Just wondering, you explained the logo aspect in the logomark, but did you mean for the flower to look excatly like a camera shutter? Very smart, considering it's for photography.
Aside, the fact that your first and last name aren't the same length doesn't bother me, and "photography" looks pretty evenly spaced, even though they're not even either. Nice job, I'd say.
Yes, that was intended to be subtle I'm glad you picked up on it! I feel like the whole aperture thing is so overdone with a lot of photography logos because it's so in your face.
That being said, thank you for the feedback. I'm curious to see if others agree with you!
"photo" "graphy" looks bad enough when split. changing the spacing makes "graphy" look small in comparison to "photo" and once you notice it, it is all you'll notice.
i would find a different composition that doesnt split up the word.
this is not as big of a deal but the Ss is "jessica" could be rotated CCW just a bit.
I was also reminded of the shutter when I first saw the flower, in the other thread.
There are a few issues with the positions and directions of some of the letters, not least the HEA.
I would suggest your trying out the option of using Path Type with possible elaboration, which may include kerning and more. That will place the letters with a common curved baseline, presumably a segment of a circle and ythereby take care of the basic appearance.
There may be different considerations about division/non division of PHOTOGRAPHY and effects on the appearance, and vertical alignment of the flower.
It may be too silly, but you may consider an eyelike appearance with PHOTOGRAPHY as Path Type meeting your name and the flower shutter in the middle.
You may also consider whether the letters are too thin for small size in connexion with letterhead, business card, etc.
Thank you for your in-depth response. I had considered the eye-like shape, but I'm overall not a fan of it and the excessive negative space it then creates.
What I had actually done to creat the text path for Jessica Shea was draw an elongated ellipse and used the Type on a Path tool, starting from the center and working across the ellipse. Is this technique not what you meant? I'm wondering why it still looks off, then (the HEA). How would you recommend fixing this? I think it's probably the biggest issue.
Is this technique not what you meant?
The very same. There may be something strange about the font. What is the look of it when just typing?
You may use some of the tools in the Character palette, such as the Baseline Shift (you can select the A with the (Path) Type Tool and move it down by setting a negative value and/or move the E up) and Kerning (you may set the cursor between the H and E and move them closer to each other by setting a negative value), and you can go through the whole set and make adjustments.
There seem to be two incompatible sets of letters, each with consistent directions, the A in the middle fitting into either: the J.....A...A seem to fit a more curved baseline, and the .ESSICASHE. seem to fit a less curved one.
You're very close to establishing your own identity. The flower is very powerful. However, you are relying too much on the typeface and, my concern is, it is a bit on the light side. When I think of a logo, I ask my self...Can this be duplicated in 5 minutes? By anyone? Yours falls into this category. As a handlettering artist, I try to create my own typeface and for you it would be a snap. I saw your other post where you asked if type could be flat on top and arched on the bottom. You were on the right track. My recommendation is find someone who can achieve something similar ( i.e., original, hand lettered typeface logo ). Try an approach using a thin serif font for "JESSICA SHEA" and a sans serif semi-bold font for "PHOTOGRAPHY". I will followup with a sketch to help communicate what I am thinking which may help you along. I simply do not have time right now. Stay tuned.
You make a very valid point. I am relatively new to the design world, and by no means do I consider myself a pro. I just simply don't have the funding to pay one to design my logo, as much as I would love to hand it off to a more capable person and pay them what they deserve. Not to diminish your input, but I feel like I've come this far, and anything is better than my current logo!
I would very much apprecaite any visual aids you could provide to help me along with my logo. I'm constantly drawn to these thin fonts, prior to this design I had used Code Light and tweaked it a bit:
but I've had an even harder time with that^^ one because the flower was somewhat transparent, and I'm just not 100% in love with it. I LOVE the color scheme I have going with the deeper coral flower and tan bg as seen in the original post. I really want something more modern, something that obviously says professional but is true to me. This post on Behance was very inspirational to me:
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't want cutesy. More magazine. Something that will stand the test of time, and as much as I LOVE these retro logos I'm seeing right now I don't know if that's appropriate or relevant for my business. Anyway, I digress.
It's funny you say to use a serif font, I always thought that wasn't preferable when it comes to a logo?
Thank you again for your time and effort.
