Fun logo crit

Primary tabs

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
Fun logo crit
0

I reworked this existing logo for a friend. He made the original logo and I thought I would save him from himself. Do you think I've succeeded?

Andrew Sipe's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 - 10:44am
0

It's a very clean approach and it's definitely better than the original, but it's stil a bit bland. Are you going to incorporate any other colors or textures? At least use a richer/darker green something closer to a tyipcal Forest Green for the "Green Fields" type.

I do like the hill and tree illustration, but the sun and clouds looks too childish and unrealistic. I'm not sure the sun actually has straight lines shooting out of it. I'm visualizing something with a lot more color (yellows>oranges>reds) and maybe even a gradient or two.

And the lower case co. next to the all caps ARTS doesn't seem right. either use all caps or all lower case.

Shaun Strack's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Jun 2007 - 10:46am
0

Even if you decide against incomporating some colors from the previous pallette, a few shades of green could help add some depth. For instance using a darker, richer green for the type and filling the white area possibly with the more yellow green you are using for the time now.

I also agree about the "ARTS co." area. It feels a bit like an after thought in how the type was handled (not to mean offense, just that it seems very much as if it were the last bit you added). I think all lower case may help.

Overall I think it is worlds better than the original (which for some reason seems NASCAR-esque to me (slanted type and color bars probably)

... _._. ... .. ... __.. ..._ ...

Pieter van Rosmalen's picture
Joined: 3 Mar 2005 - 3:23am
0

I like the ‘compactness‘ (if it’s a word in English) of the original. Yours is more a wordmark with a box around it.

Pieter van Rosmalen's picture
Joined: 3 Mar 2005 - 3:23am
0

I like the typeface you choose.

Jonathan Greenslade's picture
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 - 6:37am
0

I'm not too fond of either and the fonts on both of them are uninspired and possibly inapporpriate.

Maybe you could develop the segmented forms of the original into a stained glass window or stencil style which could retain some of the original's colours and work in single colour aswell.

PS: One of your sun's rays overshoots the frame.

Brian Feeney's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Jun 2007 - 12:57pm
0

i think it's nice, a huge improvement over the original, but a little flat. my solution might be to add some depth with a textured overlay.

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

thanks guys, i should have said that the logo was no where near finalized and that the color palette would be very vibrant. Like this.

The comments that the logo was too childish made me worry. My friend is selling mostly glass art. Glass art being...mostly pipes and bongs and that sort of thing. Not art supplies for kids. SO I will be completely reworking his logo again. Again retaining the sun thing he has going on and wants to keep. But making it a lot more crunchy granola (this is Austin after all) and less like a scene in a children's book.

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

That being said, do you like the colored versions? They may be worth showing potential youth market clients. Ha.

darrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Feb 2003 - 6:03pm
0

for such a great name, I'd suggest going a bit more abstract rather than so literal.

Maybe broad bars of green, or rays (like rows of plants in a field) etc...

Also, get rid of the box for now. Seems to be a bit of a crutch and likely not needed.

Regardless, your version is definitely and improvement.

Jonathan Greenslade's picture
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 - 6:37am
0

Have I missed the obvious? Is Green Fields basically what I would call a Head Shop?...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_shop

If so, then I think original logo's graphic elements (ignoring the type) were more suitable. The new logo (mainly because of the dominant type and choice of font) looks more appropriate for a landscape gardener.

If it is for a head shop then there's a whole world of Summer of Love and psychedelic graphic styles and fonts you could draw upon and maybe modernize.

Have you considered hand drawing it?

You titled this thread "Fun logo crit" and I think you could have a lot more fun with it and go 'totally way out dude'.

This is not the best example of the genre, but it gives an idea of what I'm getting at...

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

Well Wormwood, it isn't just a head shop so i didn't want to make it too TRIPPY DUDE. That being said, I've started taking in it that direction. Take a look:

this is still in progress. just noticed i should nudge the "l" lower.

thoughts?

darrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Feb 2003 - 6:03pm
0

Hey...MUCH better!

Jonathan Greenslade's picture
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 - 6:37am
0

Yeah baby. Now you're gettin somewhere.

