nyjet88 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I am doing a logo for a construction company. The name is Atlantic Shore...they did not want any waves...orThanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjet88 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 or this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDX Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Personally prefer the 2nd one, though something isn't quite right about it, not sure what though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarperK Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 yeah the 2nd one def looks better...i think the only thing off is the professional look of everything except the hammer...maybe you could redesign the hammer add some more detail and make the lines smoother (hats the best way i can describe it) ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patsfan99 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 not totally sure how to put it into words, but the first thing I'd do it try to make the whole thing tighter, more concise, less empty space. that's the main issue with the first one, and why the second (of the three) is stronger... you've eliminated the lower half of the circle and made it more effective... why not eliminate the top half too? or shrink it down so it frames the text, whereas now it dwarfs it. i agree, the hammer could use some further clarification... try introducing a light source and some shadows... not gradients, but darker areas... you've got a start, now keep hammering away at it ...(sorry, couldn't resist the pun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 None of them look very professional. They look as if all the elements were layered on top of some shape wherever they fit instead of really integrating the hammer, the name, and the tagline. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie_delini Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 you may want to start fresh - just because it's a contracting company doesn't mean it has to have a hammer in it. Try playing with the letter "A" and stylizing it - maybe it could be a stronger, tighter look, maybe not. I agree with tempest's comments 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjet88 Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 Thank you for the advice. I think I was trying to overdo it. I am going to start fresh and keep you updated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjet88 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 How about something like this? I am having huge trouble with this logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclopsis Joe Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Great jumpin jesus. Major improvement. I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiasco! Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 not really....that font takes away from anything good in the design. type shouldn't be the last thing chosen with building a logo. it's the part that people read and know who you are. that font is just plain ugly. couple that with the poor use of italics, and you have some major type follies in that logo. should there be separation between "residential & commerical" and "fully insured"? i assume they are 2 separate points, but they read as one.also, i find it strange that the hammer in the original is so remedial, while the rendering of the building in the second is so stylized. is the hammer just clip art? is the building clip art? is it appropriated from some other work? it just seems odd to me. LinkedIn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjet88 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 not really....that font takes away from anything good in the design. type shouldn't be the last thing chosen with building a logo. it's the part that people read and know who you are. that font is just plain ugly. couple that with the poor use of italics, and you have some major type follies in that logo. should there be separation between "residential & commerical" and "fully insured"? i assume they are 2 separate points, but they read as one.also, i find it strange that the hammer in the original is so remedial, while the rendering of the building in the second is so stylized. is the hammer just clip art? is the building clip art? is it appropriated from some other work? it just seems odd to me.I agree about the font. Do you have any suggestions of what to use?The hammer wasn't clip art. It was made in Illustrator as well as this building.Do you reccomend any good fonts?Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
averyj Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Try these:http://www.dafont.com/theme.php?cat=117&am...&classt=pop You know, I rarely visit ccslsc anymore. I really should fix that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclopsis Joe Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 not really....that font takes away from anything good in the design. type shouldn't be the last thing chosen with building a logo. it's the part that people read and know who you are. that font is just plain ugly. couple that with the poor use of italics, and you have some major type follies in that logo. should there be separation between "residential & commerical" and "fully insured"? i assume they are 2 separate points, but they read as one.also, i find it strange that the hammer in the original is so remedial, while the rendering of the building in the second is so stylized. is the hammer just clip art? is the building clip art? is it appropriated from some other work? it just seems odd to me.*crosses arms* I liked the font... I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesi427 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 None of them look very professional. They look as if all the elements were layered on top of some shape wherever they fit instead of really integrating the hammer, the name, and the tagline.Yeah but think of what you see on the side of a majority of construction trucks.To the the designer: I think this is perfect! FANTASY SPORTS: UBA (NBA): New York Scrapers | CL (MLB): St Pete Beach Clippers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mings Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 None of them look very professional. They look as if all the elements were layered on top of some shape wherever they fit instead of really integrating the hammer, the name, and the tagline.Yeah but think of what you see on the side of a majority of construction trucks.To the the designer: I think this is perfect!But................do you want to look like everyone else or do you want to stand out?The correct answer is pretty obvious on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 None of them look very professional. They look as if all the elements were layered on top of some shape wherever they fit instead of really integrating the hammer, the name, and the tagline.Yeah but think of what you see on the side of a majority of construction trucks.To the the designer: I think this is perfect!But................do you want to look like everyone else or do you want to stand out?The correct answer is pretty obvious on that one.Thanks. That one was a laugher, Nesi. Just because the majority of construction logos suck doesn't mean they all should. I think 'perfect' implies that the logo is good. I'm not sold on this logo being perfect, or good. Just because the majority of small/medium business logos suck shouldn't give artists a reason or give them extra motivation to turn out garbage that's as bad if not worse than what exists already. As an artist or designer, your job is to make the world better looking, easier on the eyes, no? Telling him him logo is perfect doesn't help him. It's counterproductive to say the least.nyjet: The Trade Gothic Bold that you used in the original is a good starting point. It's one of the all-time great fonts of the modern era. You see all over the place. What about using a hammer silhouette as the 'T' in 'Atlantic' and just using a wordmark? I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjet88 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 None of them look very professional. They look as if all the elements were layered on top of some shape wherever they fit instead of really integrating the hammer, the name, and the tagline.Yeah but think of what you see on the side of a majority of construction trucks.To the the designer: I think this is perfect!But................do you want to look like everyone else or do you want to stand out?The correct answer is pretty obvious on that one.Thanks. That one was a laugher, Nesi. Just because the majority of construction logos suck doesn't mean they all should. I think 'perfect' implies that the logo is good. I'm not sold on this logo being perfect, or good. Just because the majority of small/medium business logos suck shouldn't give artists a reason or give them extra motivation to turn out garbage that's as bad if not worse than what exists already. As an artist or designer, your job is to make the world better looking, easier on the eyes, no? Telling him him logo is perfect doesn't help him. It's counterproductive to say the least.nyjet: The Trade Gothic Bold that you used in the original is a good starting point. It's one of the all-time great fonts of the modern era. You see all over the place. What about using a hammer silhouette as the 'T' in 'Atlantic' and just using a wordmark?Tempest:Thank you for the honesty. I am starting out in this business and do have a good eye for it. Even myself, I did not like the logos. I made it but did not like it. When I make something and like it, I know it's good. But for some reason I am having major problems with this one. I will definitely try the wordmark idea...didn't even think of that. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee. Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 not really....that font takes away from anything good in the design. type shouldn't be the last thing chosen with building a logo. it's the part that people read and know who you are. that font is just plain ugly. couple that with the poor use of italics, and you have some major type follies in that logo. should there be separation between "residential & commerical" and "fully insured"? i assume they are 2 separate points, but they read as one.also, i find it strange that the hammer in the original is so remedial, while the rendering of the building in the second is so stylized. is the hammer just clip art? is the building clip art? is it appropriated from some other work? it just seems odd to me.*crosses arms* I liked the font...We all know what you like.What about using the rough framework of a house, the 2x4s and roof trussing, as an "A", and building from there? Welcome to DrunjFlix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacker12 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I would make the bottom half of the building a little bit darker. However, I do like the gradient effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.