HOME | DD

spacesuitcatalyst In reply to mister-d2 [2009-10-06 01:54:41 +0000 UTC]

Rethink how?

It's funny, you can actually trace the development of this, left to right, see the chronology and the elements added over time.

The perspective-wall idea interested me aesthetically at first, but I've yet to really incorporate it anywhere else yet, so we'll see how that goes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mister-d2 In reply to spacesuitcatalyst [2009-10-06 02:25:42 +0000 UTC]

We'll to answer your second question first. Having the vertical rectangle above it conflicts with the perspective, if you still want to go with the perspective idea you can remove the rectangle on top and distort the logo so it fits perspective-wise on the darker green. Like a sign on a building when you look at it at an angle.

I forgot to say that when I said colors I meant the colors of the logo, its really over doing it with more than 2 colors. I suggest using the really dark black for the whole thing because the white is kinda hard to read due to surrounding colors(light green).

Perhaps you could make the sky blue and not green. A green sky wouldn't be eco-friendly
If you choose the right shade it could fix the logo problem too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spacesuitcatalyst In reply to mister-d2 [2009-10-06 22:32:36 +0000 UTC]

I wanted to go with a sort of 'walled in' approach, with the logo as its own entity, not looking as if it were 'applied' like a sign. Although I do agree, the perspective of the logo and the wall-bit is a bit misaligned, I had trouble with that bit.

Perhaps a darker shade? I experimented with all this but having one big block of dark text seemed to uniform\heavy, didn't seem very professional or 'bright', I liked the idea of tonal contrast. Although the contrast between the white and the green is a bit of an issue at smaller sizes... Plus the dark-to-light transition sort of alludes to the idea of 'cleaning up the skies', e.g., going from polluted (black) to clear (white).

Hahh, someone else brought up the green sky issue as well, but as they said, it makes some amount of sense, seeing as the brand is called Keepin' It Green, and that shade of yellow-green is its primary color. I feel like having a solid blue background on the back of the stationary might conflict with the predominant green on the front? I don't know, it is somewhat of an issue.

Right shade as in..?

Note also that this is scaled down pretty drastically - that puffy, cloudy type does nott work well at small sizes. Trying to work out a (brand-consistent) variation on the logo to work better at small sizes..

Thanks for your input, I'm still tweakin'.

I just realized this version is actually based off the oldish files I had on my thumbdrive (vs. the new ones on the comps at school) - the back is slightly (but still somewhat significantly) different now, FYI.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mister-d2 In reply to spacesuitcatalyst [2009-10-06 23:00:29 +0000 UTC]

Darker shade meaning a darker green, but now that I think about it, it might look more polluted with a darker green.

Even if its scaled down, people still have to be able to recognize it. Take the McDonalds and Nike logos, people can recognize those at any size. Resize-ability is very important.

Good luck with "tweaking".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spacesuitcatalyst In reply to mister-d2 [2009-10-07 21:54:19 +0000 UTC]

Yuss, yuss, I know all these things. Workability at varying sizes, from very small to very large, as well as in black and white, is of prime importance. And, admittedly, this logo doesn't do so great in that arena.

I guess it's a testament to what happens when you don't follow process. Usually it's sketch > trace > proofs at varying sizes > refine > apply. In this case I just went sketch > trace > apply, skipped the proofs (kthx deadline\laziness).

What I'm doing now is working on varying applications of the mark - as you know a logo as a whole can consist of a variety of pieces, the logotype (text) and the actual logo itself - in this case the 'keepin it green' type and the green cloud element. These two pieces can be seperated and tweaked as long as they stay consistent - The McDonald's logo doesn't always have text right on top of it, sometimes it's too the side, etc.

So I'm trying to come up with a variation on the mark (or rather, how the mark + type is placed\used) that fits better at smaller sizes. The main issue with this is the bold, chunky primary type doesn't scale well. I've considered using my secondary typeface but that seems inconsistent. I think what I might do is redraw the letterforms of my primary typeface to create varying weights - a type family of sorts. Then I can use slightly less thick weights for smaller sizes, and it should look a lot less blobular.
Any suggestions?

Oy, no need for vaguely sarcastic airquotes! Hahah.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mister-d2 In reply to spacesuitcatalyst [2009-10-07 23:08:56 +0000 UTC]

I'd say ditch the chunky typeface would be a good start. Just keep the font at one weight, changing would look odd. I've never seen that before haha.

Are you going to have the water drop or the cloud as your logo?

What do you think about my new logo? Look @ avatar.

This is my process, think->software . I know that I need to start improving it . I have been sketching a lot more lately. So thats a +.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0