I also like the 100% version. I think it looks fine without the copyright symbol. I think that it stood out so much because it was a darker shade than the camera body. Perhaps you should try having it match the body.
Here is an new version based on your suggestion. What do you think?
I like it a lot. It's simple and classy, easy to read, and artistic.
The only thing I could think of to improve it any more is possibly to include your URL in it, but I don't know if that would ruin the sleek look. The most logical place to include it would be under Photography, but that might make the whole thing too bulky. Or, you might take out the word Photography and replace it with the URL. It's a tough decision.
But ultimately, this version works for me perfectly, on an aesthetic level. It's far nicer than mine, that's for sure.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
They are both very creative. I like them. The only problem would be how well they translate really small or on a fax, etc. The first one concerns me the most because of the detail of the illustration. Have you tried it as a watermark on an image?
I'm not a professional photographer (farrrrrr from it!) but want to watermark my images purely from a "just in case" perspective if they get hotlinked elsewhere.
I began to overhaul my site design, front page image is below. Without the links and in greyscale I think it would work well as a watermark (in as much as preventing anyone from using the images elsewhere) but I think it would be too intrusive.
I'm not a professional photographer (farrrrrr from it!) but want to watermark my images purely from a "just in case" perspective if they get hotlinked elsewhere.
I began to overhaul my site design, front page image is below. Without the links and in greyscale I think it would work well as a watermark (in as much as preventing anyone from using the images elsewhere) but I think it would be too intrusive.
Although I've recently had other ideas, and I'm leaning more towards a light colour scheme, so the entire thing will probably be changed shortly!!
Oh, I think as a first page-design it will work great. As a logo, I'd say the you'd need to get rid of the links (or just mention the website), otherwise the watermark would most likely need to be bigger (so people can actually read the links / what you're doing) & dominate the photo too much. It's a great start though. I really like the font you used too, I think it works great with the name
Cheers
As a watermark I'd take the links out - I'm at work so couldn't post up a non-link version! I thought the font worked pretty well too, so it's nice to hear that opinion backed up!
I'm gonna try and 'get my design on' tonight with v.2 and see what happens
In general I like it Ted, but I'm one of those "balance and symmetry" fanatics; I think it would look better if the text was the same width, and the two pieces together were the same height as the TN, so that the entire logo forms a nice, neat rectangle.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
I'm glad this topic came up, I just made one recently and have been torn whether to apply it to my galleries or not, and I'd love to have feedback if you'll offer it to someone who doesn't typically shoot weddings.
The idea given to me was an eye with an aperture for an iris, and the world as the pupil. The globe pupil wound up just being a confusing blob though, so I left it out. Let me know if the rest is as confusing.
I made sure there's both black and white so it will be visible against any background, and a little transparent to blend just a bit.
I'm also curious what text would be most important. I don't want to clutter it up, so either just my name, or just my website. I went with name since that's a bit better for the brand, and google finds me easily enough. Should I have a URL too?
Here's one of my tests with a bit of clutter to see if it really works:
I'm also curious what text would be most important. I don't want to clutter it up, so either just my name, or just my website. I went with name since that's a bit better for the brand, and google finds me easily enough. Should I have a URL too?
I was thinking about the same thing.
My name and URL are almost the same, but I decided to go with my URL in the end. I figured that the step to go to a known URL is smaller as opposed to googling a name and then going the same site. (Now I just need to get a new site up that actually has some decent and recent photos ... )
GREAT topic and so timely. Someone has offered to design a logo for me for free and I have been spending hours online deciding what I like and don't like. I'll post when I have something to show.
I'm also curious what text would be most important. I don't want to clutter it up, so either just my name, or just my website. I went with name since that's a bit better for the brand, and google finds me easily enough. Should I have a URL too?
Here's one of my tests with a bit of clutter to see if it really works:
I actually really like your idea, and I *think* it came out nicely, I'm sure if you'd post a bigger version of if (or with less clutter in the background) you'd get some more feedback. Also (just as a side note). I guess one doesn't always have to post the logo in the same spot. The way I do it, is that I usually have it in one spot (my white version), then ... if the white logo would look too washed out, I have a black version of the same logo, and if that won't work I just put it in a different corner ... but of course that only works if you put the logo in by hand (and not have it be a default action)
Would love to see a bigger version of your logo ... and I agree, one doesn't always have to mention both (name * website), sometimes one is just as good
My name and URL are almost the same, but I decided to go with my URL in the end. I figured that the step to go to a known URL is smaller as opposed to googling a name and then going the same site.