Referring back to your other thread,
a shaping of the bottom part of the name (and possibly of the top of the P word) could be made in quite different ways, other than just an arc; the way(s) referred to in its post #3 gives full freedom to create customized shapes forming frames to the shutter/flower with as much or little negative space as you wish. And that would certainly move it beyond quick duplication.
I think I see what you mean. At this point, I wouldn't feel comfortable customizing the type, nor would I even feel confident it how to shape it to make it more unique. I also feel as though a lot of the logos that I love, as listed in the link right above your post, would also fall under that "could be duplicated in less than 5 minutes" design. Either this is because it's just that well done, or it's supposed to be that simple.
I understand that what I have now needs to be more unique, and for the most part that's why I wanted advice. I'm approaching getting burnt out on my own logo!
I've played around with the placement of the flower, and I'm not hating putting it in the middle above PHOTOGRAPHY (used the same font for now...that seems like a whole other feat). I also added a stroke around the text.
Any font suggestions are welcome, since Quicksand clearly doesn't like to form to an ellipse very well. But man do I love it! What are your thoughts on using a thin serif font in a logo, as John was mentioning?
Believe it or not, all of your feedback is truly helping. I do wish I were better at this, but I'm still learning
The simplicity of this doesn't bother me. I think the layouts you've chosen (first post and most recent) are interesting and different layouts. It's nice to see something other than logo on the left, wordmark to the right- justified left, rag right.
I also think the thinness of the font is appropriate. It's delicate and clean. You could absolutely look for something a bit meatier, and/or with a serif, but I think you're in the right direction with what you've chosen. I wouldn't go with anything too heavy or too big a slab serif, ect.
Also, this layout, with your name arched only is (I find) much more successful than the previous attempt with the straightened top and curved bottom.
I'm not sure the stokes on either side of the flower are necessary, but that's just me.
Thanks for the feedback, G. Fether. I agree with what you said about the font being clean. That was my purpose, I want less clutter and more simplicity this time around.
In regards to the lines beside the flower, their purpose was mainly to fill the negative space. I know I keep referring to the link above, the whole three part series:
but, when are lines and dots etc. really needed? I always felt like they were for added detail/decoration, to tie it all together. But that, too, is just my opinion.
Jessica, don't feel bad about where you are right now. That's actually pretty normal ( i.e., burn-out ). Sometimes it pays to take a step back, perhaps going to a local bookstore and glancing through some logo design books and photographer branding guides ( if you can find any ). Here's what I was thinking...
...and, the more I think about it, the flower would look great somehow nested within your name and "PHOTOGRAPHY BY" could be placed above your name following the arch. I wonder if the ip of your flower could be inserted into the bottom of the "A" in your first name. It's a matter of a cross between a symbol and typographical logo. The latest screen shot with the flower "inside" the arch is a step forward. The font style in my sketch might be found in a font, but may have to be hand lettered. This would solve your "unique" problem. I also think that you could create a symbol using the flower and your initials "J" and "S". Your full name could be implemented in your stationery where appropriate. Just food for thought. I encourage you to continue thinking and exploring. When you "hit" on what you are looking for, you will know and won't need us anymore. Good luck. Believe it or not, this is the fun part.
Thanks so much for putting all that time and effort into my logo, John!
I've actually been at this for about 6 months now, because of all the time I've had to take to step away from it. I've done a lot of research on typography, fonts, logos and design in general, and I feel as though I've narrowed it down to this. Trouble is, a lot of what I like and am inspired by are often one word companies and don't help me at all with my brand, haha.
And I agree, I've been endlessly trying to figure out a way to combine JSP with the flower for a true symbol of my brand. I'm loving the flower encircled like this, but how to incorporate the letters is where I always get stuck:
My only hesitation with using "Photography by" is that people might then google it that way, when my business name is "Jessica Shea Photography."
So with your sketch, you're thinking of arching both Jessica Shea and Photography? And what you drew almost looks like the font Znikomit I really like how the HE are combined in Shea.
I'm just so anxious to get my new brand going...and I obviously can't move forward on designing a website fully until I get the darn logo set! I have no business cards, a crappy old website, and am currently shooting for my new brand/look. That makes it really hard to deliver product, too, with an online proofing gallery and watermarks, etc.
Anyway, thanks again!
