Jump to content

2012 MLB sRGB-Optimized Graphics


TruColor

Recommended Posts

As I've mentioned in at least one other thread, I have gone through and done my color-correction thing on all of the official 2012 MLB graphics, and I am going to present them team-by-team. I am starting with the teams that are NOT implementing any changes for the 2012 season; as some of the new graphics are unveiled, I will create a new post for them. So, I thought I'd just create a thread here that points back to my blog.

First two teams:

St. Louis Cardinals

Tampa Bay Rays

As always, clicking on the graphic in the blog opens up a 750px version of the graphic...and also as always, sportslogos.net is free to use any of these versions.

Oh - and as a shameless plug, some of you might want to note this blog post I put up today:

Meanwhile, on eBay...

Detroit Tigers are next up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Great work on the graphics so far! I'll be tuning in everyday for new posts. Can't wait to see the rest of the teams.

As for the eBay listing, looks really cool, but I'd be more interested in the 2012 version if it's for sale. ;)

I'm not sure if they actually produce a printed guide anymore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments from the Padres thread:

The good:

  • New road script.
  • Alt logo with original friar.
  • Patch/stadium logo.
  • The fact that, despite the color scheme, this doesn't look too much like the Yankees or Tigers.
  • No more laundry detergent primary logo or bow-tie road script.
  • The navy alternate uniform is nice (though it would be nicer if the Yankees or Tigers had it instead).

The bad:

  • Bland color scheme.
  • Circle primary logo.
  • Is that a sand outline around the "Padres" script on the home? The fact that I can't really tell isn't good. There's no sand anywhere else in the design package so it seems odd.
  • No brown. No orange. No yellow.

The ugly:

  • The "Padres" script left over from the 2004-2011 look. It was bad then, now it's bad and out of place.

Overall, definitely an improvement over the 2004-2011 look. Still not great though. The Tony Gwynn-era navy & orange design was better. Brown would be great if it was done right. This is not great. It's not atrocious though, like the 2004-2011 look was.

P.S. I'm probably gonna bid on that 1999 style guide :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work! But isn't the Friar the home sleeve emblem?

I noticed that in the photos from the unveiling...I wonder if they made some changes since I got the files a few weeks ago.

It does look like the Friar emblem is added on haphazardly.

Ad2aWAgCAAAdWY-.jpg

Well it was a late addition based on what was in the original kits they released. It was originally supposed to be the stadium logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate the light blue in the Dodgers' official graphics. It's not even close to Dodger Blue.

Blame designers who use old Pantone swatch libraries in Illustrator. The newer ones are much closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate the light blue in the Dodgers' official graphics. It's not even close to Dodger Blue.

Blame designers who use old Pantone swatch libraries in Illustrator. The newer ones are much closer.

Oh, I do. :P It just leads to nonsense like this.

I created an animated version to show the changes, and thought it deserved its own thread.

Dodgers_CapLogo2012-2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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