Logo Critique

I posted this in the Business forum as well, but am just looking for more opinions! I've been working on a logo today, and it needs some more work! I have been using the Reverse D / R for quite a while, and I do like it, but I'm not completely opposed to getting rid of it if you guys think it won't work.

Like I said on the other post, I know that hiring a professional would be the preferred option, but it's not in the budget at this time!

I just feel like I need something more to tie together the words and the logo. What are your thoughts on theses??

I feel like the font inside the blades needs to be cleaner, and by cleaner I mean more geometrically connected with the angles of the blades. Right now the curves of the type are too round for my taste. Maybe more pointy and less spherical? I guess once you get this right, the left side font can be easier to nail as well.

Also, the D looks slighly wider than the R. This is probably the default settings of the font you are using, but maybe it would look better if they were about the same width.

Nice concept.

GeminiZ wrote in post #15996576
I feel like the font inside the blades needs to be cleaner, and by cleaner I mean more geometrically connected with the angles of the blades. Right now the curves of the type are too round for my taste. Maybe more pointy and less spherical? I guess once you get this right, the left side font can be easier to nail as well.

Also, the D looks slighly wider than the R. This is probably the default settings of the font you are using, but maybe it would look better if they were about the same width.

Nice concept.

Thanks for the C&C

Here's another take with some less round letters. Is this sort of what you had in mind? I'm still not real happy with the font, but it's a work in progress! I actually really like the way the logo looks now...but it doesn't really fit with a wedding-type style. I would really like this logo for things like motorsports.

I will be brutally honest, the second one is not very nice at all, text looks too squashed and ''fitted'' the DR is also too, typewriter and does not at all fit with the text.

Your first iterations are fine, the logo and text works and personally i would go against what gemini said and leave the 'lens'' effect as it is, its nice not to see a perfectly crafted lens and shows a bit of creativity, the D and R i do agree on however, this can easily be sorted in illustrator just tweaking the D's width without loosing or squashing anything as you have done in the second iteration.

I hope you don't mind but as image editing was turned on;

i have attached here what i would do, as the logo will be used on its own a lot in photo's / websites etc if not then i would get rid of it, logo's generally come into play (like IBM best example) when you no longer need the name attached but clients / company's know who you are, of course text can accompany it if you wish but there's no inherent need for it.

so what i would do with text;

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …ia/DRphotograph​y.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …Drixar/media/dr​2.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …Drixar/media/dr​3.jpg.html

Drixar wrote in post #15998135
I will be brutally honest, the second one is not very nice at all, text looks too squashed and ''fitted'' the DR is also too, typewriter and does not at all fit with the text.

No problem at all, thanks for your input.

Drixar wrote in post #15998135
Your first iterations are fine, the logo and text works and personally i would go against what gemini said and leave the 'lens'' effect as it is, its nice not to see a perfectly crafted lens and shows a bit of creativity, the D and R i do agree on however, this can easily be sorted in illustrator just tweaking the D's width without loosing or squashing anything as you have done in the second iteration.

I definitely saw what Gemini was going for, and I do sort of like the look I came up with, but like I said, it doesn't fit in with the style of wedding/portrait photography at all.

Drixar wrote in post #15998135
I hope you don't mind but as image editing was turned on;

Not at all, quite the contrary! I really appreciate your time!

Drixar wrote in post #15998135
i have attached here what i would do, as the logo will be used on its own a lot in photo's / websites etc if not then i would get rid of it, logo's generally come into play (like IBM best example) when you no longer need the name attached but clients / company's know who you are, of course text can accompany it if you wish but there's no inherent need for it.

so what i would do with text;

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …ia/DRphotograph​y.jpg.html [/IMG]

just a subtle but useful way to project your logo, not very un-common.

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …Drixar/media/dr​2.jpg.html [/IMG]

could always do something like this aswell so you could always have both.

there is multiple things you can do with this to make it work and flow nicer, while being a designer i would not give these two as finished products to my clients as i would call it the first iteration of many some with small some with major variations, just thought i would quickly whip these up while on lunch.

edit: while my brain whirls i just keep changing things, so before i get back off lunch just another variation, it does change your logo a bit though but then the whole instance becomes your logo, again infinite possibilites, but your basic design and idea works absolutely fine, personally if i was designing a photographers logo i wouldnt use any lens or camera bits, its used a lot however if they are dead set on a lens part (or camera part) to be included then i personally would make sure its unique, different and stands out like a saw thumb (in a good way)

IMAGE LINK: http://s1224.photobuck​et.com …Drixar/media/dr​3.jpg.html [/IMG]

Thank you very much for your time with these, and I really like your ideas! I really do like #1, but it does seem a little cliche (but no more cliche than my originals). 2 I also really like, but it needs....something. If I was going to do #3 I would un-reverse the D, but I like the idea here. Thanks again!

davidmtml wrote in post #15996839
Thanks for the C&C

Here's another take with some less round letters. Is this sort of what you had in mind? I'm still not real happy with the font, but it's a work in progress! I actually really like the way the logo looks now...but it doesn't really fit with a wedding-type style. I would really like this logo for things like motorsports.

Actually, that's not what I was aiming for, but now that I look at that, it does look pretty cool, just not for a wedding photographer. Maybe a mechanic or automotive logo.

Not too fond of a sans-serif font inside the aperture blades either if there is going to be a serif font for your name.

I really like the mockups that Drixar came up with but my only problem is reading your first and last name as one word it seems. If you are okay with using a multi-colored palette I would recommend either changing the first or last name to a lighter grey or red to separate it from the other name, but still keep it connected.

Something like this might work(with a variation of the aperture blades in other places or positioned differently)

GeminiZ wrote in post #16003306
Actually, that's not what I was aiming for, but now that I look at that, it does look pretty cool, just not for a wedding photographer. Maybe a mechanic or automotive logo.

Not too fond of a sans-serif font inside the aperture blades either if there is going to be a serif font for your name.

I agree on both fronts, thank you.

GeminiZ wrote in post #16003306
I really like the mockups that Drixar came up with but my only problem is reading your first and last name as one word it seems. If you are okay with using a multi-colored palette I would recommend either changing the first or last name to a lighter grey or red to separate it from the other name, but still keep it connected.

Something like this might work(with a variation of the aperture blades in other places or positioned differently)

Good idea, I hadn't thought of that. I'm not fond on having just the "D" backwards, the whole reason I did it in the first place was so that it would butt up against the "R" nicely, I think it just looks strange by itself.

GeminiZ wrote in post #16003306
EDIT: Actually maybe even dropping your first name from the whole logo might work if Rabenberg is not a very popular name and is unique enough to use.

I think Rabenberg is most likely unique enough to use on it's own...but I'm just not sure if I like just "Rabenberg Photography", plus I already have a website, FB, etc. with "David Rabenberg Photography", but it is definitely something I will put some more thought into.

Thanks again for your help!

GeminiZ wrote in post #16003306

Not a fan of the aperture blade designs simply because they seem to be so common. Regardless, I like this version (and font) best, but think it would be slightly improved if the "D" was actually not reversed. I don't see how the reversal adds anything of value to the overall design. If your name was a palindrome, then I would say that the reversal would make sense to maintain an element of symmetry.

The other versions seem very "busy" to me. Also, something funky going on with the "O", "A", "H" and "Y" in photography. Almost looks as if they are varying in font size.