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.
Size was another question I had. I'm using Smugmug's watermark feature, so what size is a good catchall for the watermark image? Right now mine is 4000 x 4000.
Here's one against a nice light background. Should it be bigger?
Size was another question I had. I'm using Smugmug's watermark feature, so what size is a good catchall for the watermark image? Right now mine is 4000 x 4000.
Here's one against a nice light background. Should it be bigger?
Oh sorry, don't know much about doing it trough smugmug (as I only do it for my blog photos) ..... can anybody else help here?
But I do like the way it looks (have to say you did a great job with the eye-lens idea) & think the size is perfect
but then I was trying out this one.. no one seemed to like it.. but I kind of like the simplicity of it. thoughts?
or how about this one with the little tree??
Ok.. sorry these are not wedding photos... I just loved the topic I had to chime in.. im always strugging with the logo issue.. Any imput would be fantastic thank you!!!!!!!
but then I was trying out this one.. no one seemed to like it.. but I kind of like the simplicity of it. thoughts?
or how about this one with the little tree??
missB
Girl, I got to say, I love your photos & overall style
• LOVE the first one
• not too shabby either , BUT it's hard to read (well, ok, it's a small pic too, so it's hard to say)
• 3rd. Hmmm, I think the others are better, though ... it's not "bad", just not *my* favorite
• LOVE the 4th. It took me a while until I saw the tree (haha, go figure, it's right there), But I really like the Tiffany blue background you placed it on, and it's easy to read. Just very, very pretty The tree itself doesn't ad anything for me, ... but that's just my though EDIT: Just saw this version with a different background on your FB page (not grunchy tiffany) and have to say it popped much more, even *I* saw the tree, haha! How about your make the birdies a bit stronger (whiter)?
I just redid my logo and I can't decide if I like it or not.
I think it's very pretty. I would personally stay away from colors, just because it might interfere with any colors on the photo & you might want to check out hoe this logo looks on a dark photo Oh, and *I* would maaaybe make the "photography" part smaller.
Thanks Angie for your thoughts. I'm mainly using this logo for my website and advertising purposes. I made a brush to stamp on photos that is similiar, but I can either stamp it as black or white depending on the photo.
I just redid my logo and I can't decide if I like it or not.
I think there is a strong disconnect between the fonts used for your name and the word photography. Your name and the mark are moving in a mature upscale direction, while the font for photography is too childish. It's a mixed message.
but then I was trying out this one.. no one seemed to like it.. but I kind of like the simplicity of it. thoughts?
I'm not crazy about it, but I do kind of like it. Have you tried it even simpler, without the circle? I think that could be nice, also. Or is that too simple?
So I tinkered around with my watermark again. I am thinking about taking out my weblink, but not sure yet.
I like the look Ted. It's simple and clean. I'd lose the WWW, though; that will make the link a little shorter, so you can boost the height without exceeding your available space, making it more readable.
I like the brackets, but straight brackets, like [ and ] might look better than the curved brackets, particularly with that nice, straight typeface you're using.
What's the blue dot for? If you lose it, you can increase the height of "photography" as well.
And one alternative version I'd recommend trying, just to see if it works (it may not, I'm just letting my imagination ramble) - try putting the web link above TN, inside the brackets, in the same manner as "photography". That may make it flow better, kinda like this:
tedngheim.com [TN]
photography
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 finally have one !!!!
A gal I know offered to make one for me for free, shes says she normally charges $800, which seems way beyond the norm, but actually getting anyone to pay that is a bit unlikely imho. So here is my debut....
Am I too late to play along? I'm a mostly lurker, occasional poster. I've been "in" in biz for a year and have used this logo the whole time. So far I'm still liking it, but am curious as to what everyone else has to say when they are being honest.
It doesn't have the white background in the typical version. I've printed it in just black and just white (aka without the color) as well. Here is a shot complete with the watermark as it appears on my SmugMug.
About 6 months ago, I hired a friend to make a logo for me - I told her it needed to be organic (tree, leaf, flower) and incorporate at least one spiral somehow - I didn't care how, just surprise me, and we'll work from there. Well, she sent me some frilly generic inorganic "design" with no spirals. And she got the name of my business wrong. So I said thanks, but no thanks and put it on the back-burner.
