2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[29texan]

Uniwatch has an article with some Browns concepts in it. This one is my favorite.

More here:

http://espn.go.com/b...sign-the-browns

I only like the numbers.

[Gothamite]

All of this is subjective of course, if design was black and white these forums wouldn't exist.

Oh, I agree of course. That's why it's so silly to pretend that personal taste is somehow objective.

[Gr3g3]

Paul Lukas gives the new Jags logo an A-

[AgentColon]

4 out of 5 dentists approve.

[shoresidejake]

Paul Lukas gives the new Jags logo an A-

The Uni-Watch guy right? Is an A- good based on his typical ratings?

[Gr3g3]

Yep. He's usually pretty picky. He destroyed our last uni changed (deserved) and said he was expecting a disaster of a new logo but he loved it.

[Chawls]

How's this?

Dammit. Now I like this one better. Almost ruins the actual logo for me.

[habsfan1]

Holy crap, that's the Jags new logo. I never even noticed it, until now!

[Claystation360]

How's this?

Dammit. Now I like this one better. Almost ruins the actual logo for me.

Wow I really like that one.

I wish they would have given Jaguars fans the option of 3 and then choose from one.

[hawk36]

How's this?

Dammit. Now I like this one better. Almost ruins the actual logo for me.

Wow I really like that one.

I wish they would have given Jaguars fans the option of 3 and then choose from one.

Like it. Now that's a logo.

[Brave-Bird 08]

How's this?

Dammit. Now I like this one better. Almost ruins the actual logo for me.

This is perfect

[andrewharrington]

PHENOMENAL, as always, sir!!!

I think there are a few areas this could use some finessing, but it's fantastic work, nonetheless. I would have much rather seen them go the route of 'fixing' their logo. I thought their logo still looked pretty fresh, especially after almost 20 years. The new one already looks dated to me.

[Krona]

BINGO!!! THIS truly and succinctly illustrates what is wrong with the proportions of the Jaguars' new logo as it exists. The "Altered aspect Ratio" version of the logo that shoresidejake has provided is much more representative of the true size of a jaguar's head. As a result, it looks 100% better.

I still have a problem with the level of detail in the new logo, but simply tweaking the proportions as shoresidejake has here improves the logo exponentially.

I think the elongated logo conveys motion quite well. Sure, the others tweaks we've seen are more accurate, but like a jaguars head are round. Not that I agree, but the trend for some time has been to place an ovalish logo on helmets. I'd bet that was part of the discussion. It just doesn't bother me that much. I think its refreshing to see something outside of the box with the NFL. I still think you could scrap the whole thing and go with a mesoamerican inspired look and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

[habsfan1]

The real one DOES looks like someone resized it in a cheap software like MS Paint.

But I do think I know what they were aiming for, though. I think they wanted a logo that illustrates speed and/or motion, which is why the head is slightly stretched out like that, to imply that the Jaguar is moving foward quickly. The altered version looks like it's posing still. Anyway, maybe my assumptions aren't factual, but just trying to picture why they went with that.

[Sterling84]

The real one DOES looks like someone resized it in a cheap software like MS Paint.

But I do think I know what they were aiming for, though. I think they wanted a logo that illustrates speed and/or motion, which is why the head is slightly stretched out like that, to imply that the Jaguar is moving foward quickly. The altered version looks like it's posing still. Anyway, maybe my assumptions aren't factual, but just trying to picture why they went with that.

Absolutely. Artists stylize imagery ALL the time to try and convey speed or movement or heft or strength. And it's not only allowed, it's the job. And I have no doubts some executive focus group-like meeting emphasized that fact to the designer(s). Clients usually get what THEY want. Pushing back is hard. But when you stylize you are almost by definition reducing something complicated to something simple. And so I think the "Hey we stretched it out for speed" vibe is in direct conflict with the "Hey, it's probably the most naturalistic depiction of the source material in major sports" level of detail. I'm saying the two things don't "go" together. There's a friction that occurs between naturalism and stylization. And I blame the Jaguars yes. But also as an artist? I'd like to believe I could have found a better solution.

For all its faults, the old one was heavily stylized. Those whiskers that became stripes? That was to move the eye, not naturalistic at all so........Whatever. We're kind of circling the bowl here on this. I fundamentally disagree that stretching the proportions of an image is akin to invoking speed in this case. But that's just my opinion. The fact that it IS stretched as to excede competent naturalist execution? Isn't opinion. Just a matter if you buy the reasoning and that it works or doesn't.

[Saintsfan]

The real one DOES looks like someone resized it in a cheap software like MS Paint.

