Paige Addams wrote:
Shoot
Quite a few photo's I have here still have my old logo in them, but the design is pretty much the same.

First off, I love your work. But you didn't ask me for my opinion on that, so let's move on.

Your logo is elegant, which fits your style well, and it's cleanly done, so good job on that. That said, mixing the antique framing with Gotham (that's it, right? hard to tell that small, but it doesn't look like Avenir or Proxima Nova) is a little jarring to me. I get why you'd be interested in a sans like that for your logo, mixing a bit of old, a bit of new, but I think this choice needs a little finessing.

Gotham tries to evoke buildings of a certain age, though I've always thought the lower-case had too high of an x-height (the height of the lower-case letters relative to the height of the capitals) -- it's almost trying too hard to be friendly, and it sacrifices the elegance of the capitals. If you had used just the capitals you might get away with it, but because your logo uses "Desdemona" and not "Paige," that gets you into a very wide logo. You might try Futura instead of Gotham for a similar feel but perhaps a better meld of styles.

You might also try having the name not be the same width as the frames above and below, for a little more visual interest. Having the lines of the frame shorter or longer would give two different effects, but either might be just a little more interesting than how it is now.

But overall good job -- you're further ahead than most other photographers. Thanks for playing!

Madame Black Photograph wrote:
as someone who once tried to do a little graphic design... and failed to get clients... I would love to know what you think.  Its best seen in this image......

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/16638343

It's a sharp, clean look. My issue with it is that the M and B just feel tacked-on. If you're going to go with an ornate look like this and want to use the M and B, go for a monogram and make them the centerpiece and use the raven (?) wings to complement the letters, not the other way around. If you turn the B 90 degrees one way or another so that it echoes the symmetry of the M (or vice versa), then you can pretty easily do an interesting interlock of the M and B in some gothic way. Look up Margo Chase's work if you don't already know it -- she's the queen of this kind of design.

revolucion foto wrote:
I you can find my logo here: http://j-fphoto.tumblr.com/

I don't plaster it over my photos.  :-/

I don't plaster mine either (high five!).

To your logo: just visually, I like the mix of clean and grunge, and I think the mark works well with the Helvetica Neue (though the type is rendered in such a way that it's flattened out the curves, which robs it a bit of its character).

Now: does the mark work for you? I don't know you at all, so I don't know the symbolism a lone star has for you. To me it says either Texas or military, or perhaps an award. Though for that, red often symbolizes second place, so that's probably not the combination you intended. But your work doesn't say Texas or military either. Perhaps it describes you as patriotic, but again, that doesn't speak to the style or content of your work. (Well, unless you're a first-amendment fanatic and this is your way of expressing it.)

I also don't see a lot of grunge in your work, though you do like to ride the edge of what would be considered fine-art nudes, so maybe that's what it means to you.

So while I think it looks good on a purely visual level, it looks generic to me -- it doesn't tell me enough about you. I think a lot of people could use this mark -- the best logo could more or less only be used by you.

Strangely enough, I've actually done a star logo myself, for one of my own projects. This logo packs a lot of specific meaning into it, and though the star is still a common symbol, I think I've done enough to the mark to make it uniquely my own.

That's what I'd like to see from yours.

Bottom line: I think you're off to a good start -- just need to tie it more specifically to you while retaining the style you want to communicate. Good luck and thanks for playing!

Robert Hare Photography wrote:
Sure I'm game!

I think you've got a potentially great logo for yourself hiding in there, but you're hurting yourself with the color splash and most of all the typography.

The mark: I'm guessing the swoosh creating the leg of the R is meant to evoke hair as both a pun on your name and an element of what you shoot. My problem is that you're making it too obvious, hitting the viewer over the head with it ("Get it? Get it?"). If it were the same color as the rest of the letter, the symbolism would be more subtle, and the mark would read better as an R. And not only as an R, but as a nicely stylized one that speaks to the industry you shoot in.

The typography: here's where I think you need the most work. Bank Gothic just doesn't say beauty or fashion to me. For as avant-garde as the industry itself tends to be, its typography sticks to a pretty similar look: contemporary yet timeless elegance. Bank Gothic is none of those, unless you're doing men's watches and only that, and probably not even for that.

