Sign in to follow this  
Turbulance

Basic logo tutorial

Recommended Posts

Hey i just recently got Illustrator, and i am really intrested in the graphic design world. may i just add that i think some people here are some of the best designers ever, and i realy idolise you guys. So could somebody please create how to make a basic but solid sports logo on illustrator, and add some cool text tips. I would be so gratefull.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i second that, but different results arise from different circumstances. sometimes a modern logo just fits. sorry, you can't make a guide to designing a logo. it's just that broad of a topic. you just gotta get an idea, do a rough scketch, and recreate in on the computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no easy way to describe how to design a sports logo in on simple response. It's not really something you can do in five minutes or so.

Most artists have their own design process. Some sketch and sketch and sketch, others go right to the computer. But you shouldn't limit your ideas to your ability to make them on the computer. The computer is just a tool, just like pencil and paper.

If you see a logo on this board you like, you might want to pick the brain of the designer to see the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule #1: Learn how to letter by hand. Otherwise your work will look like a lot klike 95% of the Illustrator hacks on this site...once you master that then you can scan and auto trace the lettering and have truly unique looking brand idenity work... Check legendary type designers like Tom Nikosey, Michael Doret or Todd Radom... Those are masters...

Rule #2: Try and incorporate a strong base color, a complimentraty secondary color, and a bright highlight color if possible to give your logo's color scheme a lot of flexibility.

Rule #3: You are developing a logo, not an illustration like much of the work on the this site.

Heavy handed cartoony illustrators... Studio Simon, SME Branding, Phoenix Design Works... all firms that draw illustrations and try to turn them into logos.

Rule #4: Do something edgy. Too many firms crank out the smae stuff and therefore do not have a unique brand identity. I like Gameplan out of Chicago... Bobcats, Soul... gameplan.com

Rule #5: Would you wear the logo you designed? If not probably not a great mark I'd say...

There, and for no charge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, ive done my sketch, now i need to vector it, straighten it out, make it all even ect. how do i do all that.

template3nj.png

thats my sketch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check legendary type designers like Tom Nikosey, Michael Doret or Todd Radom... Those are masters...

You are developing a logo, not an illustration like much of the work on the this site.

Heavy handed cartoony illustrators... Studio Simon, SME Branding, Phoenix Design Works... all firms that draw illustrations and try to turn them into logos.

Dude, Dan Simon is among the best in the sports branding business. There's really no room to knock him. He, along with Todd Radom, Joe Bosack, Verlander, Gameplan (and others that escape my memory at this time) are really the top echelon of sports branding. And I don't know if I'd call those guys "legendary type designers" either. Claude Garamond was a legendary type designer. Emil Ruder was a legendary type designer. The individuals you mentioned are a proverbial droplet in the typography bucket, as far as history and contribution to the field are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempset-

You're opinions are very valid.

HOWEVER...

The designers mentioned as the top will eventually be recognized as the best of their generation.

It usually takes time to be acknowledged for being the best in an industry (especially graphic design) so in 20 years or so people will look back on the Radoms and Doret of the world with great reverance...

Dan Simon is a talented designer but has got caught in the Minor League Baseball "critter" trap which hs decresed his stature in the logo business. See Modesto Nuts. This is a scar on his reputation. It's okay to say no to an assignment. He has yet to figure that out... and much of Dan's work look like pages out of Michael Doret portfolio.

http://studiosimon.com/LOGOS/LOGOS.html

then check...

http://www.michaeldoret.com/doret/artwork/index.html

Michael is the master...all else are followers...just a tough guy to work with... so he gets passed on for many assignments...

SME Branding - Like Netscape.. Hip in 1995 not 2005...

Joe Bosack's work is second tier and many designers on Creamer can give compettion.

Verlander has slipped... too boring and predicatable... See 2003 NBA All-Star... and the Bengals redo... pretty staid but not in classic fashion.

Gameplan does a nice job. Utilizes a clean fresh style that will be relevant in 15 years as it is now and that's a the true test. I spoke with a person who freelances with them and they decline some work in favor of handling larger brand assignments with speciality in expansion teams, Bobcats, Raptors, Soul and re-do of Tampa Bay D-Rays (not confirmed)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Michael Doret does phenomenal work with his own custom lettering for all his logos. I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees.

But Doret seems to be stuck in a world of Art Deco. Even though they're obviously modern pieces, almost all his work on the site is reminiscent of the 20's, 30's, and 40's.

My point is that each artist has his specialty.

Dan Simon specializes in cartoon-like mascots and logos, like the Modesto Nuts example you consider a scar on his reputation. But I think his logos show a lot more versatility than Doret's. Especially with the work done for the Golden League, an independent minor league out of California.

I don't think you can necessarily pin down each artist's style in a short sentence, but many of the logos being produced are virtual business cards for their respective artists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, jp, and you as well, brick.

Michael Doret, while the benchmark of present-day typographers, shows little versatility in his work. I find it very predictable at times, because I know it's going to be retro, art deco, or a combination of those. Like jp stated, all designers have a style, and many of his pieces have that strong art deco influence, giving them all a similar "vintage modern" feel.

Dan Simon's portfolio, on the other hand shows me a little more. More talent, maybe not, but more versatility, definitely. Simon clearly draws lots of retro and art deco influence from Doret on most of his promotional pieces and type, but he also has a great talent for creating the cartoon-like identities you mentioned earlier. Cartoon-based identities are a staple of minor league baseball, and he caters to that crowd very well through specialization. It's simple economics; he brands a few minor league teams with solid "minor league-style" logos, then more and more teams use his services as he gains exposure, credibility, and a reputation, eventually developing the frontrunning niche in minor league identities for which he's known today.

Even with this stragety working for him so well, he would not be where he is today were it not for his design talent and versatility. Many of his pieces are not minor league team identities, but promotional designs or orporate designs. In fact, some of my favorite Simon designs are those for Mudville Nine, Doubleday Food and Beverage, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, and the Inn at Quail Creek, which have little in common with his cartoon pieces, of which many are top-notch for the genre.

I agree about SME and Phoenix, though. For every solid, lustrous piece, there are three or four dingy ones. Verlander though, I like, especially because of pieces like the Seattle Seahawks and Houston Texans logos. There are a few duds, but I am a fan of Verlander more than Gameplan, I'd venture to say.

I really don't agree that Joe Bosack is second-tier, though. He is on par with Todd Radom as one of the premier athletic logo artists, in my opinion. They have different styles, obviously, but I love every Joe Bosack piece I see as much as all the Radoms I come across. I also respect Joe for his work with smaller universities, who are notorious for being stingy on visual identity. Thanks to people like him, the smaller institutions of the United States are beginning to look great. These smaller schools now have identities of which they can be proud; identities that are solid enough to build a foundation for an athletic program otherwise torn between the alumni and the prospective students; torn between the traditional and the trendy. Joe does a great job at creating tradition for institutions like Boise State, Bucknell, Emory, La Grange, Norwich, and the other institutions with which he's worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this