The background is I'm trying to come up with a more relevant and updated look for the printing company I work for. The logo will be used for an updated website as well (if I can convince management).

 

Version (1) represents the four colour printing process in an abstract form, showing 3D blocks (enlarged half-tone dots) in a neat and clean form with effective use of typography and colour. (hopefully ).

 

Verson (2) I don't really have a good explanation for except "sh*t loads of coloured stripes" with some good use of typography.

 

So, which is your preference, and if you can be bothered, why?

 

Also please give any other comments regarding alterations/improvements.

 

Cheers, Steve.

 

I personally prefer number one.

 

Number two for me, hurts my eyes and really makes the font hard to read.

 

Number one, is clean, very nicely done and I love the colours.

For me without even opening the thumbnails you can see clearly the the second one looks messy and disorganized, while the first is clean clear and eye catching. The font is good for print, but I'm not sure if it is the right font to use for web.

A logo is not something you do on a whim, that is how totally irrelevant logos are created, you may as we'll go buy a ready made one and have done with it so, the obvious best choice is the first one, aside from that it really does look like the better one.

Edited March 25, 201412 yr by Fuzzy Logic

For me without even opening the thumbnails you can see clearly the the second one looks messy and disorganized, while the first is clean clear and eye catching. The font is good for print, but I'm not sure if it is the right font to use for web.

 

Yeah true weedy, the thumbnail does look unclear as you would expect, but looking at the actual posted size it looks perfectly clean & crisp on my monitor - which is more true to the size it would be in a web page header.

 

It's probably more about the 'eye candy pain' of all those coloured stripes, as cherrydesigns suggested. Personally I really like it, but it's probably not suited to a printing company logo. Perhaps it would be more suited to a clothing or accessories label. In fact, a great idea has just popped into my head - I could use it as a label for super block-out sunglasses. That way, a potential customer could put them on first, and then check out the price label.

 

btw. If you are referring to the smaller font, it's 'Droid Serif Italic' a font specifically designed for screen readability... apparently.

 

 

A logo is not something you do on a whim, that is how totally irrelevant logos are created, you may as we'll go buy a ready made one and have done with it so, the obvious best choice is the first one, aside from that it really does look like the better one.

 

Absolutely agree. A logo is never something I create on a whim. I took a lot of time and consideration in creating them. Every element has been put where it is with a purpose. I spent approx. 4hrs. on each, in my own time - good thing no-one is paying me to do it.

 

Whether or not someone else appreciates or agrees with the design is subjective. But obviously if you are designing for a paying client, then you listen to their ideas, requirements and preferences etc. which will shape your ideas, and help fill your pocket.

 

Thanks everyone for your input, and for the record, others I have shown them to prefer the 1st option (my preference too)

I'll probably try a couple of other ideas as well.

 

Cheers, Steve.

I much prefer the first revision - ultimately because although both feature an array of colours, the first does not distract my eyes from the type. I'm not so sure about the subtext, though. I feel it creates too much negative space. Perhaps reducing the size of the subtext a little would relieve it somewhat.

Edited March 26, 201412 yr by jakdothtml

Yeah true weedy ... but looking at the actual posted size it looks perfectly clean & crisp...

As with every logo it needs to look right at every size otherwise you will need different logo's for different media, one for PC, one for Tablet, one for Mobile, one for Letterhead etc etc.

 

That is why I made the point of 'without opening the thumbnail', I was trying to be constructive.

I much prefer the first revision - ultimately because although both feature an array of colours, the first does not distract my eyes from the type. I'm not so sure about the subtext, though. I feel it creates too much negative space. Perhaps reducing the size of the subtext a little would relieve it a little.

The size of the sub-text may well be why I was thinking it wouldn't be quite what your looking for in a web header. I felt there was something about it but not being a web pro I didn't know what it was. Well spotted.

Definetly the first one, it looks professional and a lot cleaner.

The second logo hurts my eyes and if I look at it for too long, I can see myself getting a headache.

As with every logo it needs to look right at every size otherwise you will need different logo's for different media, one for PC, one for Tablet, one for Mobile, one for Letterhead etc etc.

 

That is why I made the point of 'without opening the thumbnail', I was trying to be constructive.

 

No probs weedy - constructive is always good. Although I have to disagree with you regarding different logo's.

 

You actually DO need different logo's for different media - although for web use, less so, especially if it's in svg format. Although it still would be worthwhile to have a version that works well on a light background and one for a dark background, even a white one would be useful.?

