Choice #2:
Choice #3:
Logo Critique
Author
I just want a little logo critique. The original logo (the first one) was done by a graphic designer who is a friend of mine, while the last two were modifications done by me just messing around with it.
I wanted something simple and elegant. I also wanted a stand-alone logo as well (the frame with a red inside) that I could put on anything and people would automatically think, "I know that logo, Masterpiece!" So without further ado, here they are. Please critique all of them and tell me your favorite, with reasoning.
Choice #1:
Choice #2:
Choice #3:
Choice #2:
Choice #3:
I think choice number 2 would be the best. You have a simple logo, and if you just show the red tilted box then it still signifies your company. If it is gray-scaled like a lot of professional documents seem to be, it still would turn out well, having only 2 colors.
If you go with #2, I don't think you should make the "M" in the red square part of the word after it.
Personally, I quite like #1. You could also make the border around the square a little more like a picture frame... if you know what I mean... look at this and use the outline of the frame as the outline of your picture. Sort of thing. It makes it look more "masterpiece-y".
Personally, I quite like #1. You could also make the border around the square a little more like a picture frame... if you know what I mean... look at this and use the outline of the frame as the outline of your picture. Sort of thing. It makes it look more "masterpiece-y".
Author
My original thought was to go with #2 like Dragon suggested, but you're right Codeka; I bookmarked the site you sent over and I'm going to ask my designer if he could do a sort of cartoony-like take on that to get a more masterpiece-y feel. That's a great idea!
Quote:Original post by Codeka
If you go with #2, I don't think you should make the "M" in the red square part of the word after it.
I agree with this. I read "asterpiece" before I noticed the M in the logo was part of the full name. I think the reason for this is that they are too far apart visually. By that I mean that they don't necessarily need to be closer together in terms of pixels or inches, but they need to be more 'connected', perhaps by adding a background shape or something.
Logo #1 looks funny. I'd choose it. I don't know about rest of you but I see a kind of an alien face inside the box. A bit like "Bad Robot" logo. Well, my colleagues always complain that I see faces in every composition.
Logo #2 not bad.
Logo #3 somehow associates with those PG-rating things like "M" for "Mature". Perhaps it is the color.
Best regards!
I'd go with #3, nice clean look. I think a university in the US has a similar "M" but with black and yellow? You could however try to tie the "M" rectangle together with the rest of the letters. Sort of like the underline in #1. Sorry to say I don't like the hand control at all. Maybe if it was a bit less cartoony and not tilted on the side I'd like it more. Good luck! =)
I strongly dislike #1, as the gamepad that is inelegantly ugly and associated with prehistoric consoles such as the Sega Master System and Genesis. If you like non-abstract logos, I'm sure you can find better subjects.
Since #3 is too unremarkable, #2 is the best.
It looks good, but maybe you should spell "MASTERPIECE" in full on the outside, since most people would read "ASTERPIECE" before correcting themselves; a M with a slanted left leg would fit the frame as well as the current A.
Consider using just the framed M as your main logo, and a more distinctive font.
Since #3 is too unremarkable, #2 is the best.
It looks good, but maybe you should spell "MASTERPIECE" in full on the outside, since most people would read "ASTERPIECE" before correcting themselves; a M with a slanted left leg would fit the frame as well as the current A.
Consider using just the framed M as your main logo, and a more distinctive font.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
