[faithfirst1001]

Hello,

I am doing a logo which must be:

Very simple
Without an image
Easy to see at a distance


This is what I have so far. I would love your feedback.

 2012-01-14_215756.jpg (59.69K)
Number of downloads: 39

How would you creatively place those letters for a great result?

[faithfirst1001]

Here are a few colors. See anything you like?

 2012-01-15_103906.jpg (41.3K)
Number of downloads: 3
 2012-01-15_100402.jpg (43.63K)
Number of downloads: 1
 2012-01-15_091619.jpg (40.61K)
Number of downloads: 2
 2012-01-15_091613.jpg (43.56K)
Number of downloads: 3

This post has been edited by faithfirst1001: 15 January 2012 - 03:20 PM

[RJG Designing]

i think the ones with gradients are a bit outdated. The first image posted is the far better in my opinion!

Kind regards.

This post has been edited by RJG Designing: 15 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

[faithfirst1001]

Added a few new. What do you think?

Attached File(s)

•  2012-01-15_171114.jpg (33.38K)
  Number of downloads: 9
•  2012-01-15_142158.jpg (48.99K)
  Number of downloads: 9

[porkchops]

faithfirst1001, on 15 January 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Added a few new. What do you think?

No. Just no.

I've seen the exact same symbol used in separate instances on this forum (and others, perhaps).

The other logos you posted look like you put small caps (and possible even fake small caps?) on the non-capital letter and it's poorly kerned and not properly balanced. Something along these lines might have worked in the 60s or 70s (when all companies had to use Helvetica in their logo) but nowadays this comes across as amateurish.

Try asking the client what they are trying to convey... Do they want to appear casual and fun, sterile and serious, strong and reliable, etc. Then figure out how to illustrate that with a good typeface (which is properly kerned and tracked) and if you must include a symbol make sure its original.

[faithfirst1001]

faithfirst1001, on 15 January 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Added a few new. What do you think?

If you had to choose between these two which would it be?

[MikeChipshop]

faithfirst1001, on 16 January 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

If you had to choose between these two which would it be?

I wouldn't.
Have a read of what Porkchops stated above. It's good advice.

[RJG Designing]

i agree with the guys above, as mike said, read porkchops's post.

[Bomb]

porkchops, on 15 January 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

I've seen the exact same symbol used in separate instances on this forum (and others, perhaps).

^^This!!

[Glowbridge]

Your definition of 'very simple' is really quite different from mine if that is what you are aiming for.

Logos depend on 3 things. Clarity, Versatility, Subtlety.

I'll grant you a tick in the Subtlety box but bad marks for the others.

Gradients, Borders and Shadows are all working against you in Versatility and your separation of the A kills your clarity I think. Why is it so important it needs style on its own? Is the company called A Dmin Insider?

For text based logos you need radical simplicity on its own, or radical simplicity with a stroke of creative suggestion. Two tone, nice font, most of your time spent on kerning. If there is going to be some kind of alteration to the text like a clever little icon type deal it has to be as simple as possible.

This post has been edited by Glowbridge: 18 January 2012 - 07:08 PM

[faithfirst1001]

Thanks for the tips all. I re-did the logo from scratch and this  2012-01-17_222137.jpg (13.67K)
Number of downloads: 2 is my result. I like it.

[porkchops]

I remember now...

http://www.webdesign...-do-you-prefer/

http://www.webdesign...bout-this-logo/

You've done this before, it's not working, try something original.

This post has been edited by porkchops: 18 January 2012 - 07:32 PM