Well actually I don't know if this logo is the original or not...but it was still a pretty cool project.
They wanted to keep the look and flavor of the original with enhancements and a little stream-lining.
I couldn't have done it without some great period fonts from letterheadfonts.com!
Here is the original:
The one color enhancement:
The full color treatment:
Whaddaya think?
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
Nice!!! I like what you've done Barry. Only things I might suggest is making the background within the ribbons just a tad lighter to provide more contrast. Secondly, for the single colour version, I'd just take your full-colour version, and save it as a greyscale.
Posted by Bill Modzel (Member # 22) on :
Nice work Barry. One this struck me as a bit odd. That lump on the left of the A. Do you thing it may have been an open loop that got filled in over the many years of copying?
Posted by Barry Branscum (Member # 445) on :
Good question Bill, I honestly couldn't guess. I wondered too, to tell the truth. But I was directed to maintain the look of the original, and I didn't want to do too much to it.
You may be right though. The original above is the best they could give me, and it is obviously a copy of a copy's great great grandpa. lol. so it could be a distortion.
The peace pipe is what I puzzled over forever...why have it, and why have it upside down?
The "A" is weird, but in a not awful way, don't you think?
Posted by Kelly Thorson (Member # 2958) on :
I like your choice of colours. I think the text wrapping could use a bit of fine tuning on the Land Title and Association portions, but overall I quite like it. Let's see that last one in monotone like Ken said.
Posted by Barry Branscum (Member # 445) on :
Alrighty...here ya go. Now I am gonna have to redo their logo CD!
You guys were right. I thought it'd be too busy but it still looks pretty darn good!
Posted by Bruce & Deb Newton (Member # 2312) on :
Barry,
I find the light source on the main "A" to be a bit confusing. It looks like it is coming from the top and right side, but then the right stroke of the letter has no highlights at all. All of this then seems to be conflict with the drop shade (down and to the right) on the shape of the state, making it's light source coming from the top and left.
Bruce
Posted by Barry Branscum (Member # 445) on :
Bruce you are exactly right, technically. But I kind of don't see the "drop shadow" of the stat as shadow so much as thickness derived from the angle of view or whatever...
okay fine...like I said your technically right, I just liked play of the light source on the A coming from below and right better than top left, okay...OKAY!!!?!?!?
Thanks for your comments.
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
That is not a peace pipe. It is called a faces, which is an ax bundled with rods and bound with a ribbon. It's also on the back of the mercury dime.
There are actually quite a few alphabets that have a similar capital A:
You didn't ask for a critique, so I won't go into the things I would change, but I agree with Bruce. The highlights on the A are confusing.
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
I don't like it. It is too busy.
Posted by captain ken (Member # 742) on :
looks great, i love the photoshop effects on it, the thing I dont like is the block shde on the state shape, some states just are not that recognizable by shape and the shadow of the same color takes away from that, and it makes it look like you got part of Louisiana and Tennesee in there. I might lose the shadow and send the shape of the state furture back by lightening it or less effects on it.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Honestly - not trying to be mean here - I like the original better.
The new ones look too computer effect-laden and have too much icky/saturated color.
Something about the original that has a dynamic/retro feel.
At some point there needs to be some restraint on the computer....not EVERY element needs to be textured/beveled/etc.
Oh... I thought the thingy in the original was a gatling gun....
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
I agree with you Todd about liking the original better. The "shadow" behind the shield isn't great, but everything else reads nicely. I also like the tilt of the shield.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Yeah, I like the tilt of the shield too. It has a nice sturdy look to it.
Not trying to bust on ya Barry...I can get a little overindulgent with the effects sometimes too.... Posted by Barry Branscum (Member # 445) on :
Todd, Russ...all I can say is ARRRRRRRRRGGHH!!
I respect the heck outta you two, really I do, but it must just be stylistic differences or something.
These people LOVED this stuff...LOVED IT. An uppity committee of stuffed shirts paid me 500 bucks for the revamp and oooed and ahhed over it when they came in. We made panels for their centennial convention, and table drapes using this--all to rave reviews....
I just don't get it. Now, my feelings aren't hurt, and I'm pretty sure (as sure as you can be over teh interwebs) none of it is personal, but geeez!
I could see where my critics were coming from on virtually everything except these last two comments. You guys are just plain wrong. Period. The crooked shield decries weakness and instability, the fasces (thank you Russ) is indecipherable and confusing, and the version you see is the BEST COPY THEY HAVE, are you two on CRACK?
Man, I am just glad my customer base doesn't see me the way you guys do, or I'd never make a buck.
Whew, that said, I wrote all this with a smile, and I don't really care what you think, so nyah. Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
quote:Whaddaya think?
LOL... maybe you should subscribe to the "don't ask/don't tell" policy....
Nothing personal Barry.... just sharing opinions as one would expect on the portfolio page...which I view as an area for inspiration, learning and critical discussion - which, hopefully leads to growth.
quote:You guys are just plain wrong
Everyone has an ego and a desire for lavish affirmation and admiration, but heaping dishonest praise on every piece posted doesn't seem very practical in advancing ones' skills.
We're Letterheads - not Bobbleheads, right?
I for one, appreciate criticism - no matter how nuanced or picky... because I like to load those arrows into my quiver for future use.
You'll notice that I gave you unabashed kudos on your "silkworm" sign. Not picking on you dude.
Glad your customer liked it.
Posted by Barry Branscum (Member # 445) on :
Thanks Todd. I hope you realize that I did not have my feathers ruffled when you quoted me saying you guys were wrong.
It's always a mixed bag when anyone posts here, I know that.
Critiques, yes. Stylistic opinion, and personal taste, unfortunately yes. But such is the nature of the board, no?
So thank you for your always well meant criticism.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)