Like Fether, so far I like most the one in post #10 except the lines, although it could feel a little bit empty without them. If you have to put something and you want to go more vintage style I would try something more curvy. Along with the shutter flower it could remind of the top side of a wooden ornaments frame.
John,... I really want something more modern, something that obviously says professional but is true to me. This post on Behance was very inspirational to me:
Its vintage style inspired logos used in a modern context which appears to be appealing to a lot of people. If you want to go in that direction you can try something like this.
I also like the version in post #10.
There are a few ways to get the individual letters into place, so there is no need to leave your Quicksand font. You may choose between some calculation (and rely on the ability of the font to behave when it clearly misbehaves in the obvious easysolution that should have worked) and some more intricate drawing.
In any case, it would be useful to see how the lettering behaves when you just type the JSP (straight).
You may use the circle version in post #14, which I also like, as the actual logo, with the JSP underneath, or, depending on how heavy a circle you can stand, you may consider the JSP as negative space in it; the latter may present an even greater challenge in getting the lettering clear and visible, especially in connexion with small size use, as mentioned in post #4; the challenge consists of actual size and, depending on colours or rather inks, in getting a clear shape (a rather short version: if you have more than one ink (solid colour), especially normal screening will leave you with dots that will blur the edges, stochastic screening (FM) will be better, but you cannot rely on using it for all purposes).
By the way, the clearness may also present a challenge in the versions shown so far because the lettering seems to be non solid colour/ink.
Jessica, I am sorry for recommending you do more research. I should have realized that you have done your share already. I like the flower symbol with the circle around it. It works as your symbol. Simple and easy to identify. On the other sample where you have some space being used for lines, think about some type of flourish artwork instead of the lines, althought the lines aren't bad either. I like that version because all of the elements are somewhat encapsulated.
I'm happy to hear you like the flower symbol. I do too, but I feel that it by itself is not strong enough to represent my brand. I have tried on more than one occasion to combine the JSP in a unique way, but I'm not at all skilled enough to do it and have it look professional. The J and P are perfectly curved to fit into the swoops of an S, if done correctly.
Here are some sketches of what I mean:
But it quickly looks like a ying yang if I put a circle around it, which I'm not a fan of. The left one works both right side up and upside down, but is more in your realm of custom type. I'd love your input on that, to see what you think and if it would even work. I had given up on it since I couldn't make it work digitally, not to mention incorporating it with my flower symbol.
I meant the Jeccica Shea and photography written out with the Type Tool so it just has a horizontal baseline, to see how the letters behave under such circumstances.
My suggesting your using the encircled flower/shutter as the actual logo would mean that it could be used by itself, and with the JSP (and other stuff) added when appropriate, just like any other non letter logo, some of which are among the most powerful. I believe that was also what John meant in the corresponding part of post #17.
The colour/ink babble was about the fundamental difference between a solid (100%) colour and a non solid colour, the latter with or without colour transition.
The former may be printed at a far higher resolution (spots) than the latter which normally relies on halftones (dots), and which may distubingly blurred and even effaced in places.
Imagine a very fine line made up by a pattern of dots, or as negative space, a very fine line made up of spaces between dots, which have spaces between them.
You may have a quick read here:
That far high resolution is one of the advantages of using spot colours rather than CMYK blends for exquisite prints.
Jessica, I've been fooling around a bit...
for some reason I cannot post 2 PNG files to show you. Perhaps if you start a new thread in the Adobe Community > Design forums > Design" forum, I will be able to attach them there. I've taken the flower symbol and did two versions that could give you some ideas.
You may wish to delete your email address as soon as possible, to avoid/reduce spam.
I have avoided replying to your latest post to avoid locking it.
Usually, the best way for such information is to (announce and) send a Private Message. You can just click the intended receiver and click Send Private Message under Actions (top right).
It is better to keep everything else in the thread so eveyone can contribute, and learn.
I sent you a PM with my email, feel free to send your ideas there! I can't wait to see what you came up with.
(Thanks, Jacob )
I'm lost with any forum options. I sent you a message to your web site contact e-mail.
For what its worth, I think the logo on post 10 looks great. Nice simple design, colours great. Sometimes you can over analyise your own work. Its a yes from me!
