GFB Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Listen, I'm not saying you straight ripped off a singular logo. My guess is that you used some sort of existing logo as your base and made your edits from there. I see a lot of sports logos in my line of work. There are bits and pieces of several logos mashed up in this design. Loyola Marymount for sure, the Jacksonville Jaguars logo in the nose/teeth/whiskers... Even the font/wordmark, I know I've seen somewhere else. Let's take a closer look at your logo: (Expand to full view, compare/contrast the sampled parts in the same color) Red - The sharpness of the edges. In some areas they are very crisp, other areas are very blurred. Yellow - The pixelation around the transition of colors. The edges are burned in some areas, other areas are precise. Green - The some lines are geometrically precise, while some lines are just plain sloppy and aren't even fully connected to the body of color. Not only do those little details support my claim, but as a whole, there is very little consistency in your line weights and stylistic choices between the two logos. The amount of detail in the first 3/4-profile logo compared to the simple forms of the second full-profile lion doesn't really make much sense if both logos were truly 100% original designs created by the same artist... Next time just be upfront with everyone about your process and what you're trying to accomplish. There's nothing inherently wrong with mashing up logos because you're studying the forms of how a lion looks and how to illustrate one... that's how every artist gets better to some degree. Just don't be defensive because someone called you out on what you (very likely) did. This forum is a great place to learn and grow as an artist, but no one (including myself) is above critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Jayroe Posted November 18, 2016 Author Share Posted November 18, 2016 15 hours ago, GFB said: Listen, I'm not saying you straight ripped off a singular logo. My guess is that you used some sort of existing logo as your base and made your edits from there. I see a lot of sports logos in my line of work. There are bits and pieces of several logos mashed up in this design. Loyola Marymount for sure, the Jacksonville Jaguars logo in the nose/teeth/whiskers... Even the font/wordmark, I know I've seen somewhere else. Let's take a closer look at your logo: (Expand to full view, compare/contrast the sampled parts in the same color) Red - The sharpness of the edges. In some areas they are very crisp, other areas are very blurred. Yellow - The pixelation around the transition of colors. The edges are burned in some areas, other areas are precise. Green - The some lines are geometrically precise, while some lines are just plain sloppy and aren't even fully connected to the body of color. Not only do those little details support my claim, but as a whole, there is very little consistency in your line weights and stylistic choices between the two logos. The amount of detail in the first 3/4-profile logo compared to the simple forms of the second full-profile lion doesn't really make much sense if both logos were truly 100% original designs created by the same artist... Next time just be upfront with everyone about your process and what you're trying to accomplish. There's nothing inherently wrong with mashing up logos because you're studying the forms of how a lion looks and how to illustrate one... that's how every artist gets better to some degree. Just don't be defensive because someone called you out on what you (very likely) did. This forum is a great place to learn and grow as an artist, but no one (including myself) is above critique. Why are you being such a troll. I callenge you to find the logo I used as a guide for my perspective drawing. I ban drew it in photoshop using a brush. No paths which is why it is blurry. Some areas are more crisp because I refined a previous logo and of course when you save to a jpeg a few times it tends to get crisp or pixelated. These are areas I did not refine on my old logo. I did look at other logos for reference, but I assure you all my drawing is original artwork even the wordmark. Thanks to you, others will probably side w you and you ruined my intention of cc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenonDesigns Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 They're both solid but if I had to shooed one to represent my team, I'd go with the bottom because imo the top seems too cliche but the bottom is more unique. The updates you made look great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockey week Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 This looks like it's getting interesting btw, it's the first logo. The perspective puts it way above the other logo. The only way a 2D logo looks good in the NFL is if there's little detail, and yours simply has too much detail for that use. I'd tuck it away for a minor/junior team though, because it IS nice. Just not as awesome as logo 1 I'll respect any opinion that you can defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFB Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.