I really love your design Ivar, simple & easy to read
I have been tinkering with my logo for the past 6 months. I would really like to finalize something. Here are the latest ideas. Feedback would be fantastic.
1.
2.
3.
4.
I have tried these on black and white background. They are all easy to read.
My photography focuses on fine art and portraits. I do not focus on one area so I did not want my logo to be subject specific (if that makes sense). My last name is a real bear, and I don't want a "studio name" other than my own. I have to somehow incorporate my name. ARG.
After previewing this post, I see that in #2 the "so" of my surname is bigger than the rest. Please ignore this as it was not intentional.
Anyways, I would love your opinions.
Lisa
I love #3, I like sleek and simple and would like that effect for my own logo.
We just finalized the logo this week. Like I said before, it's not what you'd expect. I love it and it really represents where we are going. Now we're turning our eyes to redesigning the blog, this is just the start of a complete overhaul.
We just finalized the logo this week. Like I said before, it's not what you'd expect. I love it and it really represents where we are going. Now we're turning our eyes to redesigning the blog, this is just the start of a complete overhaul.
I really like it, it's strong, the color(s) are fresh, modern, it's powerful yet classy & I like the way the whole thing looks on your album proofing page. How fun! Thanks for sharing.
I really like it, it's strong, the color(s) are fresh, modern, it's powerful yet classy & I like the way the whole thing looks on your album proofing page. How fun! Thanks for sharing.
Thanks (although I had little to do with it). I hired an amazing design team who took my ideas and concepts and ran with them to create this. I can't wait to see what they come up with for the blog!
We just finalized the logo this week. Like I said before, it's not what you'd expect. I love it and it really represents where we are going. Now we're turning our eyes to redesigning the blog, this is just the start of a complete overhaul.
I really love your design Ivar, simple & easy to read
Thanks! I can't say the use of a square is really original, I've seen many (mostly portrait-) photographers using a variant of it, but it still took me a long time till I had it the way I liked it.
The readability of the text was an interesting thing; I tried many fonts before I had one that I liked and was readable when small.
We just finalized the logo this week. Like I said before, it's not what you'd expect. I love it and it really represents where we are going. Now we're turning our eyes to redesigning the blog, this is just the start of a complete overhaul.
Nice! It's something different, which I like. It looks a stylized version of the right lion in the coat of arms from my country, at least that's the first thing I thought about
I have nothing, where does one go to start a logo project?
Try making an inventory.
What kinds of stuff do you photograph most?
What kinds of stuff do you LIKE to photograph most?
Is there anything unique or unusual about your gear or your shooting methods?
Is there anything unique or unusual about you, personally?
Once you answer those questions, you can think of some sort of symbol, icon, or image that represents each concept (example: if you like to take pics of dogs, a dog icon would apply).
Then you've got a starting point. From there, it'll just be a matter of trial and error.
What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
What kinds of stuff do you LIKE to photograph most?
Is there anything unique or unusual about your gear or your shooting methods?
Is there anything unique or unusual about you, personally?
Once you answer those questions, you can think of some sort of symbol, icon, or image that represents each concept (example: if you like to take pics of dogs, a dog icon would apply).
Then you've got a starting point. From there, it'll just be a matter of trial and error.
The last part is soooo true. I've been going back and forth with my designer hoping to whittle it down to something that feels right to me. And I feel like I'm being a complete pest, specially when I go in a different direction than where we're going. But this is something that has to be ME, so I'm being very picky.
What kinds of stuff do you LIKE to photograph most?
Is there anything unique or unusual about your gear or your shooting methods?
Is there anything unique or unusual about you, personally?
Once you answer those questions, you can think of some sort of symbol, icon, or image that represents each concept (example: if you like to take pics of dogs, a dog icon would apply).
Then you've got a starting point. From there, it'll just be a matter of trial and error.
great points.. will start there..I don't want to buy PS so will be looking for a program to make something..
Comments
I like it a lot. It's simple and classy, easy to read, and artistic.