Haha, thanks for your feedback, throbnz. I agree, I'm totally a perfectionist and, naturally as a female, overanalyze everything. Nothing's ever quite done. Especially when it's something I know I'll have to live with indefinitely (DEFINITELY don't want to have to do this again anytime soon) and will be seeing it and dealing with it for watermarking, products, website, etc. every day.
That being said, I replaced the lines with leaves, since I agree the lines just weren't cutting it and i think leaves would make more sense. At this point I think I'm just fine tuning, filling up that empty space while adding to the overall design
I can't thank you guys enough for helping me and inspiring me throughout this process!
I believe (or should I say beleave?) the leaves should be very simple and slender, maybe only just hinted (thus maybe not too far from being lines, just think of bamboo leaves) and not touch the flower.
What about the position/direction irregularities of the letters?
As part of the fine tuning.
I haven't read the entire thread..... so take what I post with a grain of salt.
Sorry, I think this is much stronger....
......but without the flower.
The curved text in your recent images just makes the entire logo appear to be unstable and unbalanced. There clearly appears to be no reason why the text is curved. Becuase of the nature of type the eye wants to READ the name rather than instantly percieve a logo. This creates visual conflict in my opinion. in addition to the fact that when read.. the logo causes the eye to end in a downward, right motion. This motion is commonly considered to promote feelings of meloncholoy or depression. Combine that with the fact that the spacing in the name makes the curved text appear to be off center (I realize it isn't) and I'd say you're headed in a completely unfruitful direction and trying to force something to work when it never really will.
My that's just my 2¢.
Nice one, Scott.
......but without the flower.
At last! A voice of discernment in this thread.
My rules of logo design:
- Be Ruthless. With yourself. With your client. With the design. To wit:
- What You Like Doesn't Matter. Anytime you hear yourself or your client, or any critic say "I like..." or "I don't like..." you and/or they are thinking wrongly and you need to say so or go back to the drawing board. This isn't about a touchy-feely, everyone's-a-winner, feel-good-about-yourself art class "critique" session. The only one whose "likes" matter is the target viewer, and that's impossible to know. It's not about what anyone "likes." It's about what works. It's about what it says.
- It's Work. Get over that. One concept is never enough. Always draw up multiple drafts, and make them as radically varied as you can. Otherwise, you have not even begun to fully explore possibilities. Let the exploration lead to something that works. If it doesn't, you haven't succeeded yet. Keep working.
- Design In Black Line Art. Forget color. Disallow grads. If the design is dependent upon grad fills or any other cheap and cheezy effect for its uniqueness or interest, it's already a failure.
- Know The Message. It's About Communication. What should the identity mark convey? (Hopefully more than merely, "Hey, I'm a plumber.") What differentiates the mark's holder from the competition?
- Nobody Cares. If you have to study it in order to "get it," it's already falied. Nobody's gonna bother.
- It Has To Stick. A logo is an entity's signature; its cornerstone. Is there anything at all distinctive about it? The second or third time it's seen a week later, will it ring a bell or will it just fade into the mental fog of looksame "logos"? Being technically "professional" is required, but isn't enough. Legal forms have required signatures since the beginning of civilization for a reason: They're assumed to be unique. Yes, by all means study examples of excellent logos. But study them to identify their strengths. Never allow yourself to think "I think I'll try something like that." That's not creative. That's starting from a standpoint of failure.
- Boil Down Essence. Make it elegant. Everything must have a purpose. If it doesn't have a purpose, throw it out. No gratuitous decoration. If it's not essential to the message, it's distracting from it.
- It Must Work Technically. Is the design versatile and robust enough for all the repro methods and display scenarios to which it will be subjected (single color, spot color, RGB, CMYK, print, web, signage, engraving, letterhead, placement ads, garment imprints...)?
Note the above is an unordered list. Each point is equally important. Each point must survive the trip from concept to repro-ready masters. But the first point (ruthlessness) directs the rest.
So in the present context, proceed as follows:
First, stop fretting over this. You are obviously already "married" to this one single treatment and are doggedly trying to make something out of it, when there's just nothing there. Straining at a gnat to swallow an elephant, as Aunt Molly would say.