It's especially jarring because Bank Gothic is built on rounded rectangles, such a different shape than the R of your mark. The one element of Bank Gothic that complements your mark is that, like your mark, it has an even thickness, but that's where it ends for me.

I might go instead for a typeface that evokes (without copying) the sharp angle and circular curve of your mark. And your name is short enough that you can get away with a wide typeface, which is also a hallmark of your industry. One option that's a fairly recent release, so not everyone is using it yet: Idlewild.

Good luck, and thanks for playing!

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Ok - interesting idea.
It's just under the about me heading on my MM profile.
Also on my website at http://www.JohnAllanStudio.com

This is pretty good. It speaks directly to the industry you specialize in and is a decent choice of type family (I see you're mixing Aviano Serif and Sans, which is a solid if straightforward decision). Sure, other people shooting the same type of work as you could use the same typeface and have it be just as effective, which makes it somewhat generic, but stylistically it's a good choice and not everyone has that sensibility, so you may be safe for now.

That said, while I like Aviano Sans, I feel like Aviano Serif falls down here and there, and unfortunately for me those flaws show up in the letters of your name. For example, the O doesn't have the same contrast of thick and thin strokes that other characters do, and especially at a small size like how you're using it, it becomes more apparent. The type designer is also inconsistent about carrying through the width of the thick strokes from capitals to small caps (the small N is ever-so-slightly heavier than the small A and L, for example). These are subtle, picky critiques, but for a typeface like this, details matter.

Of course, you have no control over those things, so it's basically about picking a particular face or not, and you could stick with Aviano and be fine.

Where you do have control is in the kerning (space between a pair of letters). Other typographers will kill me for saying this, but unless the typeface is by an undisputed master, sometimes the default spacing of a typeface just isn't perfect, so you have to fine-tune it yourself, especially in a logo.

If you're sticking with Aviano, you need to tweak spacing between the following pairs of letters:

1. Both JO and OH. It's an optical illusion because of the curves of the O -- you have to take in the kerning slightly to make it look right.

2. AL, LA, and AN. Same thing with the optical illusion where A is concerned. That long diagonal leg just plays havoc with spacing.

3. NA. You're on the fence whether you want to combine your names or keep them separate. In text you combine them, so do the same with the logo. They're just far enough apart to look like a mistake.

Finally, if it were me I would find a way to make the type treatment uniquely my own. But I don't have any great ideas for you on that, so you're on your own. Your tagline on your profile page helps by introducing the sans, but I would letterspace that the same amount (maybe a little less) than your logo -- the difference in letterspacing is jarring.

Bottom line: overall a solid choice that I think could be perfect if you tweak it a little and somehow make it your own. Nice job!

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
It's funny isn't it with many of the stylized fonts like Aviano - They have a tendency to be at their strongest when spelling the typeface name

Indeed, funny how that works out.

Glad the critique was useful for you!

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Mine's pretty plain and understated but would love your opinion anyway.

http://www.chadsimages.com

Simple is good, especially for a photographer working in the part of the industry you're doing, like a couple of other people above. Your type selection is good for your niche. The letterspacing is perhaps tighter than what I would do in your shoes, but it's fine as is.

That said, I'm not keen on highlighting "LA" in the logo. Are people mistaking you for a photographer named Chad Alan in New York or London, and you have to beat it into them that you're the dude in LA?

Anyway, I know I've said previously in this thread that it's better most of the time to be as unique as you can with a logo, but I think this particular approach isn't it. I'd sooner see you go generic than highlight "LA." Not that there's anything wrong with LA (I'm from Mar Vista originally), but your style doesn't scream "LA" to me in the first place. If anything, your work looks more New York to me. I just don't think you need that as part of your identity.

You're blessed with such a short name, it's like a designer's dream. You can stack it and make it a square. You can go wide without worrying about taking up too much space. Or you can keep it as is, just lose the second color. In this case, I think less is more.

Good luck, and thanks for playing!