The only thing I could think of to improve it any more is possibly to include your URL in it, but I don't know if that would ruin the sleek look. The most logical place to include it would be under Photography, but that might make the whole thing too bulky. Or, you might take out the word Photography and replace it with the URL. It's a tough decision.
But ultimately, this version works for me perfectly, on an aesthetic level. It's far nicer than mine, that's for sure.
and
thoughts?
My Site
My Facebook
They are both very creative. I like them. The only problem would be how well they translate really small or on a fax, etc. The first one concerns me the most because of the detail of the illustration. Have you tried it as a watermark on an image?
Very very creative though. Good work.
Lisa
Latter one is just a banner.
My Site
My Facebook
I like the second one better.
I began to overhaul my site design, front page image is below. Without the links and in greyscale I think it would work well as a watermark (in as much as preventing anyone from using the images elsewhere) but I think it would be too intrusive.
And a variation (without the huge ring) can be seen at: http://photos.liquidelephant.com/
Although I've recently had other ideas, and I'm leaning more towards a light colour scheme, so the entire thing will probably be changed shortly!!
Oh, I think as a first page-design it will work great. As a logo, I'd say the you'd need to get rid of the links (or just mention the website), otherwise the watermark would most likely need to be bigger (so people can actually read the links / what you're doing) & dominate the photo too much. It's a great start though. I really like the font you used too, I think it works great with the name
As a watermark I'd take the links out - I'm at work so couldn't post up a non-link version! I thought the font worked pretty well too, so it's nice to hear that opinion backed up!
I'm gonna try and 'get my design on' tonight with v.2 and see what happens
www.tednghiem.com
The idea given to me was an eye with an aperture for an iris, and the world as the pupil. The globe pupil wound up just being a confusing blob though, so I left it out. Let me know if the rest is as confusing.
I made sure there's both black and white so it will be visible against any background, and a little transparent to blend just a bit.
I'm also curious what text would be most important. I don't want to clutter it up, so either just my name, or just my website. I went with name since that's a bit better for the brand, and google finds me easily enough. Should I have a URL too?
Here's one of my tests with a bit of clutter to see if it really works:
www.morffed.com
My name and URL are almost the same, but I decided to go with my URL in the end. I figured that the step to go to a known URL is smaller as opposed to googling a name and then going the same site.
(Now I just need to get a new site up that actually has some decent and recent photos ...
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
Would love to see a bigger version of your logo ... and I agree, one doesn't always have to mention both (name * website), sometimes one is just as good
I really love your design Ivar, simple & easy to read
No worries. Feel free to post whatever you have and I'm sure you'll get some feedback from people here
I have nothing, where does one go to start a logo project?
Hm, I'd say try to get some inspiration from the web without copying anybody, there is no "official way" to do it
I have some things in mind, (tons of inspiration here !) not sure if I need a program to make it, or if one is out there...
Hm no, I'm pretty sure everybody just used either photoshop or illustrator.
ahhh... I don't have either but I will investigate ! Thank you!
Sure thing. Good luck
I love #3, I like sleek and simple and would like that effect for my own logo.
I really like it, it's strong, the color(s) are fresh, modern, it's powerful yet classy & I like the way the whole thing looks on your album proofing page. How fun!
Thanks (although I had little to do with it). I hired an amazing design team who took my ideas and concepts and ran with them to create this. I can't wait to see what they come up with for the blog!
Wonderful logo! Congrats!!
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
The readability of the text was an interesting thing; I tried many fonts before I had one that I liked and was readable when small.
Nice! It's something different, which I like. It looks a stylized version of the right lion in the coat of arms from my country, at least that's the first thing I thought about
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Try making an inventory.
What kinds of stuff do you photograph most?
What kinds of stuff do you LIKE to photograph most?
Is there anything unique or unusual about your gear or your shooting methods?
Is there anything unique or unusual about you, personally?
Once you answer those questions, you can think of some sort of symbol, icon, or image that represents each concept (example: if you like to take pics of dogs, a dog icon would apply).
Then you've got a starting point. From there, it'll just be a matter of trial and error.
The last part is soooo true. I've been going back and forth with my designer hoping to whittle it down to something that feels right to me. And I feel like I'm being a complete pest, specially when I go in a different direction than where we're going. But this is something that has to be ME, so I'm being very picky.
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
great points.. will start there..I don't want to buy PS so will be looking for a program to make something..