Fire up that old bong, get naked and freak out with some crayons :)

Jonathan Greenslade's picture
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 - 6:37am
0

I'm not keen on that sharp angle bottom left.

Try interlocking the Green Fields lettering a little, like you did a bit with the rts of Arts.

The heavier weight, slight variations in stroke thickness and more wobbly edges of Arts co. might look good on the Green Fields lettering too.

Maybe have Green filled with one green and Fields with the other and outline them both in white and have Arts co. in white.

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

It's like you're in my brain! I already made those changes. I was wondering if the sun should go back in. I try putting one in, but then I have to introduce new colors that aren't green into the palette. And I'm kinda digging the all green aspect of it.

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

Here is the citrus version.

Jonathan Greenslade's picture
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 - 6:37am
0

I like the top one best of the 3 all green versions. I don't like the sun and I'm not sure about the Arts co. background blob in orange. Maybe offer those as alternate versions for the client to choose from.

On the non sun version I would raise the hill behind the 'n' of Green so it doesn't have so much white behind it.

Also I wouldn't have the bottom of the 'l' in Fields right on the edge of the background shape. Move it either in or out. Probably in would be best.

I quickly did this to primarily see if the letters could interlock even more but also to see how it would look with rounded corners...

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

Nice! thanks. that's very cool. I don't like the orange either. it looks too Nickelodeon.

Derek Schusterbauer's picture
Joined: 7 Oct 2005 - 12:38pm
0

I am in agreement that the top one of the three green ones is the best.
I think I would like to see the outlines of the text crisper, not so sketchy looking?

derek

Russ McMullin's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 - 11:02pm
0

It seems like the creator of the website needs to do a lot more thinking about the purpose and organization of the website before any real decisions are made about the logo. The intent of the site is unclear to me. Is it a site for online artist portfolios? The domain name contributes to the confusion, and the lack of a descriptive tagline perpetuates it.

The current logo looks like a lawncare business and it doesn't scale well. The thin lines would drop out if it were scaled down to fit on a business card. It also looks very dated. The initial "improvements" you posted suffer from the same 1970s look, as well as the inability to scale. Adding more colors created a new problem: lack of contrast.

The next round of revisions is a lot more fun to look at, but the logo still doesn't give an indication of what the site is about. "Arts" doesn't seem descriptive enough to me. If it were me, I would give up trying to include the hills and the sun, and concentrate on using the logo to convey the purpose of the site. With that in mind, I would first scrap the domain name and replace it with something that says art instead of agriculture.

Tom Lukacs's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 May 2006 - 7:52pm
0

I have to say I wasn't much of a fan of the original logo nor your first examples (in the coloured ones, I really missed the yellow to make things more vibrant), but your final logo's are a vast improvement. Really nice, although I'm not too sure about the orange... The 2nd one of the new series with white outlines (the one with the darkgreen part for "Arts co.") seems to have it all. No need for yellow in this case, 'cause the white brightens it up a bit & the overall design is funky enough on its own.
Nice job!

darrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Feb 2003 - 6:03pm
0

"I think I would like to see the outlines of the text crisper, not so sketchy looking?"

I'd disagree...I'm really liking the hand drawn feel.

Jenny Jemison's picture
Offline
Joined: 6 Apr 2007 - 4:34pm
0

"With that in mind, I would first scrap the domain name and replace it with something that says art instead of agriculture"

It's a head shop. Hence the reference to "Green." Fields is his last name. Pay no attention to its online presence, that will be replaced to reflect the merch in his store which is mostly glass pipes. He's going to sell his own artwork in the store as well. I tried to talk him out of the name (mostly because it doesn't roll off the tongue) but it's not something he's wiling to consider.

He also doesn't want to lose the sun. I may do some more treatments with a different version.

Russ McMullin's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 - 11:02pm
0

I didn't read all the posts, and I'm not a dope smoker so I guess I missed the reference. Oops. So then, the original logos missed the mark even further than I thought. They all look too bright and kid-friendly. Wormwood's style suggestion is going in the right direction. You might try turning the psychodelic hills into mushrooms and using darker colors.