Chicago Blackhawks

[chickenfish13]

OK, so Chestnutz Vikings logo inspired me to do something like hes done. He took a nice idea, and made it really well designed, and much better imo.

I know a lot of people have done this, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

I chose the blackhawks just because I feel that its more illustration right now, plus it was the only logo I could find I thought I could update

I don't have too much to say about it, as you can see for yourself instead of me explaining what I did. I'm only posting it to make it better, so say what you want.

[Quillz]

I think you oversimplified it a bit too much. It has almost no facial definition now.

[Davidson]

eyebrows?

[Ted Cunningham]

eyebrows?

Over rated.

[chickenfish13]

Yeah, who needs eyebrows I guess I went a bit ahead of myself their, heres an update, with secondary.

[9erssteve]

Okay the eyebrow is a good addition it really needed that, but what's the little curve between his mouth and nose? It's in the wrong position to be a nostril and it's the wrong shape to indicate his cheek, it's kinda falling between the two right now.

And I'm sorry but those have to be some of the least feathery feathers I've ever seen. I'm not gonna say what I thought they looked like at first glance for two reasons, 1 for fear of being flamed and 2 having only been issued with the standard one I'm not entirely sure what the collective noun for a whole group of them is. Is it like sheep and it remains the same or do you use the same principle as glass and you add es to the end? Who knows but I'll leave you to work out what I'm rambling on about suffice as to say they need some work.

9erssteve

[chickenfish13]

Thanks 9erssteve, I know it was quick but heres an update:

[CDixonDesign]

I'll just leave it at thank you for the feather update...

Great update, my only suggestion is to work on the shading of the eye, moving the front to the back, and simplifying it a bit...

[Ryoma]

The C logo you made reminds me a LOT of the Calgary Flames primary. Part of that might be the colors, but the C looks pretty similar IMO. I'm not a fan of the update in general, although I applaud you for trying something new. Maybe make the eye a bit bigger? The pupil of the Indian's eye blends in with the edge of the eye, so you could stand to round it out a bit if that makes any sense.

[sergeimakarenkov44]

I agree that you've oversimplified. The indian looks more Asian like this. I kind of like the "C" idea but I feel like the feathers impede too much

[Stormo]

I like the different coloured feathers in the original logo. I gotta think this guy could kill more than just red birds.

[chickenfish13]

Bringing this back up, any more critiques?

[johnnygriswold]

I think the face needs a little more definition. As for the feathers, I liked your original, with the white tips, but you REALLY need to alter the shape of the white ends of the feathers so they don't look like, you know, wang tips. Making them all red seems to have simplified things even further. I think the primary is just a few adjustments away to being a good logo.

[CJworks]

This can't be finished. You're missing defining elements in the face here, cfish. The reason their current logo has stood so long is because of its history and perfection, and in this one you dulled it down abit. Their current Blackhawk looks older but wiser, and eliminating the facial creases and folds near the mouth, nose and eyes makes him look like a 12 year old, which defeats the purpose.

Some things I do like, however, is that fact that you eliminated it down to three colors, definately a plus. I like the fact that you make the outline of the C the same color as the face, both keeping the same general hue as their current yellow yet staying slightly in tact with the skin color of a native.

[logodawg]

I agree it's oversimplified right now. The biggest thing that bugs me and I don't think it's been mentioned is the smile on his face. I just don't think he should be smiling. The feathers in the latest update are a vast improvement though.

[penguin20]

nice update but i agree that the face shouldn't have a smile, more of a scowl if you know what i mean. also to fix some of the over simplification problem i think there should be some definition on the cheek, maybe at the top of the cheek bone kind of thing. nice work here, keep it up.

[chickenfish13]

Here's an update, let me know where it should go from here:

[CJworks]

It's starting to look more like their current, and I dunno if that's a path you want to take right now. I'd maybe give it its own distinct look, try making the face angrier instead of smiling, try different perspectives on the face, you know? What you have right now is nice, but I'm not too sure it'd be more of an update rather than a simplification.

[chickenfish13]

Thats kind of what I wanted to accomplish from the start Sorry if that wasn't too clear.

[rentz]

No, you have to keep the smile. It's one of the things that gives the logo character and not a cartoony or stereotypical "FIERCE INDIAN WARRIOR" look.

It's looking better, just keep working on defining the facial characteristics more. Move the cheekbone shadow up some, and move the paint closer to the nose on the cheek.