cheap Extension Tubes | 55-250 IS II.
Note; I am able to Design logo's upon request.
My Razzi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
omnom
Senior Member
364 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Feb 19, 2013 10:57 |  #27

...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drixar
Senior Member
253 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Essex, England
     
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.
Note; I am able to Design logo's upon request.
My Razzi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
omnom
Senior Member
364 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Feb 20, 2013 09:06 as a reply to  @ Drixar's post |  #29

...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

12,527 views & 0 likes for this thread
photography logo advice?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChazMaz
907 guests, 316 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.