Description:
Thanks for all the great input. Here is a version that reflects some of the suggestions. More critiques?
As seen on:
Design72
Status:
Nothing set
Viewed:
2702
Share:
Lets Discuss
Here is a link to the old logo if you wish to see it.**http://www.design72.net/school/logo_rough2.png**My main concern now is whether or not the eye reads %22esign%22 at first glance. Does the %22d%22 get lost?
ReplyIt looks alright, still you could make the 'd' and '72' a bit heavier, and you might want to try it without inner-shadowing '72'. As for colors, I would stick with the warmer green, and use it as a single color, rather than going the warm-cold gradient way. Anyway it looks much better.
ReplySo sorry to say that I prefer first version even with my personnal %22green problems%22 :-) (cf my first comments). This one, for me, looks like many others logo, it have lost its entire originality... The first one was powerful, with a great potential... Sorry :-)
ReplyI see no visual reference to the number 72 in the mark.
ReplyAgain, thanks for all the input. I will do some small tweaks to try work with the suggestions you have given me. Thomas, I agree with you entirely that the first had a more powerful approach and I am sure I will come back to it again%3B decided to go this route because I needed something that worked instead of something still in development (got a portfolio show coming up through school next week and need some business cards to hand out).**In regards to the mark itself, it is an issue that I have thought about and am trying to fix. If you are unclear about why I choose 72, it is because I work with web and their is 72dpi in web based designs. The break up of the larger square is my way of representing this in the form of pixels.**There shall still be many a long night to come...
ReplyI had a look at the original, much, much more powerfull and effective as a mark to repesent wed based design, its fresh. i think however that you should allow your mark to be the hero of that excecution, in that i mean that your type should be the supporting act, clean type that fits withing the width of the box above. the original actually makes this version look very week.
ReplyTo be honest, I would start over.%0D*%0D*What is the significance of the checkerboard? Why is it in there?%0D*%0D*You need to ask yourself what you are trying to say? Do you want to shwo that you are a designer? Do you want to make some reference to explain the number 72?%0D*%0D*The 7 and the 2 are great letterforms to build a design around. One starting point could be to explore typefaces with unique versions of these numbers.
ReplyPlease login/signup to make a comment, registration is easy