Jump to content

Davidson's Logo Design Tutorials: Results / Concepts / Feedback Thread


CDixonDesign

Recommended Posts

My problem is "seeing" things like this. For example, in rentz' first post back on the first page, how do you hop from just the outlines to BAM! Blue and white all extruded and with offset paths and stuff? This, to me, is the most frustrating aspect of making a logo. I can draw very well but I have trouble visualizing what it will look like in its final form.

I even sketch out potential logos and draw them like as if the shapes had strokes on them, by filling them in with darkened pencil. Maybe I'm just not doing things right in Illustrator? I know how to use the Offset Path command but hardly, at that. How do you make logos with lots of strokes and layers with shapes that "follow the shape of the thing inside or outside of it," if you know what I mean?

I'm attempting to revamp the logo I did for OU's College Republicans club, since the one I did two years ago is so godawful. I want it to look modern like a sports logo, and I have a sketch with references and..., eh, I'll shut up and post it when I get further along. Maybe then I can explain my troubles a little better.

A lot of these are really great attempts. Keep up the good work!

OhioBobcatsSquareSig.pngPittSquareSig2.pngOregonStateVintageSquareSig.pngve26tk.png

Images thanks to TornadoGTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My attempt at this.... (pic of me)

photo.jpg

Eh, compared to others I've seen, it just feels like it's missing something. Did I not do something right here? The dimension feels off. It doesn't look as good as I thought it would, which kinda frustrates me...

Feel free to go crazy with it if you have any ideas...

Personally I think the problem is the total opposite. Nothing is missing, in fact you have to much. To much detail and to many colours. What you've got here is a really solid illustration but it looks to much like a "live paint" rendering of a photo to be a successful logo.

Pick two colours and two colours only. That means no cheating with tints! Ditch the black outline and reduce the number of highlights you have on the face and I think you could be onto something really strong... oh yeah and ditch the gradient in the background, go solid colour, nothing or if you want to cut things cleanly then maybe box it up but gradients really dont fit with the style Davidson was trying to pass on imo.

I dont think you need to redraw anything I think if you do a "save as" version 2 of your original file you could keep the illustrative one and then simplify what you've got here to achieve the "Davidson" look really easily.

9erssteve

Appreciate the input.

Agreed on the Gradient, I kinda got lazy there as just a flat black background didn't do it for me either. I think I need to find a way to take the render "out of the box," so-to-speak, that I've kinda put it in. Just don't know to to achieve that. Maybe redraw the suit so it just fades out??? I feel like I'm having writers block here lol

As for colors, I'm torn here. Maybe I could switch out the yellow for some other color but I feel the facial illustration needs the colos to provide some depth (like this one below, posted earlier)

Still picking at this one....

iveyproject.jpg

I love this and tried to emulate a style like this ....not quite happenin for me though. :-(

But again that's very illustrative rather than logo like. You dont need millions of colours to get a good likeness, it can be done with two and negative space (white) really easily.

Willis_clean.png

(I'm not bumping my work up cos I think it's the best, there are others in here that use only two or three colours and are far better, I just dont wanna pull other folks work out of context without asking if it's ok.)

Looking at this now I could possibly have simplified a bit more and pushed it a little further with regards making it more stylised but at the same time I'm pretty proud of the faicial likeness and with the reduced colour palette it's in a more logo like vein than the Ivey image you posted. If that's what you're going for then great it's a cool style but it's certainly not simple enough to be a logo.

9erssteve

I guess that's where Im lost. I see the point yore getting at ...beauty in simplicity. You used 3 colors to achieve greatness ...I really love your work! Like you, I used 3 too ...but 3 shades of one color, brown ...color of my skin. In the Phil Ivey pic, 3 shades of brown were used as well. The same amount of usage of colors have produced varying results ...yours and the Phil Ivey pic are spectacular. Mine? Its aight... hence my dilemma.

Just wondering, how would you work this render?

NYCdog.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My attempt at this.... (pic of me)

photo.jpg

Eh, compared to others I've seen, it just feels like it's missing something. Did I not do something right here? The dimension feels off. It doesn't look as good as I thought it would, which kinda frustrates me...

Feel free to go crazy with it if you have any ideas...

Personally I think the problem is the total opposite. Nothing is missing, in fact you have to much. To much detail and to many colours. What you've got here is a really solid illustration but it looks to much like a "live paint" rendering of a photo to be a successful logo.

Pick two colours and two colours only. That means no cheating with tints! Ditch the black outline and reduce the number of highlights you have on the face and I think you could be onto something really strong... oh yeah and ditch the gradient in the background, go solid colour, nothing or if you want to cut things cleanly then maybe box it up but gradients really dont fit with the style Davidson was trying to pass on imo.