For Christmas, my fiance surprised me by hiring an artist whose work I really admire to paint one for me, then have it digitized. By then, I had an idea more formed in my mind - I told her I wanted a tree with spiraling roots and branches. The majority of her work incorporates a lot of spirals, and I felt her style on it would suit nicely. She was willing to play with it, but admitted that she's an artist, not a graphic designer, so it would be a process, and she wasn't sure she could make something that would translate well to digital art (lots of colors and gradations). Eliminating her "process" just wasn't how she works.
Long story short, after getting differing feedback between her and her son (who was going to do the digital work), and realizing how much it might potentially cost my fiance to experiment on a finished product that may not even work, I decided to let the artist off the hook.
I finally grabbed my watercolors and painted my own darn tree. I took a photo of it, and played a bit in PS...this is what I came up with.
The painting
What I did with it
I'm really happy with it when it's displayed at a small size (like on my site and how it will look on the business card), but I'm not happy with how jagged the edges look against the background when viewed larger. It doesn't look like that as just the cut-out. Does anyone have any tips they'd be willing to offer on how to smooth the lines?
Thank you marikris - I'm not familiar with vectors - is that the whole purpose - to smooth lines? Does it change anything else? Can I still re-size and manipulate as needed in PS when new uses come up?
Mox, the jaggedness is a result of the file having too low a resolution. To make it look smoother at larger sizes, you need more resolution. Knowing how most people work, I'm going to make a supposition that you re-sized the logo file in Photoshop down to a logo-size file, and didn't keep any larger, high-res versions. If this is so, then you need to start at the beginning, and keep the hi-res source at each stage of your work.
Based on the amount of detail in the original painting, my guess is that it probably fills an 8.5x11 sheet. Is that correct? If so, then a clean scan of the original paitning (not a digital photo) will give you more than enough resolution for your logo. HINT: Scan in black and white or "document" mode, not grayscale; you can then fill in any white specs in Photoshop and easily select the solid black tree shape for use in your logo.
Next, when you create the Photoshop file for the logo design, set your file size high, i.e. 12"x12" at 200dpi. This will create a huge image file, equivalent to a 5.7mp photo.
Re-create your logo in the new hi-res file. Keep everything on separate layers, which will make it easier to change later, if you have need, and it will make it easier to create alternate versions, like a grayscale version for watermarks, or an inverted version, or to change the color of an individual component. Import the scanned tree shape, create new layers for the text and the gradient box, and you're done.
Creating the new version from scratch won't be as hard as it was to create the original; you already know exactly what you want it to look like, what colors to use, and what text font you want.
Save the new file in Photoshop PSD format, and keep the PSD file at all times. You can make a JPG version at any time, and re-size the JPG version for use as a watermark, web graphic, business card or letterhead use, or t-shirt image, but ALWAYS keep the original PSD file, and keep it at full resolution. Remember - you can always res something down, but ressing up is nearly impossible.
It's a nice-looking logo. I like it. I did pretty much the same thing to create my own watermark (a few pages back in this thread); I wanted an iconic camera shape, but I couldn't find a public-domain one anywhere that I liked. So I sketched one in a vector-based drawing program, converted it to raster, and imported it into a PSD file. I'm as proud of the camera icon as I am of the whole logo. I once heard a guy on a TV show say, "I took a thought frommy head and made it real." I like the sentiment (even though it did come from a viscious murderer on CSI).
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!"
Thank you so much for your input. The original painting is a 24x16. I shot it with a 7D, but I did reduce the size to a 1000 x 770 (I did leave it a psd), which I've reduced in size further for this image using free transform of the individual object within the document. I thought that would be plenty large enough to not be pixelated when 600x600 total image, but that's why I'm not a graphic designer! I will certainly try it over again with the larger file, and appreciate the advice!
Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner. I took the photo in RAW, converted to a gray scale with a gradient map, then used the slider to make the entire tree black. I then selected the white area using the magic wand and deleted it, so I have the tree on a transparent background. I was wondering if I should have done something different to refine the selection, but it sounds like maybe I just shrank it too much. D'oh.
And yes, it should be easy greasy now - it was all the dinking around that took 2 solid days. I, too, love that it's something that's mine, all mine. Thank you for the compliment, and again for the advice!
