Bear Logo

[chickenfish13]

Hey Guys.

I'm fairly certain I'm done with the Blackhawks logo., but if anyone wants to comment on it, I'll try and do my best with your c and c.

Heres a logo thats been in the works for a bit. Thanks to Elliott for his personal c and c, hes helped me develop it a fair bit.

So, pretty much its just a tiger logo. Its just generic right now, I might end up giving it a city or something like that.

Let me know what I can to do improve this, I'd like it to progress, and maybe be a helpful thread where people can see logo progression- I like those threads and i know they help me and im sure others.

So, thanks for looking, and c and c please.

[CJworks]

Ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again:

When you're doing an animal logo, you NEED to do some research. I cannot stress this enough. The only way this would look like a tiger is if you know what a tiger looks like. I'm not talking generally here, I mean literally. Give this logo defining features. Think to yourself.: does this look like a tiger? If not how can I make this look like one?

IMHO, look up actual photos and maybe even some logos of this animal. Note the definining features, the features that makes a Tiger look like a Tiger (nose shape, head shape, eye shape, whisher position, bridge of nose, etc. The list goes on forever).

That's just my opinion. I've learned this from experience. If you want something to look like the animal you're depicting, you need to know what the animal looks like.

[infrared41]

Give him a break. It looks a little bit like a Tiger.

[Blitz]

Honestly, I can see it... the issue comes from the snout being to "dog like" & the eyes are set too high & just look infeminate. The bottom half of the logo is very well done - work up from there... With a picture of a tiger in hand.

Oh, and tigers have stripes!!!

[Spammy]

Cfish, its close, but the eyes are looking a little "girly" right now, lower the face and add some details and see what you have from there.

[goforbroke]

i agree look at a picture or at least some other tiger logos for reference. There isn't enough white in the nose, ear , and cheek area, and the forehead should be much higher. The whole face I think should be rounder and the ears shouldn't be so pointy.

and if its roaring, then the bottom jaw should be well below the cheeks...

[johnnygriswold]

Chickenfish, I'll reiterate what I said about this logo in another forum, which is also something that Blitz brings up here. The bottom half of the logo is very well done. The top half and the bottom look like two completely different logos. One more polished (bottom) and one needing a lot of refinement (top).

C jay Z makes a very good point. Research, research, research. I've spent hours and sometimes days just looking for the right reference photos. If something is not readily available for me to look at, at the angle I want it, then a lot of time needs to be spend finding something that will help with the sketch.

Also, don't be afraid to trace.

[9erssteve]

Ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again:

When you're doing an animal logo, you NEED to do some research. I cannot stress this enough. The only way this would look like a tiger is if you know what a tiger looks like. I'm not talking generally here, I mean literally. Give this logo defining features. Think to yourself.: does this look like a tiger? If not how can I make this look like one?

IMHO, look up actual photos and maybe even some logos of this animal. Note the definining features, the features that makes a Tiger look like a Tiger (nose shape, head shape, eye shape, whisher position, bridge of nose, etc. The list goes on forever).

That's just my opinion. I've learned this from experience. If you want something to look like the animal you're depicting, you need to know what the animal looks like.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

I'll second EVERYTHING said in the above quote and more. I've got a degree in graphic design and I dont mention it to laud it over anyone but to tell people the most important thing I learnt whilst gaining it was the IMPORTANCE of research. It was literally drummed into you everyday that the only way your work was going to be the best it could be was by doing research. In an example like this that would involve finding high quality images of Tigers, then UNDERSTANDING what it is that makes a Tiger different from other big cats, what makes it unique and what its most identifiable features are, so you can distill them down and simplify them to their purest forms. It would also involve finding every possible tiger logo you could find from ALL areas of design to see what works and what doesn't. There's no point making the same mistakes other designers have made before you if you can possibly avoid them.