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Mine's pretty plain and understated but would love your opinion anyway.

http://www.chadsimages.com

cheshiredave wrote:
Simple is good, especially for a photographer working in the part of the industry you're doing, like a couple of other people above. Your type selection is good for your niche. The letterspacing is perhaps tighter than what I would do in your shoes, but it's fine as is.

That said, I'm not keen on highlighting "LA" in the logo. Are people mistaking you for a photographer named Chad Alan in New York or London, and you have to beat it into them that you're the dude in LA?

Anyway, I know I've said previously in this thread that it's better most of the time to be as unique as you can with a logo, but I think this particular approach isn't it. I'd sooner see you go generic than highlight "LA." Not that there's anything wrong with LA (I'm from Mar Vista originally), but your style doesn't scream "LA" to me in the first place. If anything, your work looks more New York to me. I just don't think you need that as part of your identity.

You're blessed with such a short name, it's like a designer's dream. You can stack it and make it a square. You can go wide without worrying about taking up too much space. Or you can keep it as is, just lose the second color. In this case, I think less is more.

Good luck, and thanks for playing!

Haha great feedback.

I'm not getting confused with anybody, maybe that's the problem!

I agree with your points of view and will see when I can work on a revamp. Thanks!

HV images wrote:
I decided to plaster a logo on my photos after a few people where posting my photos in their own timelines without giving credit.

I would love to know if there's any hope with it.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/36934997

Thanks.

Unfortunately, this logo is doing nothing good for you. First off, it's clunky and unbalanced. The typography is bland. The corner marks are cliches. And you have your URL in there twice (when having it there once is not even necessary).

Most of all, it's not even doing the thing you want it to do, which is prevent someone from displaying your photo without giving you credit. It would be so easy to take your logo out of this that it might as well not even be there.

You would be far better off just having a translucent line of text go across the image that has your name or the name of your business (or if you must insist on your URL, just use that and nothing else). Place it somewhere in the bottom third that doesn't obscure an important part of the image but also can't be cropped out without ruining the effect of the image.

Good luck and thanks for playing!

cheshiredave wrote:

Unfortunately, this logo is doing nothing good for you. First off, it's clunky and unbalanced. The typography is bland. The corner marks are cliches. And you have your URL in there twice (when having it there once is not even necessary).

Most of all, it's not even doing the thing you want it to do, which is prevent someone from displaying your photo without giving you credit. It would be so easy to take your logo out of this that it might as well not even be there.

You would be far better off just having a translucent line of text go across the image that has your name or the name of your business (or if you must insist on your URL, just use that and nothing else). Place it somewhere in the bottom third that doesn't obscure an important part of the image but also can't be cropped out without ruining the effect of the image.

Good luck and thanks for playing!

Thanks, I really appreciate constructive criticism.

Melissa Wenger wrote:
Mine has been a point of contention for me for a while.  I'd love your input!

It's cleanly done: the typography is fine for the floral dingbat (more on type choice below), and the dingbat is a good tint to balance out the foreground. Balancing two elements like this is tricky when one of them is so much larger (the dingbat) than the other (the business name). I can see why you placed the business name where you did -- it's spaced out evenly from where the dingbat is at its widest. It still looks to me like it's a little bottom-heavy, but you can certainly get away with where you have it now.

I'm not usually a fan of dingbats like this in logos, but your choice is kind of interesting because it almost makes an M or could be flipped to almost be a W, which I think is good -- it's not too on-the-nose. You've lucked out with your initials, and this is a very subtle way of referencing them.

Minor issues:

1. At least on the version on your website about page (odd that it's not on your homepage, but that's a different critique), the top of the dingbat is clipped. It looks like it might be ok on your watermark, but it's too small too really tell.

2. The typography choice is fine, but Times New Roman is one of the few fonts every single person has. If you really want to stay classic, you might try a Baskerville or Cheltenham instead.

3. If you're going to stick with Times, you need to kern it better (fine-tune the spacing between letters; note this is different from tracking/letterspacing, which spaces out all the letters a set amount). You've used the default kerning, and unfortunately sometimes that just doesn't work. Here "MELISSA" looks like "MEL ISS A" -- you need to loosen up the spacing between "IS" and "SS" just a hair for it to work.