Thank you marikris - I'm not familiar with vectors - is that the whole purpose - to smooth lines? Does it change anything else? Can I still re-size and manipulate as needed in PS when new uses come up?
Thanks for the info!!
I've been in the same situation as you with another logo-project and my salvation was vectormagic.com - they'll convert your bitmap image to EPS and SVG formats, which you can then further edit with Illustrator (expensive and overkill for this purpose) or something like Inkscape (free at inkscape.org).
edit: just realized that, this being my first post and all, my post might come of as a shill for vectormagic, but what it's worth: I swear I have no affiliation with the service.
A gal I know offered to make one for me for free, shes says she normally charges $800, which seems way beyond the norm, but actually getting anyone to pay that is a bit unlikely imho. So here is my debut....
Comments
Size was another question I had. I'm using Smugmug's watermark feature, so what size is a good catchall for the watermark image? Right now mine is 4000 x 4000.
Here's one against a nice light background. Should it be bigger?
www.morffed.com
Oh sorry, don't know much about doing it trough smugmug (as I only do it for my blog photos) ..... can anybody else help here?
But I do like the way it looks (have to say you did a great job with the eye-lens idea) & think the size is perfect
Hope this works....
http://sashreflectionsphotography.com
http://sashreflections.smugmug.com
400D w/Grip, 50D w/Grip, 17-55 F/2.8 IS, 50 1.8, 28-135, 75-300, 430ex flash & more.
Sorry about the two posts but it only lets me upload one pic at a time....
http://sashreflectionsphotography.com
http://sashreflections.smugmug.com
400D w/Grip, 50D w/Grip, 17-55 F/2.8 IS, 50 1.8, 28-135, 75-300, 430ex flash & more.
Is the text on the first version compressed? It looks a little swisher horizontally.
but then I was trying out this one.. no one seemed to like it.. but I kind of like the simplicity of it. thoughts?
or how about this one with the little tree??
Ok.. sorry these are not wedding photos... I just loved the topic I had to chime in.. im always strugging with the logo issue.. Any imput would be fantastic thank you!!!!!!!
missB
Newest baby: R.Gonzalez PHOTOGRAPHY or HERE
My rambling addiction: Crunchy Monkeys
facebook fan page: R.Gonzalez photography
:ivar
Girl, I got to say, I love your photos & overall style
• LOVE the first one
• not too shabby either
• 3rd. Hmmm, I think the others are better, though ... it's not "bad", just not *my* favorite
• LOVE the 4th. It took me a while until I saw the tree (haha, go figure, it's right there), But I really like the Tiffany blue background you placed it on, and it's easy to read. Just very, very pretty
Thanks for sharing!!
I think it's very pretty. I would personally stay away from colors, just because it might interfere with any colors on the photo & you might want to check out hoe this logo looks on a dark photo
Karen
I think there is a strong disconnect between the fonts used for your name and the word photography. Your name and the mark are moving in a mature upscale direction, while the font for photography is too childish. It's a mixed message.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
In context:
www.tednghiem.com
I like this new one but, if it were me, I might make the brackets thinner....
- Dr. Seuss
My Smugmug
I like the look Ted. It's simple and clean. I'd lose the WWW, though; that will make the link a little shorter, so you can boost the height without exceeding your available space, making it more readable.
I like the brackets, but straight brackets, like [ and ] might look better than the curved brackets, particularly with that nice, straight typeface you're using.
What's the blue dot for? If you lose it, you can increase the height of "photography" as well.
And one alternative version I'd recommend trying, just to see if it works (it may not, I'm just letting my imagination ramble) - try putting the web link above TN, inside the brackets, in the same manner as "photography". That may make it flow better, kinda like this:
[TN]
photography
A gal I know offered to make one for me for free, shes says she normally charges $800, which seems way beyond the norm, but actually getting anyone to pay that is a bit unlikely imho. So here is my debut....
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
When I was looking to hire someone to do my stuff, I've been getting quotes anywhere between 300 and 5000.
My Site
My Facebook
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
It doesn't have the white background in the typical version. I've printed it in just black and just white (aka without the color) as well. Here is a shot complete with the watermark as it appears on my SmugMug.
This is how my client photos are watermarked:
Below are two versions specifically for watermarking.