I think a lot of people shy away from research for two reasons. First it seems like a lot of work. People say "I'm just doing this for fun" and that's fine, but surely you also do it because you'd like to be GOOD at it too? Yes to some degree research can be a fair amount of work but ask yourself this, what's really more work... doing something you think looks like a Tiger (or anything else not single anyone out here) only to then have to redo it twenty times when people point out obvious flaws in it and never really achieving something great or spending a bit of time and producing a far more accurate first attempt that is more likely to lead to a polished outcome?

Secondly people seem to think looking at photos is cheating. NEWSFLASH, research IS NOT CHEATING! Anyone here heard of Leonardo Da Vinci by any chance? How about his statue of David? You do realise Da Vinci dissected bodies in order to fully research and understand the make up of the human body before he carved that statue? Yet no one to my knowledge called him a cheat for doing it! No the word genius gets banded about more than anything else and the statue of David is considered one of the finest every carved. Do you think if he's carved what he "thought" a person looked like it would have been as well received? NO neither do I.

At the end of the day it's up to the individuals involved, no one can make anyone do research before producing a logo and asking for feedback, but if people are willing to put the time and effort into producing something and are then willing to open themselves up to criticism of their work surely they owe it to THEMSELVES to make sure that the work they put out there to be judged is the BEST THEY CAN ACHIEVE?

Would anyone here, enter the Olympics, take up Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball or try to join in in any of the other sports we all design logos for in here without first doing some training? I'd hope not because first off you'd get laughed out the park, rink or court and secondly you'd risk serious injury. Design is different you dont risk injury (except to your pride) but the principle is the same if you want to succeed you need to be prepared and RESEARCH is to design what TRAINING is to sport. Do it, do enough of it and do it well and you WILL IMPROVE DRASTICALLY, dont and you're pretty much wasting your time.

Sorry if this seems over the top and directed at the original poster in this thread it's not only directed there, consider this a cover all response to this and three other concepts all on the front page which would greatly benefit from learning the lesson I learned in college, research IS your friend and WILL make you better, so do it you WONT REGRET IT, I promise.

9erssteve

[chickenfish13]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

I honestly did do some research, I didn't just draw what I thought looked like a tiger... it wouldve been a lot worse if I'd done that

I think I might hold off on updating this until I research, and maybe until Davidson does his Animal tutorial, which I think would help me a lot with this.

So, thanks again. Keep giving me c and c if you want.

[andrewharrington]

Ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again:

When you're doing an animal logo, you NEED to do some research. I cannot stress this enough. The only way this would look like a tiger is if you know what a tiger looks like. I'm not talking generally here, I mean literally. Give this logo defining features. Think to yourself.: does this look like a tiger? If not how can I make this look like one?

IMHO, look up actual photos and maybe even some logos of this animal. Note the definining features, the features that makes a Tiger look like a Tiger (nose shape, head shape, eye shape, whisher position, bridge of nose, etc. The list goes on forever).

That's just my opinion. I've learned this from experience. If you want something to look like the animal you're depicting, you need to know what the animal looks like.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

I'll second EVERYTHING said in the above quote and more. I've got a degree in graphic design and I dont mention it to laud it over anyone but to tell people the most important thing I learnt whilst gaining it was the IMPORTANCE of research. It was literally drummed into you everyday that the only way your work was going to be the best it could be was by doing research. In an example like this that would involve finding high quality images of Tigers, then UNDERSTANDING what it is that makes a Tiger different from other big cats, what makes it unique and what its most identifiable features are, so you can distill them down and simplify them to their purest forms. It would also involve finding every possible tiger logo you could find from ALL areas of design to see what works and what doesn't. There's no point making the same mistakes other designers have made before you if you can possibly avoid them.

I think a lot of people shy away from research for two reasons. First it seems like a lot of work. People say "I'm just doing this for fun" and that's fine, but surely you also do it because you'd like to be GOOD at it too? Yes to some degree research can be a fair amount of work but ask yourself this, what's really more work... doing something you think looks like a Tiger (or anything else not single anyone out here) only to then have to redo it twenty times when people point out obvious flaws in it and never really achieving something great or spending a bit of time and producing a far more accurate first attempt that is more likely to lead to a polished outcome?