 

As for other media, there are lots of valid reasons for having slight (or even significant) variations of a logo. In the past I worked for a 'promotional items' printing company which printed on brochures, pens, golf balls, golf bags, umbrellas, rulers, mugs, billboards...... the list goes on. There are five different printing methods there alone.

 

I'll use my (v1) logo as an example: If I was to print this on a pen, I would put the tagline to the right of the main logo and also open the kerning so it didn't fill in. On a golf ball, logo on one side, tagline on the other. A billboard may require the kerning to be tightened up. etc... etc... A cmyk version, spot colour, mono. I'm sure you get the idea.

 

I understand you were being general and referring probably mainly to web use, but there are absolutely valid and necessary reasons for having multiple versions of a logo.

 

Anyway, back to the issues regarding the 'apparent' small text in the (Version 1) logo.

 

Perhaps there is some weird setup going on with my monitor, or thumbnail view settings - because when I view it at actual size the 'tagline' looks absolutely fine to read. Also, when I compare it to the text "buy & sell themes, scripts, etc." above market place in the top left hand corner of THIS forum's header - my tagline looks just as legible, if not more so... WTF?

 

So, can someone else PLEASE check it out on their setup and confirm that what I'm seeing is the same - or any other explanations would be good.

 

Steve.

 

[EDIT] Ok, so now I'm really confused, I re-read the post from jakdothtml and realsed he suggested making the tagline font 'smaller'?

Edited March 27, 201412 yr by stixstudios

It may be down to monitors and calibration. As a landscape and garden designer I used to send swatches and impressions out that I had set up nicely on my professionally calibrated monitor. I would get no response at all from well over half! I would also send the same types of graphical representations out that I had printed, I would get 75 to 80% response rate (positive or otherwise). I started looking at what was going on and soon realized Joe Blogs down the road may have spent a lot of money on their PC for gaming and video's etc but they rarely had a calibrated monitor. So I decided to experiment and watch the response rates.

 

In any given month I sent out equal numbers of graphics that had been finalized on my calibrated monitor to those the had been finalized on the non-calibrated old heap I got from freecyle.org and to my amazement the odds were stacked against me if I used my calibrated monitor when finalizing graphics. I can only assume this is because to me things looked nice and crisp, but to old Joe on his games machine things went 'wonky' and Joe didn't like what they was seeing.

 

So now when I am dealing with corporate clients that I would expect to have calibrated monitors I use my calibrated monitor, for everybody else I use the LG flatron I got for nothing. (which reminds me my monitor is due for recalibrating again next month).

It may be down to monitors and calibration. As a landscape and garden designer I used to send swatches and impressions out that I had set up nicely on my professionally calibrated monitor. I would get no response at all from well over half! I would also send the same types of graphical representations out that I had printed, I would get 75 to 80% response rate (positive or otherwise). I started looking at what was going on and soon realized Joe Blogs down the road may have spent a lot of money on their PC for gaming and video's etc but they rarely had a calibrated monitor. So I decided to experiment and watch the response rates.

 

In any given month I sent out equal numbers of graphics that had been finalized on my calibrated monitor to those the had been finalized on the non-calibrated old heap I got from freecyle.org and to my amazement the odds were stacked against me if I used my calibrated monitor when finalizing graphics. I can only assume this is because to me things looked nice and crisp, but to old Joe on his games machine things went 'wonky' and Joe didn't like what they was seeing.

 

So now when I am dealing with corporate clients that I would expect to have calibrated monitors I use my calibrated monitor, for everybody else I use the LG flatron I got for nothing. (which reminds me my monitor is due for recalibrating again next month).

 

Thanks weedy, but it doesn't really help answer the question from my previous post:

Perhaps there is some weird setup going on with my monitor, or thumbnail view settings - because when I view it at actual size the 'tagline' looks absolutely fine to read. Also, when I compare it to the text "buy & sell themes, scripts, etc." above market place in the top left hand corner of THIS forum's header - my tagline looks just as legible, if not more so... WTF?

 

So, can someone else PLEASE check it out on their setup and confirm that what I'm seeing is the same - or any other explanations would be good.

The first one. I think it's very important that info are easy to "scan" at a glance

From my view i choose number one. Because it's look like professionel.

I think the 1st logo is awesome

Definitely the first one. The second one looks like it's from the 90's