My Website Stephan Photos
Nikon D300 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 70-200mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4D | SB-800 Speedlight | Gitzo 1325 w/Markins M20
For Christmas, my fiance surprised me by hiring an artist whose work I really admire to paint one for me, then have it digitized. By then, I had an idea more formed in my mind - I told her I wanted a tree with spiraling roots and branches. The majority of her work incorporates a lot of spirals, and I felt her style on it would suit nicely. She was willing to play with it, but admitted that she's an artist, not a graphic designer, so it would be a process, and she wasn't sure she could make something that would translate well to digital art (lots of colors and gradations). Eliminating her "process" just wasn't how she works.
Long story short, after getting differing feedback between her and her son (who was going to do the digital work), and realizing how much it might potentially cost my fiance to experiment on a finished product that may not even work, I decided to let the artist off the hook.
I finally grabbed my watercolors and painted my own darn tree.
The painting
What I did with it
I'm really happy with it when it's displayed at a small size (like on my site and how it will look on the business card), but I'm not happy with how jagged the edges look against the background when viewed larger. It doesn't look like that as just the cut-out. Does anyone have any tips they'd be willing to offer on how to smooth the lines?
Facebook
The MoxieBlog
You could try to find someone who could make it into vector (i.e. Illustrator).
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
Thanks for the info!!
Facebook
The MoxieBlog
Based on the amount of detail in the original painting, my guess is that it probably fills an 8.5x11 sheet. Is that correct? If so, then a clean scan of the original paitning (not a digital photo) will give you more than enough resolution for your logo. HINT: Scan in black and white or "document" mode, not grayscale; you can then fill in any white specs in Photoshop and easily select the solid black tree shape for use in your logo.
Next, when you create the Photoshop file for the logo design, set your file size high, i.e. 12"x12" at 200dpi. This will create a huge image file, equivalent to a 5.7mp photo.
Re-create your logo in the new hi-res file. Keep everything on separate layers, which will make it easier to change later, if you have need, and it will make it easier to create alternate versions, like a grayscale version for watermarks, or an inverted version, or to change the color of an individual component. Import the scanned tree shape, create new layers for the text and the gradient box, and you're done.
Creating the new version from scratch won't be as hard as it was to create the original; you already know exactly what you want it to look like, what colors to use, and what text font you want.
Save the new file in Photoshop PSD format, and keep the PSD file at all times. You can make a JPG version at any time, and re-size the JPG version for use as a watermark, web graphic, business card or letterhead use, or t-shirt image, but ALWAYS keep the original PSD file, and keep it at full resolution. Remember - you can always res something down, but ressing up is nearly impossible.
It's a nice-looking logo. I like it. I did pretty much the same thing to create my own watermark (a few pages back in this thread); I wanted an iconic camera shape, but I couldn't find a public-domain one anywhere that I liked. So I sketched one in a vector-based drawing program, converted it to raster, and imported it into a PSD file. I'm as proud of the camera icon as I am of the whole logo. I once heard a guy on a TV show say, "I took a thought frommy head and made it real." I like the sentiment (even though it did come from a viscious murderer on CSI).
Thank you so much for your input. The original painting is a 24x16. I shot it with a 7D, but I did reduce the size to a 1000 x 770 (I did leave it a psd), which I've reduced in size further for this image using free transform of the individual object within the document. I thought that would be plenty large enough to not be pixelated when 600x600 total image, but that's why I'm not a graphic designer! I will certainly try it over again with the larger file, and appreciate the advice!
Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner. I took the photo in RAW, converted to a gray scale with a gradient map, then used the slider to make the entire tree black. I then selected the white area using the magic wand and deleted it, so I have the tree on a transparent background. I was wondering if I should have done something different to refine the selection, but it sounds like maybe I just shrank it too much. D'oh.
And yes, it should be easy greasy now - it was all the dinking around that took 2 solid days. I, too, love that it's something that's mine, all mine. Thank you for the compliment, and again for the advice!
Facebook
The MoxieBlog
edit: just realized that, this being my first post and all, my post might come of as a shill for vectormagic, but what it's worth: I swear I have no affiliation with the service.
Facebook
The MoxieBlog
I love this logo. $800 IS crazy
<--- avid fan of LOTR and Bored of the Rings.
My Site
My Facebook