Logotype Critique 3232 Responses

Last post: 2 months, 3 weeks ago | Thread started: Aug 30, 08, 11:58 a.m.

RespondNew TopicDisable Images

• gramme

  OK, I swear I usually do work for people outside of the church ;)

  This is for a friend's college ministry in the research triangle area of NC. It's a huge group as far as those things go.

  The name of the church affiliated with the ministry is Church of The Good Shepherd. So, I thought a simple logotype would be most appropriate. I've narrowed it down to what you see here. I wanted to subtly hint at a shepherd's crook with the lowercase f, rather than try to make some gimicky shield or crest like I was asked (ugh).

  I typically think containing a logotype in an oval or circle can be a cop-out, but in this case it reinforces the idea of a flock or group being unified. I'm leaning towards one direction but would appreciate some feedback first.

  http://metagramme.com/Flock_dd1_…

  Let 'er rip.

  Aug 30, 08, 11:58 a.m. – Permalink

• SkyPoo

  Hey Gramme, You're brave asking for a critique of a religion based project, I salute ya!

  I like one and two more than three and four. Something about the forcing of the letters in three and four looks too much, like its totaly at the expense of the integrity of the letters. This may be due to the monweighted simple font, I don't know. It maybe looks a bit 'cheap' due to lack of character.

  I really like one and two. I like the flow and bounce and the togetheress of the letterforms. I could be being realy naive here, but it somehow doesn't look particularly 'Christian'. That may not even be an issue but it almost has an exotic kind of vibe that I wouldn't expect a western Christian religious organisation to feel comfortable in bed with.

  But purely from a design point of view I think the first two work better visually. I like.

  Here come the 'bible-basher' bashers ....

  • SkyPoo is an anagram by the way.– SkyPoo1/3

    an anagramme– Jnr_Madison2/3

    did u get banned again tim or just lose ur password?– ian3/3

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:03 p.m. – Permalink

• doesnotexist

  I dig number 1, very nice.

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:04 p.m. – Permalink

• digdre

  nice logos

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:05 p.m. – Permalink

• Jnr_Madison

  1 & 2, nice work

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:06 p.m. – Permalink

• magnificent_ruin

  I would like the lowercase f shepherd's crook thingie combined with the rest of the letterforms being less expressive and more subordinate to the f... i.e. making the f focal point

  • I think I wa sunclear:
    f as is, rest of letters less expressive– magnificent_ruin

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:08 p.m. – Permalink

• pencilpants

  1 and 2 are very nice

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:10 p.m. – Permalink

• anairn

  I love #1, and would have to disagree with SpookyPoo about its inherent 'Christianity' - I think you've tread the line very carefully and come up with a solution that (for me) evokes a flame which somehow seems relevant to me as a Christian symbol, yet isn't overwhelmingly so. I'm not sure if this is just throwback to whatever brand it was that came on the Bibles we had to read as kids at school), but it works.

  Struggling to come up with something to criticise - I think the tail of the f is a bit weak, and if I was only moderately more stupid than I already am, I might be inclined to mix up the l for an i.

  • I think it was ingrained assumption that a church organisation wouldn't go for something 'funky'...– SkyPoo1/3

    ... having commited my words to screen though I realised I was expressing a certain prejudice.– SkyPoo2/3

    ( not 'a certain prejudice' but ' a certain AMOUNT of prejudice' is what I mean)– SkyPoo3/3

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:13 p.m. – Permalink

• OSFA

  #1 is very nice, but I see it more like a clothing line or bar...maybe it's just me, but I can't relate that to religion...

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:15 p.m. – Permalink

• gramme

  Keep in mind it's for a young, largely unchurched group of people.

  • Then its bang on.– SkyPoo1/10

    Hmm. In that case, [insert anti-religion rant].
    
    ;|– anairn2/10

    I can't get used to your new name. Odd, because I also know that its an old name, embellished.– SkyPoo3/10

    hehe– gramme4/10

    And also... "I see Gramme, brainwashing the young with hipster graphics to indoctrinate them into the church eh?" j/k.– SkyPoo5/10

    Me neither, I had a whole list of other names lined up, but wanted to recapture some of Nairn's magic. I failed.– anairn6/10

    Besides, they were all science-terms, and I didn't want to come across as some new anti-flagellum / jamalJenkins– anairn7/10

    also anairn is kinda like 'anon'.
    
    Just not. God, this is all such horrific fail.– anairn8/10

    *flagellates self with fail flail*– anairn9/10

    HAHAHAHAHA.– SkyPoo10/10

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:16 p.m. – Permalink

• Iggyboo

  1 is nice I don't think you need a circle though. seems arbitrary and the type stands on it's own.

  • +1
    Feels like a department store sale graphic in the circle.– SkyPoo

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:19 p.m. – Permalink

• Llyod

  2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:23 p.m. – Permalink

• tank02

  number 1, just a little bit more tweaking

  • How so?– gramme1/2

    AH no, look again its okay,
    had a problem with the 'oc' but after a second glance its okay.
    
    – tank022/2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:31 p.m. – Permalink

• gramme

  I'm also leaning toward 1 or 2, for reasons stated by others but also because it's completely drawn from scratch – albeit influenced equally by Caslon 224 and Home Run Script.

  • ...as opposed to 3 or 4, which are Neutra + tweaks.– gramme

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:44 p.m. – Permalink

• gramme

  In fact if I ever have the time, I'd love to further develop Gramme Upright Script Bold. The numbers would be oh-so-tasty, with a bit of old style bounce of course :)

  • I'd buy it.– Jnr_Madison

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 12:46 p.m. – Permalink

• max_prophet

  are they sure about the name? 3/4 look modern which in turn made me recall the awful:
  

  

  the first two are nice but at a quick glance looks a bit like 'fuck', and I'm not sure about the oval there, I guess the ascenders/descenders make that tricky? All in all I like 1 though.

  • maybe they look too girly though, so go for 3 or 4, which ever was in the circle. heh– max_prophet1/6

    did you try a hidden crucifix?– max_prophet2/6

    I have to agree with OSFA though, they look somewhat self-gratifying and irrelevant… I don't know enough to know if thats good or bad.– max_prophet3/6

    thats a good or bad thing– max_prophet4/6

    Religion is inherently self-gratifying though, right?– anairn5/6

    ..which is, I guess, what your last note was referring to.
    
    I'll shut up now. No, really.– anairn6/6

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 1:06 p.m. – Permalink

• sureshot

  #2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 1:08 p.m. – Permalink

• decisionman

  #1 ftw

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 1:20 p.m. – Permalink

• alicetheblue

  1
  pure and simple

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 1:23 p.m. – Permalink

• gramme

  Max_:

  Yes, they are sure about the name. I think it's great and simple given the name of the parent church.

  "They look somewhat self-gratifying and irrelevant"

  Come again? The f is a shepherd's staff. It relates to "flock". Flock is a Biblical term for a group of believers. Jesus was referred to as the good shepherd, thus believers are his flock. I think it's fairly relevant to the subject at hand. As for self-gratifying, well—it's a logo. All logos are inherently self-gratifying to some degree

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 2 p.m. – Permalink

• max_prophet

  I know what the name means - by 'self gratifying' I meant I didn't know enough about what the ID is intended to do, and I simply wondered whether it had enough relevance or was more about something you liked personally.

  I hadn't realised it represented a staff, but that makes sense.

  Don't get me wrong, as visual marks I think they look great, very elegant and stylish.

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earAug 30, 08, 2:15 p.m. – Permalink