Reversed logo version
- Started
- Last post
- 16 Responses
- gramme
Working on a brand guidelines book and am trying to determine if I need production-specific versions of the client's logo. Have any of you created special versions of logos for clients, that are made specifically for reversing out of dark backgrounds?
I came across a (very well done) style guide for Lloyd's of London, and they have a white-on-black version of their logotype which was subtly beefed up to account for ink gain.
I'm just wondering if it's really worth the effort, or if I should just tell people to instruct printers to trap and register carefully. Because depending on the printer's equipment, ink coverage, and attention to detail, even a reversed-specific logo would be produced with varying results.
- monospaced0
Absolutely have. For a long time this one logo never required a one-color application, but then the time came and nobody knew what to do. And then they started making bags and needed it embroidered. The solution was to create a final one-color mark, a version for a dark background and another for a light background. And, since the logo had lots of tints, we had to create a line art version that would translate well to embroidery.
- gramme0
Good to know. So how much extra weight did you give to the logo? Did you just apply a thin stroke to the outside? I don't really trust my office (laser) printer to accurately gauge how much weight I need to add to a reversed version in order to create optical consistency.
This question came up because I was thinking about handling reversed type. What I usually do is go up a single weight, so if normal text against light backgrounds is set in a Book weight, I'll use the next heavier weight (Regular, Medium, etc.) for reversed text. And I thought, if this much care is taken in working with paragraphs, how much more important is the logo?
- i_monk0
Isn't that standard?
If your logo has a lot of fine lines, you'll probably want to thicken them a little to combat plate shift and such. Gradients and transparent parts will have to be knocked down to a single colour (or outline). Pretty simple.
- d_rek0
Depending on the scale of the logo and how fine of detail / lines you're using it could be as little as .25pt or as much as a whole point.
I think you'll have to experiment a little. If you don't trust your laser i would suggest scaling the logo up to a point where you're confident the laser printer is reproducing the artwork accurately. Then just pin to the wall and view from a distance that creates a comparable ratio to the actual application. It's not perfect but this should give you a pretty good idea what parts need beefing up.
- gramme0
@ i_monk, yes I know it's standard to trap or white-frame reversed text, logos, etc. But I've always let printers do that. I've never trapped a single object in my life.
I was just talking to a printer in Chicago, a good shop my client uses a lot. They said it's really tough to standardize a reversed version. Because sometimes, you might have a gray, or burgundy, navy, etc. background, and other times you might have two full-strength hits of black on a large solid, and the page is just dripping with ink. Also, there's coated vs. uncoated paper to consider as well, in terms of ink absorption/spread.
Anyway... someone from prepress in above-mentioned shop is calling me later today to discuss. It might be as simple as instructing various printers to trap with differing amounts of stroke depending on the job specs. I could even outline it all in a table, e.g.:
Digital laser printing – .1 rule
Digital offset or inkjet – .15 rule
Offset litho, dark single hit – .2 rule
Offset litho, dark double hit – .25 rule
- monospaced0
"I've never trapped a single object in my life."
Nor should you. But what he's trying to say is that creating a custom logo for unique applications is totally normal. Opening up counterforms, thickening strokes and simplifying for small logos, getting creative for embroidery. They're all part of a full kit. gramme, you're one of the bright ones here and I'm SURE you'll figure it out.
- gramme0
@ mono, I drew the logo so it appears legible and crisp at even the tiniest sizes. And I also made a large version with tighter tracking for their magazine cover, signage, trade show exhibits, etc. I always try to design logos in a way that minimizes a need for too many different versions. I find that clients get overwhelmed and confused when faced with a folder that has 50 different versions of a logo.
I'm really not concerned about anything except reversing. We haven't had anything embroidered yet, but I'm sure it can be done with good results, since the logo is not particularly complex (not too much detail, no gradients/transparency/fairy dust, etc.).
As far as preparing special reversed versions, I suppose d_rek is right. I have a feeling that it will make the most sense to work with a knowledgeable printer through trial and error, and come up with a table for different amounts of trapping like I mentioned above.
- gotcha...
I'd have to see it anyway. Good luck.monospaced
- gotcha...
- d_rek0
As far as printing goes I think you just need to create a basic reversed-out version that works at the smallest printed scale.
I wouldn't worry about setting up trapping guides for printers... all of that is just going to be way over a clients head. Not to mention it's going to vary printer to printer anyway.
You're probably just going to have to deal with the logo on a per-application basis depending on how and when it's used.
- gramme0
"You're probably just going to have to deal with the logo on a per-application basis depending on how and when it's used."
This is what I've been doing in the past several months since we started the roll-out. But part of the goal of this brand standards book is so I can make the system as idiot-proof as possible for other designers with varying degrees of knowledge. They have an in-house person who will be doing a lot of the stuff I'm currently doing by myself. I'll become more of a brand gatekeeper once the book is done. Things will have to pass through my inspection, but I'll basically be functioning as a creative director for them. We'll see how it goes – the person I just mentioned is competent (more or less), but isn't the sharpest blade in the x-acto box.
I'll still be doing hands-on design work for them, but it will be the more big-ticket print and web projects – as opposed to every little postcard and web banner. It'll be a very welcome change. No more delaying big projects for them due to miniature turn/burn stuff.
- d_rek0
Well I still don't understand why you can't create basic style rules for the reversed out version in exactly the same way you would for the regular, non-reversed out logo. It's the same principal... just reversed out.
- gramme0
Well, of course there will be reversed versions, with appropriate guidelines for use.
It's just that the Lloyd's guide got me thinking. I'd never seen a style guide before where they say "we have a positive version for light backgrounds, and a reversed version for dark backgrounds that has thicker lines to account for optical consistency" etc.
Here it is in case you want a peek:
http://www.lloyds.com/Lloyds/Abo…- thems nice guidelines, i reckond_rek
- It's a great example - I have to refer to it often with lots of insurance clients, do you know who did the Lloyd's stuff?Ranger
- Indeed.gramme
- @ ranger, I know Addison designs their annual report. Dunno if they designed the ID as well.gramme
- Thought Addison had folded years backRanger
- Miesfan0
gramme, yes, you must do it. And this is not only a print matter, is about light. The white or reversed version glow over the surface around, and make the item looks bigger. Is an optical question, and there's no help than your eyes...
Emil Ruder explain it very clear.
- robulation0
It's weird 'cos I just opened up the PDF on the logo page in Illustrator...put one logo on top of the other and there's no visible difference in the sizes?!?. . .
Unless I've missed the sentence where they actually describe the fact that one is thicker than the other...I think they only say to not interchange the logos so that errors don't occur if some dipshit colours it wrong... I may be wrong though, what does everyone else think?
- I measured it in Illy, and it looks to me like the two l's in Lloyd's are a hundredth of an inch narrower in the reversed version.gramme
- version. Which is weird. I thought they would've fattened all the lines.gramme
- No way! That really is attention to detail, it's a great brandrobulation
- gramme0
Miesfan, are you suggesting I make the weight of lines in the reversed version _thinner_ than the positive version of the logo? I get what you're saying about light glow. For print, I'd want to thicken the lines just a little for sure. I've already done that at this point. But it sounds like you're saying I'd want to do the _opposite_ for screen use, and thin out the lines to account for glow. Or am I missing something?
- non0
@gramme - If you thicken the lines, the logo will look smaller, thus being harder to "read".
Just make sure your strokes aren't too thin so that the ink bleed doesn't make them disappear.
I think in this case, there are no exact rules, just do what you think looks best.
- gramme0
Miesbump