4. The bullet between your first name and last name would be extraneous under normal circumstances (it's not putting two different people's names together, so there doesn't need to be a separation like that), but there's so much going on in the logo already, the bullet is truly out of place. You've lucked out in that it falls pretty much exactly in the middle, which it has to for such a rigidly centered design, but really it just needs to go. If you absolutely must keep it, pretty much every typeface has two different bullet sizes -- and the large one is almost always too big for something like this (think of the small one as a beauty mark, the large one as a big honking mole). So use the smaller one if you must, and add a space on either side of the bullet; it will look cleaner.

My other issue with it, which is not so minor, is that it feels more like the logo of a wedding photographer than that of a fashion/editorial photographer, especially because your style is generally not soft/vintage. So though the logo itself is fine (with the minor notes above), and noting how I do like the subtle reference to your initials, it doesn't completely jibe for me with your portfolio images.

Thanks for playing!

cheshiredave wrote:

It's cleanly done: the typography is fine for the floral dingbat (more on type choice below), and the dingbat is a good tint to balance out the foreground. Balancing two elements like this is tricky when one of them is so much larger (the dingbat) than the other (the business name). I can see why you placed the business name where you did -- it's spaced out evenly from where the dingbat is at its widest. It still looks to me like it's a little bottom-heavy, but you can certainly get away with where you have it now.

I'm not usually a fan of dingbats like this in logos, but your choice is kind of interesting because it almost makes an M or could be flipped to almost be a W, which I think is good -- it's not too on-the-nose. You've lucked out with your initials, and this is a very subtle way of referencing them.

Minor issues:

1. At least on the version on your website about page (odd that it's not on your homepage, but that's a different critique), the top of the dingbat is clipped. It looks like it might be ok on your watermark, but it's too small too really tell.

2. The typography choice is fine, but Times New Roman is one of the few fonts every single person has. If you really want to stay classic, you might try a Baskerville or Cheltenham instead.

3. If you're going to stick with Times, you need to kern it better (fine-tune the spacing between letters; note this is different from tracking/letterspacing, which spaces out all the letters a set amount). You've used the default kerning, and unfortunately sometimes that just doesn't work. Here "MELISSA" looks like "MEL ISS A" -- you need to loosen up the spacing between "IS" and "SS" just a hair for it to work.

4. The bullet between your first name and last name would be extraneous under normal circumstances (it's not putting two different people's names together, so there doesn't need to be a separation like that), but there's so much going on in the logo already, the bullet is truly out of place. You've lucked out in that it falls pretty much exactly in the middle, which it has to for such a rigidly centered design, but really it just needs to go. If you absolutely must keep it, pretty much every typeface has two different bullet sizes -- and the large one is almost always too big for something like this (think of the small one as a beauty mark, the large one as a big honking mole). So use the smaller one if you must, and add a space on either side of the bullet; it will look cleaner.

My other issue with it, which is not so minor, is that it feels more like the logo of a wedding photographer than that of a fashion/editorial photographer, especially because your style is generally not soft/vintage. So though the logo itself is fine (with the minor notes above), and noting how I do like the subtle reference to your initials, it doesn't completely jibe for me with your portfolio images.

Thanks for playing!

You truly are an expert!  Thank you so much for your analysis- it is very much appreciated!

BillyVegas wrote:
I'd like a critique

Are you asking about the signature graphic on your shots or the BV on your website? Either way, I'd like to see a larger version of what you're asking about. Thanks!

Anthony Gordon wrote:
I dabbled a bit with the logo thing in a jeans ad type series I've been working on.  Could you take a look and let me know what you think?

The mixture of Helvetica Neue Condensed with Coronet is actually a nice combination, so great job on that pairing. And the logo complements the imagery well too.

My biggest issue is with the execution on the AG initials. First off, the A is getting almost completely lost -- you can't see the crossbar of the A, and the combination of the A being smaller and tucked into the G like that just obscures the letter. The difference in letter sizes isn't a deal-breaker, but the problem comes up when one letter is so much smaller than the other that its weight (the thickness of the letter strokes) difference becomes noticeable in an unfortunate way. Even Calvin Klein's old CK logo suffered from this.

