I finally have admitted that I am not a graphic designer and hired someone to create a logo, web banner, and business card design for me. They have given me four draft logo designs as a start. I can make unlimited changes to all of them, but in the end I must select one to be the base design.
I specialize in horses, but do other things as well. I have decided to split the business into two and do all my horse work under one name (OMG Photo) and move the portraits and sports into another name. This design is only for the horse part of the business.
yes, that is the first thing I thought (oh, my, G-d). if already 2 people voiced this, your clients WILL think this as well.
unless that is what you mean, i would seriously think about changing that.
1) looks too much like a beer label. I really like 2) and 4) is nice so that it "brands" you into general photography and doesn't tie you specifically to horses.
Brent Ward wrote:
How does OMG relate to horse photography?
Also, #4 is the worst of the bunch.
I don't want this thread to become a discussion of the company name, but it is worth discussing. OMG has nothing to do with horses, but I tend to buck the trend of most photographers when it comes to company naming.
Most insist that the company is best named for the owner. I am one of those people that has a tough time with names so I don't care for that option. I could also name it something horse related, but after a rather signficant search I found that most were already taken. My philosophy is that a name should be memorable if nothign else, even if it is not identifiable with horses. I have found that OMG Photo is remembered by a lot of people...even those that are not paying attention. At this point the name is well enough known in my area that I don't want to change it.
Therefore, I am looking for a logo that ties the name and horses together. For that reason, I agree that #4 is not what I am looking for, even though it is a nice clean design.
While I like #3 the best I have mixed feelings about using an illustration on a card for a photographer (I have a really cool illustration based idea I am thinking of doing for my logo), I am totally against using a photo on a business card however. And putting an aperture on the O makes it look either cheesy or a logo for a camera store. Whatever OMG stands for I thought of "oh my god!."
...hmm, I am all for doing something different, but I can think of some people you might offend by using G-d in your name (even though in an abbreviation)
I know you didn't want to turn this into a discussion about your name, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
BTW, I am fine with it...just a thought for you to consider. Even though I have no problem with it, I can't help but think, what does OMG have to do with photography, or horses, etc...if I were a potential client, it would be on my mind (but not a reason not to hire you per se).
I'm not going to touch on the name "OMG Photo" other than to say maybe you should change your horse branch to "OMG Equestrian Photography" or whatever the typical name for this type of work is....
As for the logos, none of them are particularly strong, but if I had to choose one I would probably go for number 3. It might be interesting to see the semicircle behind the horse turn into an aperture, which might tie the photography thing in more. It's definitely the "safest" of them all.
I kind of chose #3 because I decided I did not like the other ones:
#1 - it's OK, but the emblem is a little too large, and I don't see how this would print well in black and white (which is crucial to any design. maybe your designer included a black and white version?)
#2 - It's also OK, but there are too many graphical elements (the horse as the symbol and the aperture in the "O" is overdoing it)
#4 - Also might be tough to print in black and white, and obviously there is nothing to suggest you do horse photos. Also, there are probably too many colors. You'll want a logo that will be consistent in a variety of colors, printers, monitors, stationery, etc ... and having the elaborate diffusive lighting effect on the outside of the lens probably will not reproduce well under these circumstances.
gheller wrote:
...hmm, I am all for doing something different, but I can think of some people you might offend by using G-d in your name (even though in an abbreviation)
I know you didn't want to turn this into a discussion about your name, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
BTW, I am fine with it...just a thought for you to consider. Even though I have no problem with it, I can't help but think, what does OMG have to do with photography, or horses, etc...if I were a potential client, it would be on my mind (but not a reason not to hire you per se).
I recognize that is a possibility and there are a few that have mentioned it to me, but the vast majority of comments I get are remarkably positive and it is memorable. Much of my customer base are the parents of kids who ride. Those kids know and remember OMG because they text it about 1000 times a day. In the next few years, those kids will be older, buying, and having kids of their own.
gheller wrote:
I never really understood this.
I have 5 different business cards (for my different studios that cater to different sectors of my business).
4 of 5 of them have photos and people LOVE them.
I just can't think of why NOT to have a photo...
perhaps someone can enlighten me.
At the risk of offending some people I think most (not all) business cards with a photo on them look 'low end'. Most are designed by photographers, who don't have a design background, most are printed by a "$99 for 5000 cards" overnight printer and are glossy on both sides on a flimsy paper stock which (again) IMO have a cheap feel to them.
A well designed and nicely printed card on good/or interesting paper makes a good impression. OTOH I deal with businesses (ad agencies and designers, manufacturers and corporations) , so maybe if your clients are "the public" it's different. You say that the people LOVE them so that's cool. I am just of the opposite opinion.
But since you run 5 studios it must be working for you
For what its worth and probably not a lot, I like both number 2 and the name, I am also firmly in the camp of not using your name for the company. I am sure that if you had called it Lake Shoots Horses we wouldnt even be discusing it or then maybe we would.
All the best
Steve
(no photos on my cards either)
steve mac wrote:
For what its worth and probably not a lot, I like both number 2 and the name, I am also firmly in the camp of not using your name for the company. I am sure that if you had called it Lake Shoots Horses we wouldnt even be discusing it or then maybe we would.
All the best
Steve
(no photos on my cards either)
My favorite movie...."They Shoot Horses Don't They?"...1969, Jane Fonda.
I prefer seeing the horse, #2 is my pick. The name is fine with me, at least it's not something offensive (like gfy-good for you); it's your business, do what you think is right.
@ "valley girl"... nice one Ben Horne 