Step back away from it. Wipe every wrinkle away from your forehead; every expression from your face. Stare at it coldly, unemotionally. Get yourself into a stoic, completely pragmatic mindset. Remove any notion of asking yourself "does this please me" or anything else. No frown. No smile. No narrowed, "artistically-sensitive, all-discerning, self-important" eye. You simply don't care about this logo. It's just another thing in this visually-cluttered world that just happens to be in front of your face. For a microsecond. And an annoying microsecond at that. Now you're looking at it more like its target viewers will.
Forget "Likes." Does it work?
Now ask yourself (again, with no facial expression; no emotion; no erudite discernment): In a visually noisy world is there anything even mildly interesting or attention-grabbing (let alone compelling) about this design? Does it do its job? You should be able to answer that right now. If you can't, let me help you: No.
Do The Work
You say you've been "at this for about 6 months now." Prove it. Let's see at least a small handful of your other radically-different drafts.
Remove that lame, cliche grad. Remove the pink. After doing so, what happened to uniqueness?
What Does It Communicate?
The thin type is wimpy, placid. Boring. Drab. As exciting as a funeral parlor. Is that commensurate with the nature of your photography? Do you specialize in snapshots of flowers?
In other words, what is the message? What is your mark supposed to be saying? "Hey, here's another run-of-the-mill local neighborhood photographer who probably has some equipment and knows how to press a shutter without a trace of originality or sophistication"? What are you actually selling? Flowers? Lenses? Or creativity?
What about your initial design draws attention; makes it stand out? Squint or cross your eyes a bit. What do you see? A meaningless faint grey arch with a pink blob under it? Does that "suck you in"? There's nothing here you haven't seen in countless amateurish "logos" made by the ubiquitous 12-year-old niece who "likes to draw." No drama whatsoever. Outside of purely technical labs or police departments, is that what people hire a creative photographer for?
The only point of drama in what you have shown so far is the modified crossbar of the CA ligature. That's it. Keep that as an objective possibility. But don't get married to it; it's not like that's never been done before, either.
Is It Memorable?
What about any of the designs shown so far makes them mentally "stick"? A pink flower? A lens diaphragm? A "clever" attempt to unify a flower and a lens diaphragm (with which you are so enamoured you haven't even noticed that in black it more easily reads as a meaningless star)?
Is It Elegant?
The flower/lens And the word Photography, just in case your brain-dead viewer misses what you hope to be obvious? "Oh yeah. I've got an idea. How about a tripod? Or some photo scrapbook corners?" That's how you ought to be ruthlessly talking to yourself: "Nope. Nothing memorable here. Just trite."
Those cliche dillywops you've added in post 26: Those are pointless additions just to fill the pointless whitespace void under the pointless arch. Just the act of doing that should have made you ruthlessly ask your ruthless self, "Why am I drawing these dillywops"? They are pointless decorations trying to justify a design error. And not even original decorations.
Are you ever going to have a physical place of business? A place to hang a shingle? If so, are you going to be able to afford a 60' x 180' billboard? Because that's what it's going to take for that thin typeface to read from any drive-by distance, let alone avoid being utterly washed-out by surrounding signage in the field of view of the annoyed customer who's driving while talking on the cell phone asking again for directions to your shop.
Oh, but you "like" that wimpy typeface. You're so proud of it, you'll no doubt want to have it engraved on some nice writing pens to use as promotional giveaways. How do you think those hairline strokes will hold up when reduced to a 2" wide imprint? And how will engraving render the graduated flower?
See what I mean? The path to decent logo design starts with ruthlessness.
Do not take offense at any of the above. This is exactly how I talk to myself when working.
I am no certain a logo is a good thing for a photographer but since you went down this rod an yu think it woks for you hen the obvious thing visually speaking is that one might consider bowing the word photography similar to the your name Jesica Shae and make it the appear to be the bottom lid of an eye. Now your logo might invoke the idea that you are intuitive about things you do.
Of course the flower might be slightly larger.
Keep in mind the top lashes of an eye are longer than the bottom.
Also keep in mind it does not have to necessarily come across as an eye it only has to be discoverable.
As far a rukes goes, there are no rules you only have to communicate your message. And if a logo works for you it looks like you are there right now.
Hahahahahah, wow. That was so brutal all I can do is laugh. I'm so glad I could be an outlet for all your pent up frustration this thread has apparently caused you!!
