I dont know about marks out of 10, but if i had to pick one I would go for the bottom one.
Drop shadows print fine, you cant go wrong if its cmyk 300 dpi.
Hmmm……it’s pretty uncommon to see logos with effects on them, like Bevel, Emboss, Shadows and such. Unless I’m wrong, most of the most famous and recognizable logos(McDonald’s, KFC, Nike, Microsoft etc.) are just plain-flat. :):)
In your sample pics, the shadow ones are nicer, but I feel that the flat, no-shadow versions are more suitable as true-blue logos! 🙂
Some examples xeon-
Apple OS X logo + apple logo
Microsoft Explorer logo…
I think specially on the net you see tons of logos with drop shadows and bevel etc. I am not talking about the crap ones but the ones from
descent design firms.
hmmm!! will have to think hard on this one.
I posted it on a graphic design forum and most people said use it. Any more opinions from the seasoned designers???
I vote for the one at the top left, drop shadow and all. I don’t know why giving a logo some depth is wrong, unless the shadow makes it harder to read, which yours do not. Nice work!
~Cindy
I like all of them in principal. I do feel the lower-case ‘n’ is a bit non-descript…could strengthen or weaken the design, depending on what the client likes.
The "conventional wisdom," which dicates that well-designed logos are all flat, solid colors finds its basis in versatility–‘it will be reproduced in all manner of ways from solid black on fax forms to full color on the sides of trucks, embroidered on shirt pockets, and screened onto banners or flags, etc…’ So, shadows, gradients, and anything "soft" may become obstacles to this versatility.
However, reproduction methods of every kind have evolved significantly since the formulation of this "rule," and moreover, even the best "flat" logo designs get stylized in the finished products, (McD’s golden arches are almost always beveled now…Coca-Cola cans have drop shadows and dizzolves added to the logo…the Pepsi red/white/blue button is spherized and the text extruded…)
I don’t see anything wrong with a flat design as the basis for appropriate stylizations…your drop shadow included.
Peace_Pipe wrote:
Drop shadows print fine, you cant go wrong if its cmyk 300 dpi.
Unless the client needs to print the logo using 1 or 2 Pantone colors, or significanlty enlarge the logo for a special purpose (environmental graphics, for example).
Photoshop is just the wrong tool for any logo creation – this should be done in Illustrator as vector art, with a rastr dropshadow if that absolutely must be included.
I like more the right ones (unshadowed), top and bottom. Shadow is all right but you don’t really need it.
The middle shadowed one is nice due to the inclination you have added to it, but the stylized ‘n’ remembers me too much a sink’s shyphon.
Just my 2c.
Without doubt, these should and could be done easily in Illustrator.
umm guys they were all done/made in illustrator as a matter of fact 😉
I just asked in this forum because….
Ok people should I go for the top one?
In a graphic design forum most of the graphic designers liked (actually loved) the middle one followed by the top one.
The middle one got 80-90% marks.
The top one got 75-80% marks.
I do like the middle one but I think the top one is more "verstile wicked and wild" 🙂 Damit I hate making these kind of decisions.I like something in all of them. I don’t want to let go of any 🙂
nick/slickrenderer wrote:
Ok people should I go for the top one?
Don’t you think it should be your client who decides which one he/she likes best?
Agree that logo design belong in Illustrator. I also dicourage using a shadow in print. Shades, grays, and colours render nicely on screen. A shadow tends to give an element presence that sets it apart from other elements on the screen. Print is another world, and the rules change.
Shadows can only be created with screens of ink. Sometimes that ink is only black, and sometimes it is a mix of process colours. However you do it, there are some values that do not print, usually any screen under 4% will just be white. Imagine a soft, well-rendered shadow. It goes from 40% black to 39%, 38%…..6%, 5%, 0%. That sudden drop off to white is very difficult to compensate for on press, and even harder to make consistent.
Say you get it to work on your letterhead and business cards, printed using spot colour on an offset press, which is the only way you will get satisfactory results. Now you want to produce a bulk-mailed brochure, printed on a web press using process colours. I promise you will not get results anywhere near as good as on the stationery. Your best move would be to kill the drop shadow. But then, what good is an identity if it’s not consistent within a medium?
Start collecting business cards and count how many shadows you see on those? Look closer and you likely find that these are some of the cheesier logos, or more poorly designed cards. Why? Good designers also know the limitations and strenght of their media, and know better than to add shadows to stationery.
Eschew the shadow. Looking at it on screen is no help, because that is not how it will be presented on the page.
