photography logo advice?

Or maybe just NR?

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. 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?. 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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

A "glow" effect like chokeslamcena suggested

I am definitely for 3D dark beveled.
Impressive.

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.

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

...

personally i think drop shadows are ugly and a big eye sore, each to there own though :P

...