Secondly people seem to think looking at photos is cheating. NEWSFLASH, research IS NOT CHEATING! Anyone here heard of Leonardo Da Vinci by any chance? How about his statue of David? You do realise Da Vinci dissected bodies in order to fully research and understand the make up of the human body before he carved that statue? Yet no one to my knowledge called him a cheat for doing it! No the word genius gets banded about more than anything else and the statue of David is considered one of the finest every carved. Do you think if he's carved what he "thought" a person looked like it would have been as well received? NO neither do I.

At the end of the day it's up to the individuals involved, no one can make anyone do research before producing a logo and asking for feedback, but if people are willing to put the time and effort into producing something and are then willing to open themselves up to criticism of their work surely they owe it to THEMSELVES to make sure that the work they put out there to be judged is the BEST THEY CAN ACHIEVE?

Would anyone here, enter the Olympics, take up Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball or try to join in in any of the other sports we all design logos for in here without first doing some training? I'd hope not because first off you'd get laughed out the park, rink or court and secondly you'd risk serious injury. Design is different you dont risk injury (except to your pride) but the principle is the same if you want to succeed you need to be prepared and RESEARCH is to design what TRAINING is to sport. Do it, do enough of it and do it well and you WILL IMPROVE DRASTICALLY, dont and you're pretty much wasting your time.

Sorry if this seems over the top and directed at the original poster in this thread it's not only directed there, consider this a cover all response to this and three other concepts all on the front page which would greatly benefit from learning the lesson I learned in college, research IS your friend and WILL make you better, so do it you WONT REGRET IT, I promise.

9erssteve

Good message, but I find it sort of ironic that a post outlining the importance of quality research includes such a big gaffe; one that could have been easily avoided with a little research.

The Statue of David was created by Michelangelo, not Da Vinci.

[goforbroke]

Ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again:

When you're doing an animal logo, you NEED to do some research. I cannot stress this enough. The only way this would look like a tiger is if you know what a tiger looks like. I'm not talking generally here, I mean literally. Give this logo defining features. Think to yourself.: does this look like a tiger? If not how can I make this look like one?

IMHO, look up actual photos and maybe even some logos of this animal. Note the definining features, the features that makes a Tiger look like a Tiger (nose shape, head shape, eye shape, whisher position, bridge of nose, etc. The list goes on forever).

That's just my opinion. I've learned this from experience. If you want something to look like the animal you're depicting, you need to know what the animal looks like.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

I'll second EVERYTHING said in the above quote and more. I've got a degree in graphic design and I dont mention it to laud it over anyone but to tell people the most important thing I learnt whilst gaining it was the IMPORTANCE of research. It was literally drummed into you everyday that the only way your work was going to be the best it could be was by doing research. In an example like this that would involve finding high quality images of Tigers, then UNDERSTANDING what it is that makes a Tiger different from other big cats, what makes it unique and what its most identifiable features are, so you can distill them down and simplify them to their purest forms. It would also involve finding every possible tiger logo you could find from ALL areas of design to see what works and what doesn't. There's no point making the same mistakes other designers have made before you if you can possibly avoid them.

I think a lot of people shy away from research for two reasons. First it seems like a lot of work. People say "I'm just doing this for fun" and that's fine, but surely you also do it because you'd like to be GOOD at it too? Yes to some degree research can be a fair amount of work but ask yourself this, what's really more work... doing something you think looks like a Tiger (or anything else not single anyone out here) only to then have to redo it twenty times when people point out obvious flaws in it and never really achieving something great or spending a bit of time and producing a far more accurate first attempt that is more likely to lead to a polished outcome?

