Johnny Best
Active Member
i cannot vison that, need to see it drawn out.
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Logo Design
- Thread starter Grizzly
- Start date
-
- Tags
- logo design
UpAndPrinting
New Member
I'm not trying to be rude, but using fiverr or designhill is nothing but cheap cookie cutter bs that's most likely generated in ai. DesignHill flaunts it.
Hiring a hungry freelance designer is your best option for getting the absolute best results for the lowest price. It won't be as low as fiverr or designhill. But you're actually going to get an effective logo from the freelance designer if you do your research and check their portfolio out. Logos are a lot of fun to create with a customer. In my opinion, it's literally the foundation of your business. You should not cheap out on it.
signbrad
New Member
A couple of points:
There are around 1800 registered trademarks that use the name Kodiak. There are many companies that use the same name for trademarks without any issues. Even the use of the same letter style by two logos may be a non-issue. Trademark law is not designed to prevent "copying," but to prevent confusion in the marketplace. What are the odds that consumers will confuse a landscaping company with a smokeless tobacco brand, even if the logo designs are similar?
AI-generated artwork is not protected by copyright at this point in time. Artwork must have a human creator to qualify for copyright protection. Of course, legislation , as well as case law, could rapidly change this.
Most logo designs (in the US) do not qualify for copyright protection, anyway. Most trademarks consist of mere lettering, or lettering together with common shapes, neither of which is copyrightable. This has long been the stand of the US Congress and the US Copyright Office.
What about trademark protection? There is practically no limit to what can function as a trademark and receive trademark protection. Even individual letters of the apphabet have had hundreds of trademark registrations.
A logo does not need to depict what a company does for a living. It does not need to "tell a story" or even "mean" anything. This is a widespread misconception. Kodiak does not convey the idea of landscaping any more than it conveys the idea of smokeless tobacco. But this is a non-problem. As Michael Bierut, of Pentagram, once said,
Paul Rand, considered by many to be the father of modern logo design, made these comments,
What is required of a logo design? Its purpose is not to explain, but to identify.
It should be clear and memorable. Easily recognizable.
Does it need to be simple? Not necessarily. Simplicity is not a requirement for a logo, though many good logos are simple. Paul Rand's logo designs were mostly simple. But there have been complex logo designs that have been successful. Still, a logo that includes gradients, bevels, outlines, highlights and other tricks, is naturally going to self-limiting in its end uses. A logo may need to be cut out of thick aluminum, carved in wood, embossed, embroidered, or printed on bags in single color. A logo with lots of complexities may make some of these things difficult or very expensive. A logo design with lots of visual tricks should be accompanied by an alternate design that is "dumbed down" for uses where the complicated one will just add unnecessary expense.
Many clients do not understand this.
Does a logo need to be clever or highly creative? No. And honestly, these terms may not be highly meaningful. Two different people may differ in their opinion as to what is creative or clever.
At any rate, was the Nike swoosh a product of design genius? Of course not. If it were designed today it would likely be ridiculed as simplistic or lacking in creativity. Its designer did not base the logo on Greek mythology as many believe. That story was an "after story." The name Nike had not even been settled on yet. She was told to make a logo that "conveyed motion." And that's what she did.
Logo design is, to a great extent, subjective. Ten different good designers may come up with ten completely different solutions to the same design problem—and they may all be good, though they may criticize each other's concepts.
When the Chase Bank logo was first presented to bank executives, some of them hated it. Why? "It doesn't mean anything!" one of them complained. Yet it has been successful for sixty years.
What was the the secret to its success? Design genius? No.
It has been successful for the same reasons that the Nike swoosh has been successful—it represented a quality product (or, at least, one of perceived quality), and it was then relentlessly and aggressively marketed.
Brad in Kansas City
There are around 1800 registered trademarks that use the name Kodiak. There are many companies that use the same name for trademarks without any issues. Even the use of the same letter style by two logos may be a non-issue. Trademark law is not designed to prevent "copying," but to prevent confusion in the marketplace. What are the odds that consumers will confuse a landscaping company with a smokeless tobacco brand, even if the logo designs are similar?
AI-generated artwork is not protected by copyright at this point in time. Artwork must have a human creator to qualify for copyright protection. Of course, legislation , as well as case law, could rapidly change this.
Most logo designs (in the US) do not qualify for copyright protection, anyway. Most trademarks consist of mere lettering, or lettering together with common shapes, neither of which is copyrightable. This has long been the stand of the US Congress and the US Copyright Office.
What about trademark protection? There is practically no limit to what can function as a trademark and receive trademark protection. Even individual letters of the apphabet have had hundreds of trademark registrations.
