Hallo everybody, I
hi, Stefanie. ﬁrst of all i dont like italic in “divisign” and its spacing in correlation with “forte+wegmann”. maybe you should use some real 3d forms as a sign?
Hi Dmitry, thanks for your answer. You are right I don
3D scanning = cutting edge logos with gradated lines = too 70’s/80’s-era
i meant some pseudo 3d structure or something more modern (as Darrel said).. about typeface, try some techno faces or frutiger but at more havy weight..
Stefanie: I like your concept of taking the parent company’s mark and giving it a 3-D eﬀect, but you may need to loosen it up a bit to avoid having it look dated (as Darrel said, “too 70’s/80’s-era). Develop the concept more, but don’t make it look so rigid (square). What kind of scanning technology is used? Do points/dots represent the technology better than lines? Aloha! Scott
Thanks for your answers. It is an optical scan technology, with two cameras. If an object is scanned there will apear lines on the object. There are no points in the scanning process instead of a red laser point to focus the object. Perhaps I could try to use some kind of camera for the logo but the scanned objects should be on the focus.
Hallo everybody, here are my new results: The logotype is info oﬃce and info text in diﬀerent versions. Now I don
Why do you have variations in type weight? To the average person it might seem like an accident or way to suttle of a concept.
Why are you not dotting the “i“ ‘s in the lc versions? They look like “1”s. Is this intentional, and if so, what does it mean? Honestly, none of these are working for me. I don’t think the two faces are working well together. Especially with the weight treatment that David identiﬁed. Aloha! Scott
Hi Stefanie, how’s it going? I’m interested in the progress, if there is any. My $0,02: Like Scott, I don’t really see any of the four Info Oﬃce/Info Text concepts work well. 1st one: spaced too tight. Base line of the two parts (divi and sign) doesn’t seem to match. “i”s look like “1”s. 2nd one: I don’t see the two sides go very well together. Somehow I ﬁnd the lettershapes of the “divi” part too cheap. 3rd one: Base line problem again. I don’t really like the serifs on the divi side either. 4th one: Absolute no-go, if you ask me. Info Oﬃce and Info Text look way too similar in this one, building up zero contrast, but giving an uneasy, heterogenous look to the whole thing. “i”s look like “1”s again. Generally, I don’t see why you’re breaking up “divisign” into two parts and why the “sign” part is emphasized, particularly as you stated above that it’s composed of three ingredients (digital, vision and sign). The divisign logo isn’t bad as a variant of the mother company logo, but I think that there’s room for improvement, especially when a very close resemblance between the two logos isn’t mandatory. From a geometric point of view, the pseudo 3D logo isn’t completely logical (with the vertical lines forming a square, one would intuitively expect the lines that indicate the sphere to ﬂow both to the left and the right instead of exclusively to the right), but this isn’t too big of a concern to me. Keep it coming. jpg
Yes, keep it coming…
hi everybody, ﬁrst of all I want to thank you all, you really helped me a lot. Until now my boss wants this logo: It was his suggestion to split the logo in two parts. The colours are the same as in the old logo. He also wanted 3D eﬀects with photoshop ﬁlters like shadows … So I think this is the best compromise.