But I do think I know what they were aiming for, though. I think they wanted a logo that illustrates speed and/or motion, which is why the head is slightly stretched out like that, to imply that the Jaguar is moving foward quickly. The altered version looks like it's posing still. Anyway, maybe my assumptions aren't factual, but just trying to picture why they went with that.

Absolutely. Artists stylize imagery ALL the time to try and convey speed or movement or heft or strength. And it's not only allowed, it's the job. And I have no doubts some executive focus group-like meeting emphasized that fact to the designer(s). Clients usually get what THEY want. Pushing back is hard. But when you stylize you are almost by definition reducing something complicated to something simple. And so I think the "Hey we stretched it out for speed" vibe is in direct conflict with the "Hey, it's probably the most naturalistic depiction of the source material in major sports" level of detail. I'm saying the two things don't "go" together. There's a friction that occurs between naturalism and stylization. And I blame the Jaguars yes. But also as an artist? I'd like to believe I could have found a better solution.

For all its faults, the old one was heavily stylized. Those whiskers that became stripes? That was to move the eye, not naturalistic at all so........Whatever. We're kind of circling the bowl here on this. I fundamentally disagree that stretching the proportions of an image is akin to invoking speed in this case. But that's just my opinion. The fact that it IS stretched as to excede competent naturalist execution? Isn't opinion. Just a matter if you buy the reasoning and that it works or doesn't.

It's interesting that very few NFL logo's are symmetrically shaped, and how few have the same height as width. Is that to do with fitting on a helmet?

[Sterling84]

Sorry. I don't wanna beat this dead horse. But I popped over to a couple of other threads including the Uniwatch Blog and now that the ratio images is in wide circulation the "motion" defense is EVERYWHERE. So is a slight derivation of that where I think people are arguing Forced Perspective but don't really understand it. Neither of those is true.

Love it. Hate it. Be indifferent. I care not. But be honest about it. Whatever we're witnessing is not the animal in "motion" or being viewed via forced perspective. *Oops. Kind of meant foreshortening here.

[Sterling84]

The real one DOES looks like someone resized it in a cheap software like MS Paint.

But I do think I know what they were aiming for, though. I think they wanted a logo that illustrates speed and/or motion, which is why the head is slightly stretched out like that, to imply that the Jaguar is moving foward quickly. The altered version looks like it's posing still. Anyway, maybe my assumptions aren't factual, but just trying to picture why they went with that.

Absolutely. Artists stylize imagery ALL the time to try and convey speed or movement or heft or strength. And it's not only allowed, it's the job. And I have no doubts some executive focus group-like meeting emphasized that fact to the designer(s). Clients usually get what THEY want. Pushing back is hard. But when you stylize you are almost by definition reducing something complicated to something simple. And so I think the "Hey we stretched it out for speed" vibe is in direct conflict with the "Hey, it's probably the most naturalistic depiction of the source material in major sports" level of detail. I'm saying the two things don't "go" together. There's a friction that occurs between naturalism and stylization. And I blame the Jaguars yes. But also as an artist? I'd like to believe I could have found a better solution.

For all its faults, the old one was heavily stylized. Those whiskers that became stripes? That was to move the eye, not naturalistic at all so........Whatever. We're kind of circling the bowl here on this. I fundamentally disagree that stretching the proportions of an image is akin to invoking speed in this case. But that's just my opinion. The fact that it IS stretched as to excede competent naturalist execution? Isn't opinion. Just a matter if you buy the reasoning and that it works or doesn't.

It's interesting that very few NFL logo's are symmetrically shaped, and how few have the same height as width. Is that to do with fitting on a helmet?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. If that was the complaint from management. Totally the kind of rationale I can see happening.

MGMT: "It needs to seem to be swooping from front to back on the helmet more"

NFLC: "Like Carolina's? Or Seattle's? Can I add the body or shoulder or some stripes to help with that?"

MGMT: "Hell no. Can't copy them. Just ..............just stretch it out. Yeah".

ME: "I quit"

NFLC: "..........ummm, alright.........I guess."

[hugevolsfan]

Sorry. I don't wanna beat this dead horse. But I popped over to a couple of other threads including the Uniwatch Blog and now that the ratio images is in wide circulation the "motion" defense is EVERYWHERE. So is a slight derivation of that where I think people are arguing Forced Perspective but don't really understand it. Neither of those is true.

Love it. Hate it. Be indifferent. I care not. But be honest about it. Whatever we're witnessing is not the animal in "motion" or being viewed via forced perspective.

I agree with this totally it does not convey motion to me with being elongated.

To me overall thats what makes this a bad logo but a good illustration.

[VikingBen]

Which team will be next to release new logos and uniforms? I know that the Dolphins are still working on their logo. Are my Vikings getting new logos? Are my Vikings releasing new uniforms by april? what's the details on that?