[AndyDesigns]

Hi guys,

Just working on my new logo which I hope to use on my website, business cards, stationery etc.

Please let me know which one you think is working the best:


 newlogo.jpg (207.59K)
Number of downloads: 83


tia,

Andy

[hodephdesign]

E is my favourite. I'd drop the "Web Solutions" part though...

[porkchops]

E/C is the only one that is working, but you definitely need to drop the "Web Design Solutions". If you have "Designs" in your name I think you'll get the point across without the tagline.

All of these are pretty busy though, and probably won't reproduce well at small sizes. Might want to consider simplifying this abit. Also, the edges are super blurry, and judging by the text rendering and drop shadow you're doing these in Photoshop, so you should try a fully vectorized approach instead. You'll get much better results.

[AndyDesigns]

porkchops, on 23 January 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

E/C is the only one that is working, but you definitely need to drop the "Web Design Solutions". If you have "Designs" in your name I think you'll get the point across without the tagline.

All of these are pretty busy though, and probably won't reproduce well at small sizes. Might want to consider simplifying this abit. Also, the edges are super blurry, and judging by the text rendering and drop shadow you're doing these in Photoshop, so you should try a fully vectorized approach instead. You'll get much better results.

Thanks for the feedback, they were all done as vectors in Fireworks. Perhaps the text looks "super blurry" because I resized the whole logo instead of adjusting the actual font-size.

I feel C/E are already quite simple and not sure how they could be simplified further without it looking just like a title and not a logo?.

[Lovelock]

Either fully join up the bottom of the AGT or make the spacing wider. The small gap annoys me

You got a plain black version with no inner shadows etc? Be nice to see that.

[porkchops]

AndyDesigns, on 23 January 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Thanks for the feedback, they were all done as vectors in Fireworks. Perhaps the text looks "super blurry" because I resized the whole logo instead of adjusting the actual font-size.

I feel C/E are already quite simple and not sure how they could be simplified further without it looking just like a title and not a logo?.

I've never been a fan of the text rendering engine in Fireworks. I think it still has the same problems as the rendering engine in Photoshop (FW might be raster like photoshop). Illustrator and InDesign have fantastic rendering engines, so working with type for Identity work looks more professional there.

The symbol you are using is super busy. There are a lot of lines that will make it difficult to reproduce at small sizes. Maybe you can rethink the symbol to be something more efficient while being legible.

[AndyDesigns]

Lovelock, on 23 January 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Either fully join up the bottom of the AGT or make the spacing wider. The small gap annoys me

You got a plain black version with no inner shadows etc? Be nice to see that.

You mean something like this?:

 newlogob.jpg (31.39K)
Number of downloads: 7

I dont really want to use black because of my websites colour scheme.

[AndyDesigns]

porkchops, on 23 January 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I've never been a fan of the text rendering engine in Fireworks. I think it still has the same problems as the rendering engine in Photoshop (FW might be raster like photoshop). Illustrator and InDesign have fantastic rendering engines, so working with type for Identity work looks more professional there.

The symbol you are using is super busy. There are a lot of lines that will make it difficult to reproduce at small sizes. Maybe you can rethink the symbol to be something more efficient while being legible.

How about these?:

 newlogoc.jpg (70.37K)
Number of downloads: 10

[hodephdesign]

AndyDesigns, on 23 January 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

How about these?:

newlogoc.jpg

Not a fan of these, you're better off with the first one me and porkchops suggested, but make the text joined together. You might want to consider making it a tiny bit bolder too, so it's more readable at a smaller size.

[AndyDesigns]

hodephdesign, on 24 January 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Not a fan of these, you're better off with the first one me and porkchops suggested, but make the text joined together. You might want to consider making it a tiny bit bolder too, so it's more readable at a smaller size.

This is as bold as it can go and I've shrunk it down to see if its still legible, still looks ok to me:

 newlogod.jpg (21.51K)
Number of downloads: 14

[hodephdesign]

AndyDesigns, on 24 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

This is as bold as it can go and I've shrunk it down to see if its still legible, still looks ok to me:

newlogod.jpg

Looks like a winner

[Domcsore]

AndyDesigns, on 24 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

This is as bold as it can go and I've shrunk it down to see if its still legible, still looks ok to me:

newlogod.jpg

I was going to say I like E, then saw this further down... This is the most appealing in my opinion. Good job.