A logo does not need to depict what a company does for a living. It does not need to "tell a story" or even "mean" anything. This is a widespread misconception. Kodiak does not convey the idea of landscaping any more than it conveys the idea of smokeless tobacco. But this is a non-problem. As Michael Bierut, of Pentagram, once said,
Paul Rand, considered by many to be the father of modern logo design, made these comments,
What is required of a logo design? Its purpose is not to explain, but to identify.
It should be clear and memorable. Easily recognizable.
Does it need to be simple? Not necessarily. Simplicity is not a requirement for a logo, though many good logos are simple. Paul Rand's logo designs were mostly simple. But there have been complex logo designs that have been successful. Still, a logo that includes gradients, bevels, outlines, highlights and other tricks, is naturally going to self-limiting in its end uses. A logo may need to be cut out of thick aluminum, carved in wood, embossed, embroidered, or printed on bags in single color. A logo with lots of complexities may make some of these things difficult or very expensive. A logo design with lots of visual tricks should be accompanied by an alternate design that is "dumbed down" for uses where the complicated one will just add unnecessary expense.
Many clients do not understand this.
Does a logo need to be clever or highly creative? No. And honestly, these terms may not be highly meaningful. Two different people may differ in their opinion as to what is creative or clever.
At any rate, was the Nike swoosh a product of design genius? Of course not. If it were designed today it would likely be ridiculed as simplistic or lacking in creativity. Its designer did not base the logo on Greek mythology as many believe. That story was an "after story." The name Nike had not even been settled on yet. She was told to make a logo that "conveyed motion." And that's what she did.
Logo design is, to a great extent, subjective. Ten different good designers may come up with ten completely different solutions to the same design problem—and they may all be good, though they may criticize each other's concepts.
When the Chase Bank logo was first presented to bank executives, some of them hated it. Why? "It doesn't mean anything!" one of them complained. Yet it has been successful for sixty years.
What was the the secret to its success? Design genius? No.
It has been successful for the same reasons that the Nike swoosh has been successful—it represented a quality product (or, at least, one of perceived quality), and it was then relentlessly and aggressively marketed.
Brad in Kansas City
signbrad
New Member
A couple of points:
There are around 1800 registered trademarks that use the name Kodiak. There are many companies that use the same name for trademarks without any issues. Even the use of the same letter style by two logos may be a non-issue. Trademark law is not designed to prevent "copying," but to prevent confusion in the marketplace. What are the odds that consumers will confuse a landscaping company with a smokeless tobacco brand, even if the logo designs are similar?
AI-generated artwork is not protected by copyright at this point in time. Artwork must have a human creator to qualify for copyright protection. Of course, legislation , as well as case law, could rapidly change this.
Most logo designs (in the US) do not qualify for copyright protection, anyway. Most trademarks consist of mere lettering, or lettering together with common shapes, neither of which is copyrightable. This has long been the stand of the US Congress and the US Copyright Office.
What about trademark protection? There is practically no limit to what can function as a trademark and receive trademark protection. Even individual letters of the apphabet have had hundreds of trademark registrations.
A logo does not need to depict what a company does for a living. It does not need to "tell a story" or even "mean" anything. This is a widespread misconception. Kodiak does not convey the idea of landscaping any more than it conveys the idea of smokeless tobacco. But this is a non-problem. As Michael Bierut, of Pentagram, once said,
Paul Rand, considered by many to be the father of modern logo design, made these comments,
What is required of a logo design? Its purpose is not to explain, but to identify.
It should be clear and memorable. Easily recognizable.
Does it need to be simple? Not necessarily. Simplicity is not a requirement for a logo, though many good logos are simple. Paul Rand's logo designs were mostly simple. But there have been complex logo designs that have been successful. Still, a logo that includes gradients, bevels, outlines, highlights and other tricks, is naturally going to self-limiting in its end uses. A logo may need to be cut out of thick aluminum, carved in wood, embossed, embroidered, or printed on bags in single color. A logo with lots of complexities may make some of these things difficult or very expensive. A logo design with lots of visual tricks should be accompanied by an alternate design that is "dumbed down" for uses where the complicated one will just add unnecessary expense.
Many clients do not understand this.
Does a logo need to be clever or highly creative? No. And honestly, these terms may not be highly meaningful. Two different people may differ in their opinion as to what is creative or clever.
At any rate, was the Nike swoosh a product of design genius? Of course not. If it were designed today it would likely be ridiculed as simplistic or lacking in creativity. Its designer did not base the logo on Greek mythology as many believe. That story was an "after story." The name Nike had not even been settled on yet. She was told to make a logo that "conveyed motion." And that's what she did.
Logo design is, to a great extent, subjective. Ten different good designers may come up with ten completely different solutions to the same design problem—and they may all be good, though they may criticize each other's concepts.
When the Chase Bank logo was first presented to bank executives, some of them hated it. Why? "It doesn't mean anything!" one of them complained. Yet it has been successful for sixty years.
