rcb05 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I kinda hate tweaking a logo that's less than 24 hours old, but a couple things about it really bugged me. Mainly the unnecessary gray on the jaw/neck (adding a third color for no real reason), but also how the line broke at the cougar's chin. Just seemed out of place with the rest of the logo. Hence, my revised version below.CURRENT:REVISION: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidson Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Look, I understand you have your own preferences and things that irritate you. But look at this from my perpective and you'll get an idea of why I find that a little adobe is a dangerous thing. Look at the shape of the negative space below the chin and neck on 'your' design. And if you can't see it, and it doesn't bug you, then...Secondly, the grey (that ties the cougar into the wider UH brand) gives some relief to the lower jaw as well as making the inside jaw distinct from the negative space.I'm not saying there aren't logos that don't stand up to scrutiny and couldn't be improved, but the designer of this mark doesn't add colours unnecessarily and I think your 'amends' somewhat disrupt some of the more refined aspects of the design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzzaf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 The nose and upper jaw (near the teeth) need more attention than what you changed. Too much white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancebridwell Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I'd have to agree with Davidson in saying that the grey helps define the jaw from the negative space. I think the idea was there, but it looks unfinished to me. I don't think, because thinking implies uncertainty. Therefore, I KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leggman01 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 your update is a definite downgrade.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blase Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Yeah sorry, I prefer the original. The changes remove all depth and makes it look too flat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcb05 Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Looks like it's time for me to admit defeat on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkatron101 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 The weird thing for me is by closing up the chin, it feels like you now HAVE to incorporate another color (gray) for the background to make it stand out. Which defeats the purpose you were trying to achieve.I can understand why you have issues with the original logo. It would be nice to incorporate the gray a little more to give it some balance. With that said, their overall branding needs to be more consistent. I see a lot of black, gray and two-toned red on their sites, but very little navy.rcb05, would you mind trying a version that eliminates the navy, and uses both reds and gray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDesign Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Let me save you the time and just say that eliminating the navy would be a colossal mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm in complete disagreement with you guys. I prefer the tweaked version much better.The gray is completely unnecessary, especially if this logo is used in print or other B&W media. Hell, they might as well add some flywire and BFBS if Houston wants a really hip logo. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creativelysain Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well the gray ties in the other marks. You can't look at this from only one perspective, there's more to this branding than just this logo mark. I think Joe's original is gorgeous as is. Follow me on twitter @jrsainGo Heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm in complete disagreement with you guys. I prefer the tweaked version much better.The gray is completely unnecessary, especially if this logo is used in print or other B&W media. Hell, they might as well add some flywire and BFBS if Houston wants a really hip logo.'black and white'? 'hip'? This is a sports team logo not a brown leather dubbing tin.These young folks and their rock, role and colour logos, hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm in complete disagreement with you guys. I prefer the tweaked version much better.The gray is completely unnecessary, especially if this logo is used in print or other B&W media. Hell, they might as well add some flywire and BFBS if Houston wants a really hip logo.I don't mind the version posted here, but then again, I like the real version as well. They both work, but in different ways, and if we're really going to pick the nits (speaking to Fraser's point), the negative space below the neck is pretty similar on both versions. The ovular shape beneath the neck is still present in the real version. I suppose you could look at the way the negative space is possibly more 'pinched together' when you connect the chin like this, but I don't find that any more jarring than the way the negative space is pinched by the tip of the ear. Neither approach bothers me. 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...
txgrafx Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 [Redacted.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txgrafx Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I actually wonder what it would look like if they took this version of the logo.... change the oval & outline to navy (keep the eye & whiskers red), and then fill in the negative space behind the cougar (within the oval) with red:I also like what they have done with this version of the logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamalr Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcb05 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Thanks jamalr. Your valuable insight and feedback was totally worth bring up this month-old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OfficialBailey7 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Looks kinda like Penn state but I like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Thanks jamalr. Your valuable insight and feedback was totally worth bring up this month-old thread.LMAO. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.