New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Hiphop/electronica act [logotype won't work]
Posted by mads in
2 Dec 2004 — 5:25am
2 Dec 2004 — 5:25am
EDIT: Had some trouble uploading the pictures in this post; they're in the follow-up.
--
Hello people.
I'm doing a logotype for a group called Melk.
http://www.madshougaard.dk/typophile/melk_1.gif
I started out with this (very loosely outlined - no consistency whatsoever)
Then decided it was a bit too 'sharp', so I reworked it, trying to get a Cooper / Sauna Black -quality to it:
http://www.madshougaard.dk/typophile/melk_2.jpg
..then decided it was, after all, a bit too loose.
http://www.madshougaard.dk/typophile/melk_4.gif
However, I did like the slanted look of the previous sketch, so I did this:
http://www.madshougaard.dk/typophile/melk_5.gif
Something doesn't look right to me. It is the M I think. Maybe partly the E as well (btw: is it legible?).
Please comment...
regards,
Mads
User login
Support our Sponsors
2 Dec 2004 — 5:34am
trying once again:
step one:
step two:
where I am now:
2 Dec 2004 — 6:39am
I think your sketch is sweet! Kerning aside, i think it's got a more accurate baseline and a more descernable form for the 'e,' a better series of terminals, and, well, I dig the curves.
Not knowing who this hiphop/electronica folks are, I can't tell you whether or not the fluid is better for them, but I know visually I find the sketch more interesting, and more cohesive. The strokes on the 'm,' for instance, are a lot more similar to the rest of the letters, where as the digitized versions don't quite match.
I think the angle of the 'm' strokes aren't supported by the angle of the 'e,' which appears to be violently attacking the m. maybe if the left corner of the e was not a corner this would be different.
Anyway, rock on, this is interesting stuff!
Aaron
EDIT: I just noticed that in your hand drawn sketch, the 'lk" ascenders are not really lined up, which I think is a great detail and could help liven up your digital versions!
6 Dec 2004 — 2:18pm
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the comments! You make some interesting points.. I'll try to work at it.
To some degree I also think the sketch is best.. still; I think it gets too soft for them. Guess I'll have to try to balance the soft / hard details better..
Mads
7 Dec 2004 — 1:03pm
hi!
) melle...
I think the "where I am now:", nr 1. version is more legible. at nr. 2 the e and the k's hmm... righ side is quite alike, which makes them read the same. so in the worst case i could read (if i realy want to
so i thought.. I show u what i had in mind,
with a more K like thing... maybe:
cheers Mads, i actualy realy liked ur 1st scatch too
15 Dec 2004 — 3:46am
Hi Greg,
Thanks for looking into it. I like your take on the K.. however, I think it's turning to a direction that's not quite right for this.
I've made a new M. It's been a struggle. Is it too different from the others?
regards
Mads
17 Dec 2004 — 12:10am
hey - the e in your sketch...I think you might need the curve in the eye from the sketch onto your comps. in fact if you traced your sketch excatly, smoothed out some curves, I think you got something, well I like it at least, rather then the hard lines.
strangely enough before your last revision I can't quite see the e - seems more like "c" or just some undesernable glyph but when you flipped the m, I see more e-ness, but the direction bothers me - unless you extend the strokes on k to the same degree and lenght for some sort of balance?
just my tidbits.
-t
6 Jan 2005 — 12:12pm
I also like the e in your sketch, but the m and k look sort of like Hebrew. You've rectified this largely in the last revision, but I second Tanya's suggestoin regarding the curved eye. Bring back the curved body, as well
27 Jan 2005 — 1:42pm
Hello,
Sorry for responding so late; thanks for the comments. The deadline caught me, and this is how it ended:
Wish I had more time for it.
Mads.