Paul Murray
Ultimate Member
That won't scale down too well due to the small lines such as in the aperture. When the logo is small you lose legibility.
Logo Opinion - Does this look professional?
- Thread starter CSSmedia
- Start date
@GCarlD
Well-Known Member
Paul's right but it is better for a couple of reasons: 1/ I can see you are thinking more creatively now. 2/ A much nicer font choice.
It is still not suitable as a professional logo but it is an improvement in those two senses.
You are beginning to think outside the box as it were.
What you need to do it take one of those elements and use it as a single logo idea concept. Whether it be the aperture, the focus corners/frame or the clap board. Turn each one into a kind of mark for a single logo idea and then give us some options of what you have done with each one. Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.
Nice attempt though!
It is still not suitable as a professional logo but it is an improvement in those two senses.
You are beginning to think outside the box as it were.
What you need to do it take one of those elements and use it as a single logo idea concept. Whether it be the aperture, the focus corners/frame or the clap board. Turn each one into a kind of mark for a single logo idea and then give us some options of what you have done with each one. Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.
Nice attempt though!
Photoshop is not for creating logos - it's for editing photos and some stylistic effects for photographs.
Illustrator or a vector drawing program is what you should be using.
You will not be able to produce all the variants using the wrong tools.
Sure, I can appreciate that. Perhaps the aperture blades could be replaced with the front of a lens, as an example. It's a starting point anyhow.
Cheers Carl, will keep at it.
I am aware of this Hank. I did mention a couple of posts ago that the very first logo I made for 'CSSmedia' was made in Photoshop and that I knew it was a poor choice of software. Merely working in Photoshop right now for time purposes (as I'm more comfortable working in Photoshop), and then once I've got a decent idea/design will then replicate it in Illustrator.
Your ideas are better forged on paper rather than the computer - then translate to a vector programme - stated earlier.
Not sure where the rest of this post has gone? (there was an extra paragraph?)
Anyhow, I actually took this on board. I initially sketched this design using a pencil and paper and then digitised it in Photoshop. It's one thing liking a design on paper and another seeing and liking it on the screen. I also made it in black and white first before adding the colour, which I also liked the look of.
I don't want to spend an hour or two making this in illustrator when I could achieve it in ten or fifteen minutes on Photoshop.
In response to me taking everything negatively, I think that's a tad unfair. I appreciate I've come onto a forum of professional designers, but as previously pointed out, I'm not a designer myself. It seemed to me that all the things suggested by you guys were technicalities, such as using negative space etc., which in my mindset wasn't even something I'd considered when making it. So in summary, I actually think I've taken on the suggestions, and what may seem like a negative response is merely me trying to understand the points made.
Honestly, I don't mean to sound like I know best, because clearly I don't - just looking to learn and I appreciate all the tips I've been given so far.
The reason I deleted that portion was because it was unfair and I realised that after posting - which was fair - but now you've resurfaced it.
Ok then let's get back on track
I think the first one is good - the type is old fashioned as it the connecting line from the s to make the rectangle - you could easily make the rectangle into a Clap Board which is synonymous with film/media
The 2nd one is just no.
3rd + 4th ones has too many elements to it and looks very squashed together. You could break Photo and Video onto separate lines. Don't make the letters the shapes of lenses or clap boards, instead put a photo icon on the end and a video icon on the end rather than trying to encompass too many elements into the type.
However, the CSS media type treatment is extremely weak.
Take a look over at logopond for inspiration on type treatments and perhaps other video/photography logos.
Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up, as I assumed you had removed it. (I got an email with it in)
Like you said, back on track...
... Indeed I could, and that hadn't really crossed my mind. Only issue is that I'm doing photo AND video, and a clapperboard isn't really applicable to photography.
The second logo is what I've been using until now. This was the one that was made in Photoshop about two years ago. It hasn't really been out in the open though, only on my social media pages and a couple client DVD cases, but apart from that, it's had very little exposure. Having said that, it was until I decided to create a new logo that I really realised it was a little weak. Anyhow, my reasoning for making a new one is that my 'brand' (+logo) are starting to get out a bit more so I need something I can progress with.
I can certainly experiment by spreading the elements out a little, but I wouldn't personally move the photo and video onto separate lines. I would want the 2nd (+3rd) lines to be the same width as the 'CSSmedia' above so then I would get to the point that the 'Photo' and 'Video' words would be too big. Like you say though, I could alleviate this a bit by putting a photography and video symbol on the respective lines and resizing the text accordingly.
I'll have a look at that resource and see what I can take on board from it.
In all honesty, I looked at other photography and video logos which is where I got the 'inspiration' from for replacing the text, for the clapperboard especially.
Let's see what I can come up with...
I stress that only look at logopond for type treatments - I'm not suggesting you look at other video/photo logos - but obviously you can.
The CSS Media is very weak in terms of type treatment - it needs a lot of work.
Consider mixing font weights (thin with bold or bold with italic etc.)
The CSS Media is very weak in terms of type treatment - it needs a lot of work.
Consider mixing font weights (thin with bold or bold with italic etc.)
I totally understand Hank. This is exactly what I'm going to do. (mix type weights etc.)
It's not any better, it's much worse.
The typeface is awful and dated. The colour is a disaster.
I don't think you're making any progress at all. The design has actually regressed.
The typeface is awful and dated. The colour is a disaster.
I don't think you're making any progress at all. The design has actually regressed.