logo crit
Out of context: Reply #15
- Started
- Last post
- 21 Responses
- sauerbraten0
oh sorry, well.. here comes a stream of thought:
if you want this to be a more successful 'logo', go with one of the following 'categories' a. type only treatment(whereas you will have to defend why it is you used it and how it speaks best as the logo) b. type + mark, (this is a toughy, but if the mark expresses something and works well with type, again diifficult, then it's cooll) c. pure mark, near impossible but damn cool if you can pull it off (since you have little or no "brand recognition" this really isn't an option, people need to be able to read the NAME of your deal)
anyway, that probably made no sense, but what you have going is basically a type mark with half-assed "modification", there's no 'mark' and that mod isn't enough to say much of anything. centering the 3 isn't working, violating that faces baseline/x-height relationship isn't working. i see where you're going with using neg-space in the S to show a progression in the circles, 3, ok... but it's just not explicit enough. this would not work good at small sizes, both with the kerning issues and the circles, they'll disapear at small sizes. i feel the stroke weight is too light, the notion of using a 3 as an E is that whole hacker trend thing going on and honestly if you want this to be something that will last, i'd ditch it quick. kill the stroke you have on the letters as well. a good logo communicates and an even better one has staying power, etc. etc.
start in black only, start in pure concept, if you have a strong concept, explore it, then explore more and repeat, then look at type choices and how they will affect the logo, THEN see how color applies and how it works/supports your concept.
phew!