What was the the secret to its success? Design genius? No.
It has been successful for the same reasons that the Nike swoosh has been successful—it represented a quality product (or, at least, one of perceived quality), and it was then relentlessly and aggressively marketed.
Brad in Kansas City
There are around 1800 registered trademarks that use the name Kodiak. There are many companies that use the same name for trademarks without any issues. Even the use of the same letter style by two logos may be a non-issue. Trademark law is not designed to prevent "copying," but to prevent confusion in the marketplace. What are the odds that consumers will confuse a landscaping company with a smokeless tobacco brand, even if the logo designs are similar?
AI-generated artwork is not protected by copyright at this point in time. Artwork must have a human creator to qualify for copyright protection. Of course, legislation , as well as case law, could rapidly change this.
Most logo designs (in the US) do not qualify for copyright protection, anyway. Most trademarks consist of mere lettering, or lettering together with common shapes, neither of which is copyrightable. This has long been the stand of the US Congress and the US Copyright Office.
What about trademark protection? There is practically no limit to what can function as a trademark and receive trademark protection. Even individual letters of the apphabet have had hundreds of trademark registrations.
A logo does not need to depict what a company does for a living. It does not need to "tell a story" or even "mean" anything. This is a widespread misconception. Kodiak does not convey the idea of landscaping any more than it conveys the idea of smokeless tobacco. But this is a non-problem. As Michael Bierut, of Pentagram, once said,
Paul Rand, considered by many to be the father of modern logo design, made these comments,
What is required of a logo design? Its purpose is not to explain, but to identify.
It should be clear and memorable. Easily recognizable.
Does it need to be simple? Not necessarily. Simplicity is not a requirement for a logo, though many good logos are simple. Paul Rand's logo designs were mostly simple. But there have been complex logo designs that have been successful. Still, a logo that includes gradients, bevels, outlines, highlights and other tricks, is naturally going to self-limiting in its end uses. A logo may need to be cut out of thick aluminum, carved in wood, embossed, embroidered, or printed on bags in single color. A logo with lots of complexities may make some of these things difficult or very expensive. A logo design with lots of visual tricks should be accompanied by an alternate design that is "dumbed down" for uses where the complicated one will just add unnecessary expense.
Many clients do not understand this.
Does a logo need to be clever or highly creative? No. And honestly, these terms may not be highly meaningful. Two different people may differ in their opinion as to what is creative or clever.
At any rate, was the Nike swoosh a product of design genius? Of course not. If it were designed today it would likely be ridiculed as simplistic or lacking in creativity. Its designer did not base the logo on Greek mythology as many believe. That story was an "after story." The name Nike had not even been settled on yet. She was told to make a logo that "conveyed motion." And that's what she did.
Logo design is, to a great extent, subjective. Ten different good designers may come up with ten completely different solutions to the same design problem—and they may all be good, though they may criticize each other's concepts.
When the Chase Bank logo was first presented to bank executives, some of them hated it. Why? "It doesn't mean anything!" one of them complained. Yet it has been successful for sixty years.
What was the the secret to its success? Design genius? No.
It has been successful for the same reasons that the Nike swoosh has been successful—it represented a quality product (or, at least, one of perceived quality), and it was then relentlessly and aggressively marketed.
Brad in Kansas City
Ron at Forest Litho
New Member
I have done lots of designs that are not what the customer has in his mind. That happens because the customer can't tell me what he is thinking or what he actually wants.
Most of the time, once he has my initial designs he starts explaining to me what he really is wanting because I gave him a starting point. But occasionally the problem is that he has no friggin' idea what he wants. One of my favorites is when the guy had his nephew design it, and it was great, I loved it. But like all amateurs, it was designed in RGB in a low-res format in bits and not scalable. And it was organic and varied in nature so it absolutely could not be reproduced except in the original he made. But what they made was absolutely unprintable. (Looked great on his little cellphone screen tho.) And when I told him to have his nephew redo it in CMYK color and set the bits in photoshop to 1200 instead of 150... I might as well have been talking in ancient heiroglyphics. And I have clients that I do some fancier work for as to borders and backgrounds becaseu tehy told me to make it "nice." And they always chicken out and pare it down to a clean and common look. Oh well.
Most of the time, once he has my initial designs he starts explaining to me what he really is wanting because I gave him a starting point. But occasionally the problem is that he has no friggin' idea what he wants. One of my favorites is when the guy had his nephew design it, and it was great, I loved it. But like all amateurs, it was designed in RGB in a low-res format in bits and not scalable. And it was organic and varied in nature so it absolutely could not be reproduced except in the original he made. But what they made was absolutely unprintable. (Looked great on his little cellphone screen tho.) And when I told him to have his nephew redo it in CMYK color and set the bits in photoshop to 1200 instead of 150... I might as well have been talking in ancient heiroglyphics. And I have clients that I do some fancier work for as to borders and backgrounds becaseu tehy told me to make it "nice." And they always chicken out and pare it down to a clean and common look. Oh well.
myront
Dammit, make it faster!!