You also have a natural gap in the G that you're not taking advantage of. You're trying to vertically center things, but perhaps that isn't your best solution. You can bring the G down and try to use the A (larger than it is, and with the bar showing) to correct the vertical balance.

Finally, when you do overlapping letters and screen them back like this, you see the intersection like you do here, where the right leg of the A is inside the G. That's a choice that I don't always agree with, as it calls too much attention to a minor section. So I would usually rather combine the letterforms before screening them, and then when they're screened, the overlap isn't shown the way it is here. In Illustrator, you would need to convert the AG to outlines, then use the Pathfinder palette to unite the two letters.

But overall I'd say you're about 90% there -- but that last 10% is important. Thanks for playing!

cheshiredave wrote:
The mixture of Helvetica Neue Condensed with Coronet is actually a nice combination, so great job on that pairing. And the logo complements the imagery well too.

My biggest issue is with the execution on the AG initials. First off, the A is getting almost completely lost -- you can't see the crossbar of the A, and the combination of the A being smaller and tucked into the G like that just obscures the letter. The difference in letter sizes isn't a deal-breaker, but the problem comes up when one letter is so much smaller than the other that its weight (the thickness of the letter strokes) difference becomes noticeable in an unfortunate way. Even Calvin Klein's old CK logo suffered from this.

You also have a natural gap in the G that you're not taking advantage of. You're trying to vertically center things, but perhaps that isn't your best solution. You can bring the G down and try to use the A (larger than it is, and with the bar showing) to correct the vertical balance.

Finally, when you do overlapping letters and screen them back like this, you see the intersection like you do here, where the right leg of the A is inside the G. That's a choice that I don't always agree with, as it calls too much attention to a minor section. So I would usually rather combine the letterforms before screening them, and then when they're screened, the overlap isn't shown the way it is here. In Illustrator, you would need to convert the AG to outlines, then use the Pathfinder palette to unite the two letters.

But overall I'd say you're about 90% there -- but that last 10% is important. Thanks for playing!

You've given me a lot to think about, the point about the gap in particular I never thought about but it's so blatantly obvious I don't know how I missed that.  As for the overlapping letters, it's been a while, but I think I made them different sizes to try and hide the ill fitting overlap that you pointed out, guess I'll have to try again, I'm not an Illustrator guy, so that would be a new venture for me to learn. 

It is funny you mention Calvin Klein, cause I think it was their logo that I used as my inspiration, I didn't want the logo to be just about my name, but to actually integrate it into the overall image as part of a jeans ad, so I liked that you referenced them a lot.

I appreciate all the time that you took to review the logo and I'm gonna get to work on that other 10%

cheshiredave wrote:

Are you asking about the signature graphic on your shots or the BV on your website? Either way, I'd like to see a larger version of what you're asking about. Thanks!

The signature graphic on my photos

BillyVegas wrote:
The signature graphic on my photos

It's hard to critique a signature logo; it's your signature, so it's not like you're going to change it. But if I were handed this signature and asked to clean it up, I would:

1. make the B look less like a P;

2. make the Y more distinct from the L preceding it;

3. make most of the letters lean the same direction, or at least closer to it than they do now;

4. overall tweak the entire thing into perhaps a more pleasing rectangular shape than it is now, including perhaps something a little less with the final zigzag.

Basically, for a signature to work well as a logo, it has to have a certain character or rhythm, and I think yours could be manicured a bit to get to that place.

But, like I said, it's your signature, so I don't know if you'll want to take any of this advice. But since you asked, I critiqued. Thanks for playing!

NxtLvl Photography wrote:
Do Mine ✋

I think yours almost works for you. The type choice and the way you've mashed up the letters has a masculine, lad-mag feel that befits your subject matter and style. The only thing I don't like is the arrow. I don't like how it breaks up the letters, and for me for no good reason. If you were to take the arrow out completely, leaving the letters solid, and just moving LVL up vertically maybe 20% (really just enough to be noticeable without looking like a mistake), I think that would be a better representation of the concept and have a solid feel. I can see it in my head, and it looks glorious.

We just took your logo to the nxtlvl. Thanks for playing!