You did have some good points. Thanks for that. But I'll go ahead and take your advice and stop caring about what you did and did not like now. I'm also not going to waste more space on here with the hundreds of other fonts and designs I played around with. All I'll say is that if several people remember my flower/aperture symbol from my last post, it worked. I'll continue on my journey and figure out what works for me, and I'm glad that some people could at least give me constructive criticism instead of just tearing it down without any solutions. I get that it's not perfect, hence why I posted it.
Have a lovely day in that ruthless brain of yours
Sorry you took offense, Jessica. As I said, none was intended. If you think I'm the least bit frustrated, you completely missed the point of sound advice.
I'm glad that some people could at least give me constructive criticism instead of just tearing it down without any solutions.
Constructive criticism is about asking the right questions that lead you to your goal. Constructive criticism is not necessarily about giving answers to these questions: http://www.uie.com/articles/critique/
I would rethink that flower as well. I didn't get the aperture in it. And without getting that, it's just a flower (I couldn't even tell which one). You said you chose that flower, because it's your favorite. But your logo has to express more than that. Your logo has to tell the viewer something about your work and about the way you see the world as a photographer. So people can decide if it's worthwhile to talk to you about their project.
Also: your logo shouldn't get more attention than the photos on your website, so having a brightly colored logo might make little sense.
Im gonna go against the grain on this one and say that all this questions on weather the logo speaks about your work, weather the flower clearly says photography, do people get it or not? Arent really important.
At the end of the day because you are a photographer, youll be known by your photography. I think your flower is as 'clear' as it needs to be. If you look at some of the most recognized logos they say nothing about the product or company.
I dont believe there is such a thing as 'constructive criticism'. A criticism is just what it is, criticism. People spewing their opinions about your work.
I think in your case, since it is a personal logo for your work whether you like it matters. You should then just worry about visual technicalities like kerning.
Since you are your own client without a deadline, apply it and live with it for a while and see how it works for you and tweak it as you see fit. You dont need to forsee the future and worry about wether it will look good on a pencil. If you choose to put it on a pencil, then you can evolve your logo to fit the criteria.
I dont believe there is such a thing as 'constructive criticism'. A criticism is just what it is, criticism. People spewing their opinions about your work
mec, you made me curious and I searched for it.
when it comes to input for creative work, including my work, no matter how it is called, opinion, criticism, praise, etc., I agree with everyone regardless how opposing the different opinions may be. I consider all opinions as true. This is how different people react to the same thing and this is the nature of things.
Usually the creator wants the artwork to cause an intended reaction from all others but because that is impossible, the best that can be done is to optimize the artwork for a certain audience which is not an easy task but at least outlines the possibilities.
I would also add if you're goal was to get a bunch of "That's good. I like it." comments, the artwork would do better on your mom's refrigerator. No one ever improves by someone saying "I like it". All critism is constructive. If you are not a designer, you can't ask for "designer opinions" and expect them to all be favorable. If you brush off any negative comments, then you aren't really looking for any critism, you're only looking for praise.
I disagree, Scott, and I'll end the irrelevant "what is constructive criticism" debate here with the notion that there's a difference between getting feedback that I can move forward with, and getting needlessly brutal feedback that doesn't put me in a positive direction from where I started. Saying things like "No one cares" "whimpy" and "trite" aren't helpful in the slightest. I didn't take offense to JET's feedback, I just don't appreciate the overly dramatic prodding. Most of his ranting above came off as irritation, but such is text on a screen as opposed to in person critique.
I couldn't agree more with Mec_os in that there are many, many well-known logos out there that tell you nothing about the brand's products...Nike, McDonalds, Adidas, Starbucks...etc. Those don't seem to have any rhyme or reason behind their design other than McDonalds starts with 'M.'
I'm more than open to any and all critiques, and I even mentioned that JET had some good points. I'm not at all looking for people to just agree with me, I was merely explaining why I did what I did and seeing if it made sense. I've learned a lot from this thread indeed. There are a lot of negatives comments toward this design, you included, and I don't believe I brushed any off....but I'm not the only one who was annoyed by the tone of JET's response. Believe it or not I've considered everything everyone is saying. People are going to have their opinions and sometimes that replaces being constructive. That's all. If people want to keep tearing it apart, cool. Just let me know why.
So you disagree with me.... strictly praise is critism to you? Okay .