Secondly people seem to think looking at photos is cheating. NEWSFLASH, research IS NOT CHEATING! Anyone here heard of Leonardo Da Vinci by any chance? How about his statue of David? You do realise Da Vinci dissected bodies in order to fully research and understand the make up of the human body before he carved that statue? Yet no one to my knowledge called him a cheat for doing it! No the word genius gets banded about more than anything else and the statue of David is considered one of the finest every carved. Do you think if he's carved what he "thought" a person looked like it would have been as well received? NO neither do I.

At the end of the day it's up to the individuals involved, no one can make anyone do research before producing a logo and asking for feedback, but if people are willing to put the time and effort into producing something and are then willing to open themselves up to criticism of their work surely they owe it to THEMSELVES to make sure that the work they put out there to be judged is the BEST THEY CAN ACHIEVE?

Would anyone here, enter the Olympics, take up Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball or try to join in in any of the other sports we all design logos for in here without first doing some training? I'd hope not because first off you'd get laughed out the park, rink or court and secondly you'd risk serious injury. Design is different you dont risk injury (except to your pride) but the principle is the same if you want to succeed you need to be prepared and RESEARCH is to design what TRAINING is to sport. Do it, do enough of it and do it well and you WILL IMPROVE DRASTICALLY, dont and you're pretty much wasting your time.

Sorry if this seems over the top and directed at the original poster in this thread it's not only directed there, consider this a cover all response to this and three other concepts all on the front page which would greatly benefit from learning the lesson I learned in college, research IS your friend and WILL make you better, so do it you WONT REGRET IT, I promise.

9erssteve

I agree with all of this except one thing... Michelangelo carved David, not Da Vinci.

[9erssteve]

I agree with all of this except one thing... Michelangelo carved David, not Da Vinci.

D'oh! I should have googled pre rant! Haha, what can I say I studied graphics not the classics. Theory stands true though, the more you research the better your work will be... in an ironic way my error proves it, had I done MY research my post would have been better!

Dont make the same mistake I did kids, do your research!

9erssteve

[chickenfish13]

OK, so its been awhile, but i pretty much completely revamped this since then, and wanted to show you guys. I really wanted it to be a tiger, but along the way it kind of looked like a bear to me. So, which does it better represent, bear or tiger? Also, is it any good?

[jaha32]

At first glance I would say bear. the orange color on the left one kind of makes it confusing and maybe tricks the viewer into thinking tiger, but when I look at the right/tan colored one, I see more of a bear.

the reasons it looks like a bear and not a tiger are these:

1-the snout is too thin. the face is too fat. look at that picture posted by goforbroke. the tigers snout takes up most of its front face. on yours here, it has huge cheeks to each side which tigers dont have.

2- the eyes are too close together. if you want it to be a tiger make the eyes farther apart.

I think it would be easier to make a few changes and make this a bear, rather than make more changes to get it to be a tiger. Either way, even if its a bear, the overall head's shape should be thinner.

I know you'll get it right when it's all said and done. You always seem like a hard worker.

But the shading and everything else is very well done!

[MC2]

It looks like a tiger....

....that was overfed at the zoo.

[chickenfish13]

I guess I just cant get it to look like a tiger The snout was definitely the part I was having the most trouble with.

I think I may try and change it to be a bear, just because I like the green/gold color scheme better, and like Jaha mentioned it does look more like one.

Thanks for the bit about coming off as a hard worker, thats always good to hear.

And yeah it is a little fat i guess haha

[chickenfish13]

Heres a little update, more bear like?

[DeFrank]

get the teeth to point in a little. and just a little less wide cheeks.

[JaxNoles]

are bears fangs that much bigger than the rest of their teeth? The mouth screams tiger to me.

[GFB]

Here's the main reason why your tiger/man/bear/pig doesn't look like what it is supposed to.

Tiger cheeks have tuffs of fur that go out to a point, resulting in a <O> shaped head. See examples:

Bears, on the other hand, have very round heads. Case in point:

So you have tiger features with a bear head shape. Or you could call it a bearcat and people would get it.

Also, bears have much narrower and longer snouts, tigers snouts are wider and shorter, and they also have bigger fangs and mouths.