logo crit
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- dsmith7
I have no one to give me a design critique in my life so I am asking for your help NT'ers.
Basically the client is my wife (no lie). She is starting up a business as a professional organizer (yes, there is such a thing). If I wasn't her husband and didn't know her organizing abilities first hand I would say it was rubbish but she is the real deal so I am supporting her in her endeavors by supplying all of the design elements.
Please tell me what logo(s) you like and why. I am a web developer first and foremost so my logo experience is rather bleek. Feel free to let me know how I could make anyone of these logos stand out or if I should just start from scratch.
The concept is that it should be sleek and organized.
thanks!
- pi0
I like #1. but I am inept so seek more educated opinions
- Duane0
#3
it's the most elegant. i think the sub text may look better in mixed case letters though. also, because it's not reversed out it will reproduce well. to have type that thin reversed out it's tough to hold a good black.
- ok_static0
#2
but i would suggest add a small triangle to the black square, like a talking bubble to make it more playful.
- BonSeff0
#3 but making brizine thicker and a tighter w the kerning might look good.
looks like this paul mitchel shampoo my ex used to use a little but, ive been drinkn
- JazX0
I like #5 the best and #2 second
- dsmith70
ooooh...those are all such good ideas. This is the exact kind of thing I was looking for.
Anyone else got anything to say? I'm going off to bed now but I'll check back in the am.
nightie night!
- XC010
i dig #3.
- vern0
4.
i had to try to imagine all of them alone and not all next to one another.
i think that it is the strongest and give te most attention to the actual name of the company. it is sleek and very sharp.
my only suggestion is that you use a stronger/bloder font for the text below it to balance it out with the top heaviness. and make use the kerning on that is lined up with the black above it.
i am not as crazy about the others just because they are too ordinary. not that they look bad, but they are more typical e.g. name in big font on top, couple lines, smaller text below those etc.
4 draws you into the name the most and i think that is most important.
good luck with it.
looks likeeveryone has a differnt opinion here. makes it all that much harder to make up your mind.
peace
- abizzyman0
they're all pretty clean... I just fear that your choice of fonts is a bit on the skinny side...
... print it to fit on a matchbox (yeah... that lame-ass ol' trick)... do you lose the lines? I think you will.
I'd thicken up the stroke a bit on the main copy... and use the reverse out copy for the descriptor text.
word? word.
- gcabral0
#3
thicken the type or think the stroke under it. needs a bit more contrast between the logotype and the line beneath it. other than that.. it's super clean and i like that.. organization is clean.. logotype is clean.. perfect solution.. the black box is too much.. too heavy..
-g
- elpueppetto0
I like # 5 & # 2 best.
Sell them as a bundle? - they both could be used by the company because of their similarity.
Good work.
- mayo0
i like #1 and #3 the best, maybe try making the bottom copy a little smaller and airing it out some. it looks too crammed to represent "organized." if you try that, see what the bottom copy would look like a little heavier, too.
- Antonelli0
#3
how much u charging her?
- preston0
5 for hierarchy's sake
- unknown0
......if she like late 70s design, you got a winner in any of them..........
- Sapphire0
i'll choose between #2 and #4
- Peter0
4.
Be careful with all of them though; there might be trouble with readability if you print business cards
- sexypixel0
3 is the most elegent. It might work well on print but on screen the font is so thin, when the circel in the 'b' meets the line it seems to get thicker and a bit muddy, get me?
- smartK0
#2 or #4, I like both.
- dsmith70
thanks for all the crits. from what i gather #2 and #4 seem to be the most popular with #3 right behind them.