Am I the only one who stops right there after that statement and screams WHY!!!!
Why would any reputable designer design in photoshop?! Photoshop elements, sure, but the design should always be in a vector program. Sometime down the road you're gonna want it slapped on the side of your van/truck and it's gonna be a pita for the designer to create a good cut line.
With logo design, unfortunately, you often just have to give the customer what he wants -even if the idea is just stupid and/or way too complicated to actually qualify as a logo. Paul Rand made real logos.
But most small businesses are not really looking for anything clean, direct and "corporate looking." They don't understand a clean icon with all unnecessary embellishments stripped away is going to be far more legible at long viewing distances or can be output at small point sizes in print. They just want something "pretty" or "cool looking."
One thing I really can't stand are logos that are really multiple logos inside one larger logo. It's like those Russian Matryoshka stacking dolls. The US Army has a pretty bad habit of developing crests that do that. The end result is a complicated graphical illustration rather than a logo.
Because they're too LAZY to use the correct tool for the job.
Countless numbers of people are passing themselves off as "professional graphic designers" with their only "qualification" being they got their hands on a copy of Photoshop. Some are doing (or trying to do) graphic design work as a side hustle. Others are doing it in their workplace as a sidebar to whatever their real day job tasks might be. Either way, they're often giving us garbage quality art to work with.
Most of these people won't use Illustrator, CorelDRAW or even some of the cheaper or free vector applications that are available. They're used to working in Photoshop. So that's all they want to use. Never mind the problems it creates. These are also the same kinds of people who complain in graphics related forums about apps like Illustrator, InDesign, etc being separate pieces of software. Why can't they be combined into one app? In the end, it all boils down to laziness. They don't want to learn anything new or deal with using multiple applications.
But most small businesses are not really looking for anything clean, direct and "corporate looking." They don't understand a clean icon with all unnecessary embellishments stripped away is going to be far more legible at long viewing distances or can be output at small point sizes in print. They just want something "pretty" or "cool looking."
One thing I really can't stand are logos that are really multiple logos inside one larger logo. It's like those Russian Matryoshka stacking dolls. The US Army has a pretty bad habit of developing crests that do that. The end result is a complicated graphical illustration rather than a logo.
myront said:
Because they're too LAZY to use the correct tool for the job.
Countless numbers of people are passing themselves off as "professional graphic designers" with their only "qualification" being they got their hands on a copy of Photoshop. Some are doing (or trying to do) graphic design work as a side hustle. Others are doing it in their workplace as a sidebar to whatever their real day job tasks might be. Either way, they're often giving us garbage quality art to work with.
Most of these people won't use Illustrator, CorelDRAW or even some of the cheaper or free vector applications that are available. They're used to working in Photoshop. So that's all they want to use. Never mind the problems it creates. These are also the same kinds of people who complain in graphics related forums about apps like Illustrator, InDesign, etc being separate pieces of software. Why can't they be combined into one app? In the end, it all boils down to laziness. They don't want to learn anything new or deal with using multiple applications.
UpAndPrinting
New Member
I know what you're saying from someone that requires vectors to work with. However Photoshop is a quintessential tool during the illustration process. Not for everyone. But for the majority it's vital during the logo creation process. Sending to Illustrator and/or wherever else afterwards is common.
Gino
Premium Subscriber
Because they use all the effects and stupid gimmicks instead of creating a real design/logo. I can see a shadow or a bevel, but all the things available there are dumb.
I just got a job about a week ago for a small company who had their layout and logo designed. The guy went to them to have it done, but they had already gone outta business. He sent it to me and all I saw was effect on top of effect and just a buncha garbage that in the end, you could read while looking at a computer screen, but in the real world it was worthless. I re-did it and he said, that's what I want. We're doing his trucks in about 2 weeks. Our cost was higher than the other guy, too. I do have a gradation in the letters, but all the bevels, inline shadows and inner & outer glows and other bullcrap is gone..... and it's clean and legible
Owen Signcraft
New Member
If you have a look at most large companies' brand identity guides, one common factor is the "eloquent degradation" of their logo, meaning the logo is recognizable in any format, from full-colour to one-colour. Starting in a raster format like Photoshop limits not only the scalability but the eloquent degradation into more simple formats required for embroidery or screen printing.
UpAndPrinting
New Member
Depends on the artist. For me they go hand in hand. Also, I said is A quintessential tool during the illustration process. Not THE quintessential tool. We're getting into semantics though to be honest.