Puts it in perspective Scott. Thanks
Brian the client has left it to me unfortunately.
FWIW, I like the top one best, sans shadow. Middle one second best (sans shadow), Bottom one least (not that it’s bad). I don’t know if it’s the display or not, but the Serpentine "nitin design" text seems a bit choppy. I’m sure it’s just the way it’s displaying on my screen, but if it’s not, I would suggest smoothing things out a bit.
Don’t know if you’ve seen this before, but with regards to your drop shadow question (and other logo design questions/theories), you might find this useful: "BLUDVLZ’s Logo Manifesto" 8/3/03 8:23am </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>
BLUDVLZ- I think it’s your screen plus maybe the jpg quality. On my screen it’s slightly choppy but when I maximize the IE window it becomes sharp.
The original is perfect though. Thanks for the link. Reading it now.
Nick….
1/ The rules are changing – if a drop shadow works, use it… but make sure you have a ‘clean’ version for use in
silkscreen/single-colour/two-colour/assorted printing & reproduction limitations.
2/ Personally, i think the bottom ones look a wee bit more dynamic. Next to my liking are the top ones. I find the middle row too "buttonny"/static.
FWIW
Cheers…
JJ
Jay yes I feel the same the middle one is bit static plus some people say that the (N) reminds them of the pipe found under the bathroom sink.
On the other hand people on a graphic design forum have been giving the middle one 8.5 to 9.9 out of 10 consistently. Everyone is loving it. So I am finding it hard to ignore there opinion and dump the middle one.
Basically I am screwed 🙂
From Nick/SlickRenderer:
Some examples xeon-
Apple OS X logo + apple logo
Microsoft Explorer logo…
Actually, the Apple OS X and Microsoft Internet Explorer logos are logos of products and thus, they tend to be flashier. Even Adobe PhotoShop is no exception.(even if there’s no drop shadows, there’s different shades of hues)
On the other hand, the logos of companies/businesses/organizations are simple, easy to recognize, flat and plain. I’ve already given examples of this earlier on. :):)
Anyway, Scott really says the right stuff. :):D
I have printed loads of stuff with drop shadows, including logos. I dont get ptobelms!
<nick/> wrote:
Basically I am screwed 🙂
🙂
Well… as confucious say… 🙂
Cheers…
JJ
I think the to and bottom are nicer without shadow – only the middle do I think the sadow adds to the logo, but do like the fact you have made a version without shadow for each of them. I like the idea of sadow for digital and non sadow for printed and think they are close enough to be consistant.
Would say go with the top or middle one – I think the bottom is a bit too ‘Star Trek-ish’ and almost cliched.
Theres my opinion – Nice work though.
BTW – you mentioned jpeg, would gif not be better with so few colours and so many of them block colours.
Yes sam the one on the nitindesign.com front page is a gif. The rough one with all the logos is a jpeg but you are right when I use the final one it will be a gif or a swf file;-)
Thanks again to everyone.
OK for everyone I am going with this one it’s simple and will stand the test of time unlike the trendy ones –
<
http://nitindesign.com/dig.jpg>
I will register it on Monday with the copyright agency probably the others as well depending on price.
P.S- It’s not bad choice is it??????? :-O
Theres no rules when it comes to any type of design. You have to be able to use your better judgement when it comes to the techniques your using and this depends of course on the client you are designing for. Is this a corporate logo for a international brokerage firm or a surfboard company…… hmmmm
After looking at the designs I will bve honest that the NON shadowed ones look the best to me. Cleaner, crisper, more professional." for a letter head , biz card, etc….. But the shadowed ones would be great for product branding maybe…. you see what I mean Im sure. It just depends on how your going to use these logos.
Great look by the way gave me some good ideas.
Hey…that choice is not bad at all…but I didn’t get a vote and my wife says I think I know everything!!! Oh well, I’ll save my opinions for politics.
On that last design, the inner circle of the "d" character needs to be a bit larger, IMO. It reads smaller than the curve of the "n".
One more point about using drop shadow on a logo – you don’t know what color or texture the logo may wind up being used against, which could lead to issues with the drop shadow blending with the background – witness the case of drop shadows as used in GIF images on the Web. YOU may know how to create/apply a properly blended shadow, but your client may not.
Nothing says you can’t create variants of your design to be used in instances where the shadow wouldn’t create a problem, of course. But I feel the basic design should be sans shadow.
I think the one you plan to go with is the best.
dennis- You are right. That was a rough concept version 🙂 I had like 100+ concepts. I have finally registered it so thanks everyone.