Davidson Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 nice mate. like the first one but i find the grey in the 'a' a bit distracting.there aare a couple of things that look a little awkward to me.i think it would sit better if the box edge ran parralel to one side of the Aand if the radius of the inside of the c met the edge exactly.made a little diagram.otherwise its a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 Once you point that out, I see that it would look so much better. I already did the bottom of the C in my latest one, and I will alter the A now.The reason why I changed the middle of the A to gray because I found that if it was just red, that it was a little bland. And I also have gray in the wordmark, and thought it would be unbalanced if the colour gray didn't exist in the logo as well. Would you think it would look better if it was monotone?Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 Alright, I changed the A to be parallel with the edge. See how this looks.And I also came up with another idea. I think this is easily recognizable and I like that its symmetrical.Is it better? Or worse?C&C please! Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzzaf Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I like the new one you've done. As you said, its symmetrical and it looks bold too. The whole design could be improved by decompressing the font you've used on the wordmark to closer match the logo. I'd also shorten it to AC Graphic Communication as the S seems superlative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 Okay, I threw up a few fonts that might match better, tell me what you think. At first glance I think the second one looks best.Also, does the logo look better with the thin stroke or the thick stroke?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie_delini Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 thin stroke looks better - and the best typeface you went with to compliment is interstate, but I feel something like Trade Gothic might be more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 thin stroke looks better - and the best typeface you went with to compliment is interstate, but I feel something like Trade Gothic might be more appropriate.Well, I don't have many commercial fonts, could you suggest a freeware font that is somewhat similar to Trade Gothic? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 26, 2007 Author Share Posted May 26, 2007 Sorry for double posting, but I just made a little tweak... a simple white stroke separating the red and gray.Better or worse? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzzaf Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Version one looks great, the outlines on version 2 would be hard to see if you made the logo smaller. I agree with you that the second new font works best with the logo but I don't mind the first one either. You've taken a new direction with this logo and I really like it. Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted May 26, 2007 Author Share Posted May 26, 2007 Okay, thanks alot. I also tried a new wordmark: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VC// Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 I like the current one, its simple, clean and hey if you like it, use it. LETS GO PENGUINS! 5x Stanley Cup Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 the square was the best. 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...
fiasco! Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Agreed with tempest on this one. The square seems to say that you are a well rounded designer, with expertise in more than one type of design. The new mark screams sports or construction to me. It says that you are interested in bold, in your face design, and might not be able to execute the more subtle aspects. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the square logo is more unisex, while the new one seems to be targeted toward males. LinkedIn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelayedPenalty Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Agreed with tempest on this one. The square seems to say that you are a well rounded designer, with expertise in more than one type of design. The new mark screams sports or construction to me. It says that you are interested in bold, in your face design, and might not be able to execute the more subtle aspects. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the square logo is more unisex, while the new one seems to be targeted toward males.ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm 50/50 on this... looks like the comments are too. I get what tempest and joel are getting at.Personally, I feel that the square one looks a bit more professional, but I like the simplicity of the second one.Creating a logo is A LOT tougher than I thought... and I thought it was hard to begin with. Perhaps I should try to get more advice and comments. Not that the comments here aren't any good, because I take every piece of advice and recommendation into consideration, except maybe the more the better, or the easier a decision could be made.Thanks for the comments everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MVP Posted June 7, 2007 Author Share Posted June 7, 2007 I was fooling around with the two concepts, hoping there was a way to incorporate both ideas, as long as it wasn't too busy and complex. So, I came up with this:Did I ruin it? Comments please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzzaf Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I like it. Although the second one looks a little ungainly with the wordmark I think the logo itself has real potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidson Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 graphic communication is such a wanky phrase. graphic design is better.its not a clever logo at teh moment mate. its another nothing logo. be a bit more adventurous,its the logo of a 60 year old designer.i dont mean to be harsh but it does come across in the other logos you produced that you arentparticularly au fait with a lot of the basic typographic and design conventions. it seems like youare trying to produce a logo like you see all the time. dont bother.you are obviously a creative bloke, but you arent a pro, so come up with something original and interestingbecause you dont have to create soemthing stuffy and non threatening so people will buy your work.youre well capable of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
averyj Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I was fooling around with the two concepts, hoping there was a way to incorporate both ideas, as long as it wasn't too busy and complex. So, I came up with this:Did I ruin it? Comments please!I see the "A", where is the "C"? You know, I rarely visit ccslsc anymore. I really should fix that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.