I dont think you need to redraw anything I think if you do a "save as" version 2 of your original file you could keep the illustrative one and then simplify what you've got here to achieve the "Davidson" look really easily.

9erssteve

Appreciate the input.

Agreed on the Gradient, I kinda got lazy there as just a flat black background didn't do it for me either. I think I need to find a way to take the render "out of the box," so-to-speak, that I've kinda put it in. Just don't know to to achieve that. Maybe redraw the suit so it just fades out??? I feel like I'm having writers block here lol

As for colors, I'm torn here. Maybe I could switch out the yellow for some other color but I feel the facial illustration needs the colos to provide some depth (like this one below, posted earlier)

Still picking at this one....

iveyproject.jpg

I love this and tried to emulate a style like this ....not quite happenin for me though. :-(

But again that's very illustrative rather than logo like. You dont need millions of colours to get a good likeness, it can be done with two and negative space (white) really easily.

Willis_clean.png

(I'm not bumping my work up cos I think it's the best, there are others in here that use only two or three colours and are far better, I just dont wanna pull other folks work out of context without asking if it's ok.)

Looking at this now I could possibly have simplified a bit more and pushed it a little further with regards making it more stylised but at the same time I'm pretty proud of the faicial likeness and with the reduced colour palette it's in a more logo like vein than the Ivey image you posted. If that's what you're going for then great it's a cool style but it's certainly not simple enough to be a logo.

9erssteve

I guess that's where Im lost. I see the point yore getting at ...beauty in simplicity. You used 3 colors to achieve greatness ...I really love your work! Like you, I used 3 too ...but 3 shades of one color, brown ...color of my skin. In the Phil Ivey pic, 3 shades of brown were used as well. The same amount of usage of colors have produced varying results ...yours and the Phil Ivey pic are spectacular. Mine? Its aight... hence my dilemma.

Just wondering, how would you work this render?

difference is steve used 3 colours total. you guys used about 8/9 each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I went back and did this per the tutorial...a couple issues though as you can see here:

3blakes.png

I used the right-side pic to trace general features, but the left-side pic is Blake's current face. I tried to combine both to make an accurate likeness. Also, I'm not totally sold on the shading of my vector, so any input on that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I think what could help a lot of people that are having trouble using 2/3 tones to give it the logo quality is desaturating/convert to greyscale their resource, then bumping the contrast and levels to where you can make out shadows/highlights easier.

Not sure if I worded that to where it'll make sense... and it could have been covered in here before, not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I went back and did this per the tutorial...a couple issues though as you can see here:

3blakes.png

I used the right-side pic to trace general features, but the left-side pic is Blake's current face. I tried to combine both to make an accurate likeness. Also, I'm not totally sold on the shading of my vector, so any input on that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Okay this might sound harsh, and I'll explain why in a second, but if i was you I'd bin it and start again.

Why? Combining two different photos when trying to create a portrait almost never works. The way the brain works to recognise faces is just incredible, the way it recognises the positional relationships between one feature and the next is so accurate it's frightening. So when we simplify things down to create logos we are removing information that the brain uses for identification so you need to make sure what is left is very accurate. If you start combining parts from two different images you are messing about with spacial relationships which mean you're render will be less accurate than if you'd worked from one single image.

With regards the shading, I think you need to be more faithful to what's actually there. Right now it seems you're drawing what you "know" is there rather than what is actually there. I mean you've drawn a shape for the eyelashes but completely ignored the shadow at the bridge of the nose that forms the eye socket, when in the photo you cant see the eyelashes very well at all.

I see no reason why you'd need to work from two separate pictures, there are bound to be plenty of good shots out there of him. Find one that is pretty high contrast and work from it, keep working in black and white only thats the right way to go, and render what's there pretty accurately first, then save that to a different layer and work over it to combine and simplify that render, and repeat as necessary. But in the first instance stay true to what's there draw what you SEE not what you know and you'll be fine.

9erssteve

9ersstevesig.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you guys make these? Like how do you remove the real picture,and draw it,and other stuff like that. Sorry I've never made a logo or cartoon face before.I'm trying to use this to help me make a logo for a contest.

AM-JKLUm-gD6dFoY5MvQGgjXb2rzP7kMTHmGf8UsR6KOCYQnHU-0HSFi-zjXHepGDckUAHcduu3pVgvwxe06RKDW2y2Z2BmhEOe8OP-WSY1XqLT9KsQ0ZP75J9loQuNrvLW208pEWCg9jq8aNx-zFneH9aPQQA=w800-h112-no?authuser=0

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 years later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.